ADVERTISEMENT.  
A Confession of Faith, put forth by the Elders and Brethren of many Congregations of Christians, (Baptised upon Profession of their Faith) in London and the Country. With an Appendix concerning Baptism. Printed for John Harris, at the Harrow against the Church in the Poultry, 1690. Price Bound 1 s.   

Page 10, line 12, read of a Title for Baptism to them.   

A Solemn Call Unto all that would be owned as Christ's Faithful Witnesses, speedily, and seriously, to attend unto the Primitive Purity of the Gospel Doctrine and Worship: Or, a Discourse concerning BAPTISM: WHEREIN That of Infants is Disproved, as having no Footing, nor Foundation at all in the Word of GOD. By way of Answer to the Arguments made use of by Mr. William Allen, Mr. Sidenham, Mr. Baxter, Dr. Burthogge, and others, for the Support of that Practice.  
Wherein the Covenant made with Israel at Mount Sinai, Exod. 20. That in the Land of Moab, Deut. 29. As also the Covenant of Circumcision made with Abraham Gen. 17. 7, 8, 9 Whereon so much stress is laid for the Support of Infant's Baptism, are plainly proved to be no other than three several Editions of the Covenant of Works; And consequently, that no just Argument can thence be deduced for the Justification of that Practice.  
Together with a Description of that truly Evangelical Covenant▪ GOD was pleased to make with Believing Abraham; containing the Sum of the Everlasting Gospel then Preached unto him; since Proclaimed by the Apostles; and which now remains to be yet further Published unto every Nation, Kindred, Tongue, and People, for the Obedience of Faith.  
By Philip Cary, a Lover of Truth and Peace.  
LONDON: Printed for John Harris, at the Sign of the Harrow in the Poultry over against the Church. M.DCXC.   

TO THE READER.  
WE are doubtless brought forth in a Day to which many Glorious Prophecies contained in the Holy Scriptures have a special reference; amongst others, that which is recorded Dan. 12. 4. Many shall run to and fro, and Knowledge shall be increased. Antichristian Darkness hath so covered the European Nations for many Hundreds of Years, that the Truths and Ordinances of Christ were generally Corrupted and Obscured; till our Blessed Reformers, Luther, Calvin, etc. were raised up in some good measure, to detect the corruptions of Antichrist, and to bring to Light that blessed Doctrine of Justification by Faith, in the Blood of Christ, with several other Truths of great Importance.  
And since that, God has been pleased to raise up many Learned Men, namely Dr. Ames, Mr. Ainsworth, and Dr. Owen, with others, who have Learnedly, and with much clearness and strength of Argument made it appear, that a true Gospel visible Church, is to consist only of such as are Saints by Profession, and who give up themselves to the Lord, and one to another by Solemn Agreement, to practise the Ordinances of Christ.  
And now of latter Years the Lord hath been pleased to raise up some worthy and learned Men to detect the vanity of Infant Baptism, who by solid Arguments have made the unlawfulness thereof appear.  
The main Arguments that are made use of by Paedobaptists for the support of their Practice herein, are taken from the Covenant with Abraham, Gen. 17. 2, 3, 4, etc. Some of themselves confessing, That Arguments taken from the Baptising of whole Families, from Christ's blessing little Children, and from 1 Cor. 7, 14. have no weight in them. And as for those Arguments which are taken from the Covenant made with Abraham , several of our Learned Authors have thoroughly examined, and sufficiently answered. Notwithstanding we cannot without Injury to Truth omit to reccommend the Labours of this our worthy Brother, who having had the advantage of other Men's Writings, that have gone before him, and so standing on their Shoulders, may see further than they did. Yet he hath some Nations of so rare a Nature, that he is not beholding to any other for them▪ but only to his own studiousness and dexterity, and the Blessing of God upon his Labours.  
We freely acknowledge, that many Learned and Holy Men, whom we much Honour, do differ from us in the point of Baptism, yet we must not let go any Truth of God for their sakes: And we doubt not, but the time is drawing nigh, when God will cause the Light of His Holy Word so to shine forth, that all remaining Darkness on the Minds of the Lord's People shall vanish away; and than Sion's Builders shall no more take a Stone for a Corner, nor a Stone for a Foundation of Babylon's Rubbish.  
And now (Ch●i●tian Reader) seeing the Author hath taken so great pains in Writing this Treatise for the Information of thee and ohters, in a great Gospel Ordinance; be thou persuaded to lay by prejudice, and read diligently, examine it by the Holy Scriptures; and if thou meet with any thing of Truth, wherein thou wast not before Enlightened, subject to it, lest thou be found rejecting the authority of Christ. Quod Dei e●t, agnosce, & quod hominis est, ignosce. If any Glory may come to Christ, or comfort to his Members hereby, it is enough, and as much as is aimed at by the Author, and thy Soul Friends,  


Will. Kiffin,  
John Harris,  
Rich. adam's,  
Rob. Steed,  
Ben. Keech.     

TO THE READER.  
READER,  
HAving had a sight of this Piece (without the Privity of the Author) before it went to the Press, I Read it with much Delight (though in great haste) and thought good without his Knowledge, or being Desired, to give thee (if thou be'st a Stranger to him) this assurance by the way, that thou wilt find his Lines altogether free from Lightness, as also from Reflections or Reproaches towards those of the Persuasion he contends with; which is a thing so rare, that it deserves a Remark, and savours much of a right serious Christian Spirit. I have had Knowledge of him many Years, but never knew (or heard) him otherwise represented, then of a very sober Character, suitable to his Writings; a Man every way free from any of those Temptations that might incline him to espouse any Interest, or fall in with any Persuasion, otherwise than what he did freely out of pure Choice, and as satisfis▪ d with its Purity, upon a diligent and conscionable Perusal of the Holy Scriptures, in which he has been a very laborious Searcher these many Years, and in whom that Text is verified, 2 Tim. 3. 15, 16. That they make the Man of God wise unto Salvation, etc. I am assured that his Papers were intended only for private Use, and for satisfaction of some that desired to know what he had to say to the Arguments here replied to. He has all the appearances of a Man low in his own Eyes, yet willing in his capacity to serve the Lord Jesus freely, without seeking in the least any advantage to himself in the service of the Gospel; boing much above those low Ends that too too many are swayed by, of making a Gain by his Preaching; and though his Labours be constant, yet he seeks no other reward, than Christ's Well done, etc. being very well contented with that Income for his Subsistence, which the Lord affords in the use of his honest and honourable Calling; in which also he has been beneficial to many, and a great Blessing to the Poor; so that by his Faithfulnoss and Usefulness in his Spirituals and Temporals he is well reported of amongst all. It would be a great Happiness both to the Church of Christ and Commonwealth, if the number of such Worthys were every where increased: And yet I fear that this good Man in these his Faithful endeavours to reduce Christian Practice to Primitive Institution (though done with all Mildness and much Demonstration) will meet with hard Usage from that sort of Men, which in every Age have chief sought what would please Man, and have still quarrelled at all endeavours towards Reformation: Witness those hardships which the Faithful met with from the Papists for many Generations, for their Nonconformity to their Inventions, and those difficulties that obstructed the Reception of the great Doctrine of Justification by Faith alone in the Mediator. How dear did it cost many of the Ancients before it could be obtained that the People should receive the Lord's Supper in both Kind's, which the Papists still deny to them? How long was it before the Disciples of Augustine and Innocent the First, would give over that Practice of giving the Lord's Supper in a Spoon to Children assoon as they were Baptised; which held (as Maldonate affirms) about 600 Years? And to this Day, How many are contending for the Cross in Baptism? For which thing (though very Un-scriptural, yet) some of the deep Wits of that Way do form a Plea, but by mistaken and very invalid Consequences. And many of the Wise and Learned of the Church of England are of Opinion, That unless it be granted that the Church has a Liberty from Christ to alter or add Ceremonies at her discretion, they know no Authority for the Baptising of Infants, or the Sprinkling of Water upon their Faces to be accounted Baptism; for few deny but that the ancient way was by going into the Water, and Plunging under Water. Nay, our Disciplinarians that have made strong Pleas for Reformation in many things, must, and do confess, that their strongest Plea for Infant Baptism is drawn from a very remote Consequence, even as far off from the Command of Christ, or the Practice of the Apostles; as that they ground it on the First Jewish Ordinance, Commanded unto Abraham and his Posterity, viz. Circumcision, which was never intended to be of any value after the time of Christ's Reformation. Heb. 9 10. And is it not to be lamented that after so many Years search, no better Footing should be found for the Practising a New Testament Sacrament, than an Old Testament Jewish Institution? May not such men as will infer, that Holy Orders should be Hereditary, and that the Work of the Ministry should be Entailed upon their Posterity, because it was anciently settled upon the Children of Levi, besides whom none might Minister in the Sanctuary? And why may not Infants by a clearer Consequence partake of the Table of the Lord, assoon as they are able to Eat and Drink it; it being taken for granted by Paedobaptists that the Supper comes ●n the room of the Passover, and that all in the Family that were capable to Eat Flesh might Eat it. Exod. 12. 4. Nay, any Strangers in their Families were not excluded that we Read of, that might be present at the Passover. And thus we might Instance in many things.  
It is not the business of this Author to prove the Baptism of Believers, for that is a thing that was never yet denied or opposed, by any that Plead for Infants right to it: For they confess, That to Baptise Believers is a clear and unquestionable Truth, agreeing most plainly with the precept of the Lord Jesus, and Practice of the Apostles. But the Controversy is, whether Infants (of Believers, or others) have a Scriptural right to it, or not? And here thou shalt find every Point from whence any Plea is deduced, to prove the right of Infants to that Ordinance answered, with such Evidence of Scripture Demonstration, and with so much Faithfulness, that (unless thou hast no Conscience towards these things) it must beget in thee at least some new Considerations about the Point, if not a better Opinion of that despised People, that make Conscience not to admit any to Baptism, but Professed Believers.  
The Circumcision of Children was not left doubtful to the Jews, but they had full Direction in the Case, both for the Subject and the Part to be Circumcised, the time and manner also. Was there such care in that time, and in such a Point, about a thing that was to end with the Jewish Church, Law and Priesthood; and yet no care taken by the Lord Jesus to give future Ages Light in Infant Baptism, in case it were His Mind it should be Practised? I could never yet meet with the Man that could pretend to know at what time Children should or ought to be Baptised, supposing they had a right to it. In Ancient time it was Administered but twice in the Year; and since that appointed to be upon some Festival. But I find now, all do act at Pleasure, none among us regarding the Day of Circumcision, viz. the eighth Day; though some in Cyprian's time would limit it to that Day, when the practice began first to be Introduced by some few Persons, out of a conceit of its Absolute Necessity to Salvation, from a mistake of John 3. 5. But some now hasten it sooner; some defer it to a Fortnight, some three Weeks, a Month, and more. And several of the Eastern Churches to this very day, Baptise not, until the 40th. day after they are born; and then give them the Supper also, as some approved Author's report. So that all, for the most part, order the time, as may best suit with their other Aim, of managing it with State, Pomp and Honour, and the presence of such Friends as may be absent, to make it the more gainful and splendid. Now if no time can be set exactly, why should they be censured, who out of Conscience, defer to communicate so Holy an Ordinance to their Children, till they are taught in the Faith of Christ, and profess to believe it with their Heart? Must it not seem strange, I say, to any Man that reads, with what care the Lord gave charge, concerning the Circumcising of Children as well as Men; giving them the very Circumstance of time as aforesaid, on which it should be performed, and which Moses enjoined to Israel, which was part of his Faithfulness in his House, that yet we should think it is the Mind of the Lord Jesus, (who was most faithful in his own House) that little Children should be Baptised, and not so much as once express it by Himself, or Apostles? We find Women and Children particularly mentioned by the Apostle, upon very small Occasions, as in Acts 21. 5. where the taking notice of Children is of very little moment; and yet, where we have an Account who should be Baptised, (as in Christ's Commission) and of those Multitudes, that in many places were Baptised; Is it not strange that no Child should be mentioned, if such had been, or were to have been Baptised? The Apostle took care in Acts 8. 12. to Record, that the Multitude then Baptised, were both [Men and Women.] If Cbildrens had been then Baptised, surely the Holy Spirit, would not have omitted that one Word [Children.] And so Acts 5. 14. We have mention of Multitudes added to the Church, and expressed particularly, [both Women 〈…〉] Now if their Children had been taken in with them, would not the Holy Spirit have mentioned it, whilst he foresaw of what need it would be in future Ages, to warrant his People to do the like? The Holy Scriptures therefore being wholly silent, in the point of little children's Admittance, and nothing found for it in either Precept or Precedent, what may more clearly be inferred. But to conclude, that the Baptism of little Children, is more of Man than of God, or wholly of Man, and not of God.  
I could never yet learn what material Benefit an Infant received by Baptism. It cannot be a bringing them into Covenant with God, because it is upon Supposition, that they are in Covenant, by virtue of their believing Parents, one or both, that a Plea is made for their Baptism. The most that can be said or pretended to, is, that it. brings them into Christ's visible Flock. But alas, what Privilege is this, whilst the Child is there, but as one asleep? Nay, when this Child comes to Understanding, it must not partake of any other Benefits in that Church, more than one Unbaptised may do, until it comes to Confession of Faith and Repentance, and receive Confirmation; and this Child after Baptism, as it grows up, is Preached to (as much as any other) as in a state of Nature, and consequently the Child of Wrath, and never like to come into the presence of God with comfort, without Regeneration, or actual Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ; by all which it appears, That the Privileges pretended to, are but Nominal, and without any substance of Reality. What then is this noise of Privileges made with Rhetorical Flourishes, but a mere Shadow and Pretence, to keep up an Opinion, for an Unscriptural Practice in the Favour of the People, who are ready to be led to any thing by their Guides? As for Infants being the Subjects of Christian Baptism, it deserves to be well considered, who gave command for it, either God or Man? And for the manner of Baptising by sprinkling Water on the Face only, by whose Direction was it? And where is the Scripture from whence any Probability may be found, that that part should be sprinkled more than any other? Why not the Breast, as a sign of the Hearts being sprinkled from an evil Conscience? Or the Arms that should manage the Shield? Or the Feet, in token of being shod with the Preparation of the Gospel of Peace? Or rather that part, that of old was appointed to be circumcised, in token of Regeneration? I know 'tis frequently urged by the Poedobaptists, to those of the contrary Persuasion: Where do you find that Children are at any time, or in any place forbidden Christian Baptism? Which is a strange kind of Plea. The very Jews were never in their greatest Apostasy, so corrupt in their reasoning, that ever I heard of: It was enough that they practised what they were commanded. Is the Text of no force, or quite forgotten, which tells us, That secret things belong to God, but revealed things to us? Would he have Infants Baptised before Faith, and not Reveal it?  
I could wish therefore, that all empty Pleas on either side, were put away, and careful Attendance given to things weighty and material. The changes that have been seen in the Opinions of men, as times have varied in these late years, may justly put every considerate man, upon the conscionable search, after what is the very Mind of Christ in the Holy Scriptures, and not to take any thing upon another's credit, whilst that Word is made intelligible, and unto which we may have all free Recourse.  
I know there are some profane ones, that will take a Liberty to question the Truth of the Holy Scriptures, but yet that should not affright good men, from searching after the very mind of the Spirit in them; if our Fathers had not done so, we had abode in the depth of Antichristian Darkness. I wonder that those that plead for the Right of the Seed of Believers, to Christian Baptism, from Circumcision, do not as earnestly plead for a right for the Unbelieving Wife, from the right of the Husband, and for the Servants also, whatever they be, since such were not only admitted, but commanded to be Circumcised? Why are not our American Planters, that buy multitudes of Negroes, required to baptise them as fast as they buy them, and their Children born in their Plantations? Methinks it should clearly follow, from the same way of arguing.  
But to conclude, What is Abraham to us? We must make our claim to Holy Things by a right to Christ, as being begotten by him, who is the great and only Head of the New Covenant, and prove Infants Right to him, or Descent from him, or else all will be found as Dung and Dross. I shall not detain thee longer (being not to dispute, but to glance at things) from beholding at large in this Treatise, this great Point particularly handled; and if thou art but as serious and Impartial, in reading it, as the Author, (whose Pardon I crave, for adding this without his Knowledge) I verily believe was in writing it, thou wilt not think thy money nor labour lost. Now the God of Truth and Peace, that hath made his very mind communicable to us, through his dear Son, give us all Light therein, and willing minds to obey him. So Prays  
Thy Faithful Friend, M. E.   

THE PREFACE TO THE Christian Reader.  
I Do now Present Thee with a New Treatise of Baptism, wherein that of Believers, is Asserted to be the only true Christian Baptism, by way of Opposition to that of Infants: Which I hope thou wilt find in the Ensuing Discourse to be Demonstrated, and with Scripture Evidence to be cleared up, notwithstanding the many plausible Arguments or Objections which are usually urged for the support of the contrary Practice. In the Compiling of which, after having Humbly and Earnestly Implored the Divine Assistance. I do confess that I have been much beholding to the pious Industry, and laborious Travels of others that have trodden the same Path, and have gone before me treating upon the same Subject, from whom I have been supplied with many of the Materials in point of Argument, which this present Discourse is furnished with.  
I know it will be objected, that the present Work is needless, unless any thing further be produced than hath been by others already Urged, and argued in this present Controversy. By way of Answer unto which, I have two things to offer.  
First; That though very much hath been already said by others, that have Laboured in the same Province, and that with that clearness of Evidence, and Scripture Demonstration, by way of Opposition unto Infant Sprinkling, as cannot be refuted, unless another Canon or Scripture Oracle can be produced for the Justification thereof, than we have yet met with; yet those several Works of their having their several Excellencies, and some of them being Voluminous, I judged it no needless or unprofitable Labour, to Collect the Sum or Substance of what hath been already said in this Respect, and to present it to thy View in one Entire Piece; and that with as much Succinctness and Brevity as the Matter would well require.  
The Second is this; That peradventure thou may'st find, upon a due Perusal of the ensuing Discourse, an Improvement of several Considerable Scriptures and Arguments to this purpose, in the present Essay, that hath not yet been made public, that I know of, by any other hand; and in particular, among divers others, as to what concerns the true Nature and Difference betwixt the two Covenants, that of Works, and that of Grace: Wherein I think I have plainly proved, that the Covenant which God made with Israel at Mount Sinai. Exod. 20. That made with the same People in the Land of Moab. Deut. 29. As also the Covenant of Circumcision made with Abraham. Gen. 17. 7. 8. 9 Whereon so much stress is laid for the support of Infant's Baptism, were all of them no other than three several Repetitions of the Covenant of Works; and that as contra-distinct, or essentially different from the Covenant of Grace, and consequently now Repealed. Which I have the rather taken the pains distinctly to prove, because upon this Hypothesis, or Supposition, that these were Gospel Covenants, differing from the New Covenant only in the manner of Administration, the greatest part of the most plausible Arguments for the support of Infant's Baptism, are founded. But if I have substantially proved that neither of these forementioned Covenants were Gospel Covenants, reaching Gentile Believers and their Seed, but Essentially different therefrom, and consequently now repealed; no wonder if I have made an answerable Improvement thereof, by way of Opposition to the forementioned Practice.  
The Design therefore, and Scope of the following Treatise, (Beside what concerns the Nature and Difference betwixt the two Covenants, the true Knowledge and Understanding whereof, is indeed of highest Importance to us) is, with all Humility, to endeavour the Rectification of that which I cannot but apprehend to have been amiss, and the promoting of that which I cannot but Judge to have been greatly defective among many that are right dear and precious in the sight of GOD; And that is (among other things) in respect of the Purity of that Divine Worship, which as the Servants of Christ we are obliged to offer up to Him, in a due Susception and Administration of that Sacred and Solemn Ordinance of Baptism, we are now contending about. My Reasons why I so think, I have now given you in this present Discourse. And certainly the Purity of Divine Appointments, is worthy pleading for; it hath been the subject matter of many Prayers, and should be of our joint Endeavours.  
We Read in the Prophecy of Zechary, of a Candlestick all of Gold. Zec. 4. 2. 3. And he said unto me, What seest thou? And I said, I have looked, and behold a Candlestick all of Gold, with a Bowl upon the top of it, and the Seven Lamps thereon, and Seven Pipes to the Seven Lamps, which were upon the top thereof; and two Olive Trees by it, one upon the right side of the Bowl, and the other upon the left side thereof. And Verse 12. I answered again and said unto him; What be these two Olive Branches, which through the two Golden Pipes, empty the Golden Oil out of themselves? By the concurring consent of all Interpreters, I suppose by this Candlestick all of Godl here spoken of, we are to understand that pure Church State which God hath promised to erect unto Himself in Gospel Times. And certainly that must be a blessed Day, and a glorious Privilege, when we shall come to have a Candlestick all of Gold. A Candlestick that hath a Golden Bowl, Golden Lamps, and Golden Pipes, for the reception and conveyance of the Golden Oil. Will it not be a singular Favour to be the Children of that Church: All whose Members are Golden Members; whose Ministers and Ordinances also are All of Gold, for the conveyance of the Golden Oil of the Heavenly Blessing to the Comfort, Enlightening and Satisfaction of the whole? But alas! So it is, that for the most part of those that call themselves, or that pretend to be the true Churches of Christ at this day in the World, they are far from being a Candlestick all of Gold, whether in respect of their Constitution and Ministry, or in respect of that Purity of Ordinances which God requires. For whilst men do content themselves rather, as it were with Leaden Pipes, that is, with Ordinances of an Humane Invention, the Golden Pipes, or Ordinances of God's Appointment, are thereby neglected and made void. And then no wonder if such a Church have also many Leaden Members, or such as are unsuitable unto the Gospel Characters All of Gold, being rather ignorant, profane and scandalous; who coming in, or being admitted at the wrong Door, are there suffered also to continue, to the hardening, and Soul▪ ruin of themselves: which is the case of Millions, who without Christ's Appointment, having been Sprinkled, or as they call it, Christened in their Infancy, as having by virtue of their Natural Birth, an Interest in the Covenant of Grace, are Induced thereby to reckon themselves good Christians, and in a State of Salvation, without looking after the New Birth, or being acquainted with the Mystery of the Spirit of Regeneration.  
It is no way to be doubted, but that where there is a pure Church, there are pure Ordinances. The Pipes are all of Gold, as well as the Church or Candlestick itself; that is, it hath only such Ordinances, as have the stamp of Heaven upon them; even the things which Christ hath commanded, and those observed as he hath commanded, and not otherwise. And it is equally as clear, that where those Golden Pipes are wanting, or where the purity of Gospel Ordinances is neglected, and Pipes of a base Alloy, are substituted in the Room of those of Christ's Appointment; and those also mis-applied about wrong Subjects, there can be no true Church; much less can it pretend to that Purity that Christ expects. There can be no true Church, but what hath a Golden Constitution, Golden Lamps, and Golden Pipes for the Conveyance of the Golden Oil. And if you say that you have not been without sufficient Experience of the Gracious Presence and Blessing of Christ, with and upon you in your present way; I will not deny, but take it for granted that so it is: Yet this I will say, that we are under no Promise of having thc Golden Oil conveyed unto us, but through the Golden Pipes. Teach them (says Christ) to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the World. If therefore we step out of Christ's way, we cannot rationally suppose ourselves, to be, at least, so immediately, under the Influence of Christ's Blessing. What Christ may graciously afford unto his People that sincerely seek unto him, according to the best light they have, though the Sanctuary Preparation may in some Points be Defective, is one thing; and what we may justly expect by virtue of a standing Promise, is another. Certainly, the nearer we come to him, and the more Exact and Punctual we are in the Expressions of our Love and Friendship to him, the more groundedly may we Expect the Answerable Discoveries of his Loving Favour unto us; and we can not otherwise demonstrate our Friendship, than by being obedient to him, in the Observation of all those things which he hath commanded us; and that both whatsoever they are, and howsoever he hath enjoined the Performance of them. That the Baptism of Believers is appointed by Christ as a Golden Pipe, among the rest of the Golden Pipes of the New Testament Church, for the Conveyance of the Golden Oil, or the Heavenly Unction, from himself to his Members, is an undeniable Truth, and cannot with any Justness of Pretence be contradicted. That the Baptism of Infants deserves that Character, is more than what the Scriptures do declare unto us; and peradventure at long run, you also may see Cause to say the same.  
Indeed, if a thorough Reformation in this Point might once be obtained; that is, if Ministers Teach First, and then Baptise such only as Profess Faith in the Lord Jesus, and newness of Life, evidenced by a Holy Conversation (that being the only Practice warrantable by, and Exemplified in the Word of God.) We might then justly hope to see the Accomplishment of the forementioned Divine Prediction: A Candlestick all of Gold: A Candlestick that hath a Golden Bowl, Golden Lamps, and Golden Pipes; that is, a Pure Church-State, wholly Constituted and Regulated according to the Divine Prescription and Pattern. And then also it would inevitably follow, that the Papal Antichristian Church must of Necessity Vanish and Expire: Since the Matter of that Synagogue, is the Collective Body of the Nations, who having been sprinkled in their Infant State, are thence beguiled into a Blind and Soul-cheating Delusion, that they are good Christians, and true Members of the Catholic Church; whom yet, because of their Unbelief and Profaneness; the Word of God Excludes from the Gospel Church, and consequently from Baptism till Converted. And I make no question but it will be at last found, that to uphold the present Practice of Infant Sprinkling, is no other than to uphold and support the main Pillar of that Apostate and Adulterous Church; that is, by bringing the Church into the World, and the World into the Church. And when the World is once brought into the Church; let us show any difference if we can, betwixt that and the World; which yet our Saviour tells us are distinct, having chosen his Church out of the World. John 15. 19 'Tis true, the time will be when the Kingdoms of this World shall become the Kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ: But that cannot be pretended unto, in the present Administration of things, in the Heavens, and Earth that now are; wherein, we cannot say that one of a Thousand, much less, that the whole World, is subject unto Christ's Sceptre; and consequently, far from the true Characters of Church-Membership, according to the Gospel Rule, All of Gold. Indeed 'tis great pity, but that every Plant which our Heavenly Father hath not planted should be Rooted up, and the present Corrupt Practice of Infant sprinkling among the rest; since there is nothing that can be more evident than this, that were but this corner Stone, that supports the Antichristian Fabric, quite removed, the whole Building must of necessity totter; and then we might justly hope for a pure Church-State: Till which, as we cannot groundedly expect true Peace or Settlement in the World; so neither can we justly expect that the Name of the City should be called Jehovah Shammah, the Lord is there.  
The Occasion of the present Discourse, was from a late Treatise of Mr. William Allen; Entitled, A Serious and Friendly Address to the Nonconformists. Beginning with the Anabaptists: Or an Addition to a former Treatise of his; Entitled, a Persuasive to Peace and Unity. Wherein he doth Labour with utmost Strength, and force of Argument, to induce those of a contrary Persuasion from himself to a Conformity, and Compliance with the Church Discipline, and Government then Established in these Nations; and particularly, in Respect of the present Practice of Infant's Baptism. An Answer to which you will find in the Ensuing Sheets; together, with Answers to all other the most considerable Arguments, which are urged by others also to the same purpose As for Mr. Allen, he is a Person, altogether unknown to me: But though his Apprehensions and mine, are different in the present point: And though he hath endeavoured to whet up his Arguments with utmost keeness, and lays them on with greatest force; condemning us as guilty of the greatest Schism, and of all those Direful Evils that are the Natural Consequents of a Schismatical Separation from a true Church; yet to give him his due, his Language is fair, and his Discourse free from those Fiery and Passionate Heats, that usually attend Discourses of this Nature from other Pens. I suppose he will have no Cause to complain of being otherwise dealt with in the present Answer. Sure it is, That the Wrath of Man worketh not the Righteousness of God. I pray God that the present Reply may be made Instrumental to the opening his Eyes, that he may see from whence he is fallen, and Repent, and do his first Works. Since the Writing of this, I am informed of Mr. Allen's Decease. I make no question but that he and others also, will sooner or latter be convinced, that the horrible guilt of Schism, and the consequent Evils attendant thereon, were so far from being justly Chargeable on us, because of our present Practice; that these things do rather lie at the Doors of those that thus condemn us. I have endeavoured indeed to speak with as much Advantage as I could, to the Conviction of him, and others, that I cannot but apprehend, to walk in a corrupt Path in this Respect: And having so done, I know no Reason any have to be offended, if they be in Love exhorted also to their Duty. Exhort one another daily (saith the Holy Spirit) lest any of you be hardened through the Deceitfulness of Sin. And in like manner, we are bid to provoke one another to Love, and to good Works. Whereof, this is none of the least, and Wherein, peradventure, upon a due and further Consideration, you may find yourselves to have been as yet Deficient.  
I Would by no means be understood in all this Discourse, as if I intended to lay more than the proper stress, upon the Ordinance we are Contending about. For most true it is, that though the Golden Oil of the Heavenly Blessing, according to the standing Promises of the Gospel, is only, or for the most part, to be Conveyed to us, through the Golden Pipes of Gospel Ordinances, which should Engage us to the faithful Owning and Practice of them, and not to Indulge ourselves in any Negligence, Deviation, or Regardlessness about them; yet nevertheless, as great would the Error be on the other hand, and it may be greater, to take up our Rest here: For let the Pipes be never so pure and clean; Or let the Ordinances we plead for, be never so punctually Observed, according to the Divine Institution, and the Pattern received in the Holy Mount; yet 'tis the Fountain must supply the Pipe, else it will yield nothing. The best Ordinances are dry and barren things in themselves, unless by them, the Golden Oil from 〈◊〉 himself be derived unto us. It is an undoubted Truth, that these he is pleased to make use of; and therefore we are bound Conscionably to attend upon the Ministration of them: But if our Faith ascend no higher, than to fix upon the means; no wonder▪ if the best means, or the clearest Popes do not yield forth unto us, that Spiritual Relief we are seeking after.  
▪ To Conclude; I hope therefore, it will be our Joint Prayer and Endeavour, to be more than Outward Court-Worshippers: Even that we may be such, as are got into that; that is, within the Veil, having the Father's Name Written in our Foreheads, Redeemed from the Earth, and being without Fault before the Throne of God. The Purity of Divine Institutions, we must not forget, or be Regardless concerning; Otherwise, we cannot please our Great Lord and Master: But let us be sure to press through all External Mediums, whatsoever, that we may not fail of being admitted into the Innermost Recesses of the Divine Glory, even in that Secret of God's Presence, which is the proper Receptacle, and Habitation of the Blessed. Thus prayeth,  
Thy most Unworthy, but Affectionate Servant, for Christ's Sake, Philip Cary.   

THE CONTENTS OF THE FIRST PART.  

MR. Allen's First Argument against Antipaedobaptists; from the silence of the Scripture concerning the Baptism of Persons at Age, whose Parents were Christians. Answered. Page 1  
His Second Argument from Mat. 19 14. Suffer little Children, and forbidden them not, to come unto Me, etc. Answered. p. 2 3 4 5  
His Third Argument from Rom. 11. 16, 17. If the Root be Holy so are the Branches, etc. Answered. p. 6  
His Fourth Argument from 1 Cor. 7. 14. Else were your Children unclean, but now are they Holy. Answered. p. 8 9  
His Fifth Argument from Acts 2. 38, 39 The Promise is to you and your Children, etc. Answered. p. 9 10  
His Sixth Argument from Col. 2. 11. Buried with him in Baptism, etc. Answered. p. 10 11 12 13  
His Seventh Argument from the Church Member-ship of Infants under the former Administration. Answered. From p. 11 to 13 14 15 16  
The latter part of Mr. Allen's Discourse; wherein he Labours to prove the Lawfulness of Imposing other Ceremonies in the management of God's Worship, beside what God Himself hath Appointed. Answered from p. 17 to p. 3   

The Second Part.  
Containing a distinct and more particular Consideration of the Arguments drawn from Rom. 11. 16. 17. Together with all other the most material Arguments, whech are usually urged for the support of Infant's Baptism.  
As for the Arguments drawn from Rom. 11. 16, 17. From thence it is urged; 

First, That the Gentiles have the same Graffing into the true Olive which the Jews formerly had; Our Graffing in being Answerable to their present Casting out: Now when they were taken in, they and their Children were taken in; when they were broken off, they and their Children were broken off: And therefore if our Graffing in be answerable to theirs, we and our Children are Graffed in together. Answered. p. 23 24  
Secondly; Since our Graffing into the Olive Tree, the Church, is answerable to that of the Jews; Their Infants being Graffed in by Circumcision, so must ours by Baptism. Answered. p. 24 25  
Thirdly; If the Fruit be Holy, the Lump is also Holy. And if the Root be Holy, so are the Branches. Answered. p. 26  
Fourthly. The Church of the Jews, and that of the Gentiles is still the same; that is, it is still the same Visible Church now that it was then. And so much the Apostles Simile or Metaphor of Engraffing will bear, or it signifies nothing: And if the visible Church be the same, why should not the Subjects be the same, viz. Children; and the Privilege be the same, viz. an External Badge given to the Children of the Church now, as well as under the Law? Answered. p. 27  
Fifthly. As the same Church continued under the Gospel which did exist, or was in being before: So the very same Church Members kept their places and standing in it, which were of it before, except such as were broken off by Unbelief, which must not be understood in reference to the little Children of the Believing Jews; unless it can be made out that their little Children were guilty also of the same Sin of Unbelief, upon the Account of which others were thus broken off. Answered. p. 32  
Sixthly. Since the Jewish Infants were under the former Administrataion; at the Call, Election, and Appointment of God, admitted with their Parents, as visible Members of the Jewish Church; And since the Gifts and Callings of God are without Repentance. Rom. 11. 29▪ We have Reason therefore to Conclude, that the Infants of Christian Parents have the same right to a visible Church Membership now, as theirs had then. Answered. p. 23.  
Seventhly. If such Infants are as much of the Church, and as much Abraham's spiritual seed, as ever Infants in the Old Testament Church were; then they can be no more uncapable than they were, of a Solemn Admission into the Church by the Ordinance of Initiation for the time being, as Baptism is now, as Circumcision was then. Answered. p. 34.  
Eightly. The Believing Gentiles are now graffed in not upon the Legal Branch, but upon the Root Olive, which affordeth all the Nourishment that either the Jews had, or the Gentiles have; which Root Olive is the Covenant of Promise, that was 430. years before the Law. Now unto that state of things, wherein not the Law, but the Gospel preached to Abraham did Obtain, God was God not only to 〈◊〉 Father, but to the Children; ye● to all his Family. And the Father of the Family did not only give himself, but all his Children, and even his Servants, all his, to God, to take his Sign upon them; and so it must be now. Answered. p. 28, 29.    
But for the further support of Infant's Baptism; it is Objected, 

First. That since Infants stood visible Members of the Church for 2000 years under the Legal Administration; It is unlikely they should be now Excluded. Answered. from p. 27 to 30.  
Obj 2. If Infants are now Excluded, there would be a very great change in the Extent of the Covenant; Narrower under the Gospel, than it was under the Law; And yet no notice in all the Book of God given of such a change. Answered from. p. 30 to 36.  
Obj. 3. The Believing Jews should have loss upon their Repentance, and belief of the Gospel; if their Children formerly Church-Members should now be Excluded upon the Faith and Repentance of their Parents. Answered. p. 37.  
Obj. 4. What hope can we have of our Infants, if they must not be admitted to Christian Baptism, nor reputed as Members of the common Body, and Church of the faithful. Answered. p. 38.  
Obj. 5. If Children may not now be Baptised, this makes the Privilege of Believers under the Gospel to be less than was theirs under the Law: for their Children were all admitted as Members of the Visible Church, by the Ordinance of Circumcision, and we cannot but Conclude that Privileges for ourselves and for our Children, are at least, as Honourable, Large, and Comfortable as theirs. Answered. p. 38, 39  
Obj. 6. Circumcision was a Seal of the New Covenant to Believers and their Seed under the Law; and therefore so is Baptism to the Seed of Christian Parents under the Gospel: The denial therefore of Baptism to Infants, in the denial of a great Privilege which of Right belongs unto them. Answered. p. 39, 40.  
Obj. 7. Circumcision was Administered to Believers as Believers; and to their Seed after them as such; to which Baptism was to correspond. Answered. p. 40, 41.  
Obj. 8. Since by the Express Command of God, the Jewish Infants were Circumcised; Are not now Infants as Capable of Answering the Ends of Christian Baptism, as theirs of Circumcision? Answered. p. 41, 42.  
Obj. 9 If the Infants of Believing Gentiles are not to be Baptised; How doth the Blessing of Abraham come on the Gentiles? Gal. 3. 14. Which Blessing of Abraham was, I will be a God unto thee and to thy Seed, Gen. 17. 7. Answered. p. 42. 43.  
Obj. 10. Then also how can Believers be Heirs according to the Promise, Gal. 24. If their Children should be excluded from the Promise? For the children's right to the Promise, is part of the Father's Inheritance: For the Promise unto Abraham was; I will be a God to thee and to thy Seed after thee. Answered. p. 44, 45.  
Obj. 11. Those to whom the Gospel Covenant belonged, to them the Seal thereof appertained: But to Believers and their Seed the Gospel Covenant belonged, Gen. 17. 7. I will be a God to thee and to thy Seed; therefore to them the Seal thereof did appertain: For the Faederati, were to be Signati; that is those that were in Covenant, were to have the Seal thereof, Gen. 17. 10. By way of consequence therefore it naturally follows, that if Circumcision, the Seal of the Gospel Covenant, belonged to the Seed of Believers under the Law, then doth the Gospel Seal Baptism, much more appertain to the Seed of Believers now, Answered from p. 45. to 61.  
Obj. 12. Though 'tis true, when God made a Promise to Abraham, to be a God to him and to his Seed, Gen. 17, 7. The Seed there mentioned, is by the Apostle applied to Christ, Gal. 3. 16. He saith not unto Seeds as many, but as of one, and to thy Seed which is Christ; yet this is not to be understood of Christ Personal, but of Christ Mystical, as in 1 Cor. 12. 12. And so 'tis to be understood of the Visible Church, of which Infants Born of Believing Parents are a part. Answered p. 61 62.  
Obj. 13. In the Commission, Mat. 28. The Apostles are commanded to teach or disciple all Nations, Baptising them: But Infants are Disciples, and therefore to be Baptised. Answered. from p. 62 to 65.  
Obj. 14. The Infants of Believers, even while they are Infants, are capable of being made Partakers of the Inward Grace of Baptism, as well as grown Men. And therefore they ought to receive the outward Sign of Baptism. Answered. p. 65.  
Obj. 15. Our Saviour tells us, that unto such belongeth the Kingdom of Heaven. If Children therefore are capable of the greater, than they are capable of the lesser. If capable of a Membership in the Kingdom, then of the Sign and Cognisance thereof. But the first is true, Ergo the latter. Answered. p. 65, 66.  
Obj. 16. The Gospel took place just as the Old Administration did, by bringing in whole Families together. When Abraham was taken in, his whole Family was taken in: So in this New Administration; usually if the Master of the House turned Christian, the whole Family came in, and were Baptised with him. The whole Household of Cornelius, the first Converted Gentile. Act. 11. 14. The Household of Stephanus. The Household of Lydia. The Household of the Jailor. Answered. from p. 66. to 69.  
Obj. 17. As there is no Express Command or Example in the Scripture, concerning the Baptism of Infants; So neither is there any concerning the Baptism of Persons at Age, whose Parents were Christians when they were Born, and who have been educated from their Childhood in the Christian Religion: The Scripture giving no Account of the Baptism of any in the Apostle's days, but such as were Converted from Judaisme, or Paganism, to Christianity: And therefore the Baptising of Infants is as Lawful as the Baptism of such, there being no Express Warrant or Example in the Scripture, for the one more than for the other. And if a just Consequence may be admitted for the proof of the one, why not for the other also? You are wont to reject all Scripture Consequences in Respect of Infant's Baptism; and yet here you must of Necessity admit of the same: So that this Argument therefore returns upon yourselves. Answered, from p 69, to 71,  
Obj, 18. Infants were by God's Express Command to be Circumcised under the former Administration; and all God's Commands about his Institutions then, (according to the Rule of Analogy or Proportion) are equally binding unto us, as well as to the Jews then. As in the Case of the Christian Sabbath unto us, which the Fourth Commandment binds us, as it did the Jews to the former. And thus it is in Reference to Infant's Baptism. In Respect of which, though there is no Express Command to that Purpose recorded in the New Testament; yet we cannot but conclude that God's Command unto the Jews to Circumcise their Infants under the Law, carries with it the force (at least) of a virtual Command unto us to Baptise ours. Answered. p. 71, 72, 73.  
Obj. 19 If the Baptism of Believers be the only Baptism which Christ hath appointed: How comes it to pass that so many Learned and Pious Men should for so long a season, and throughout so many Generations, cleave to Infant's Baptism, whilst so few in Comparison do embrace the contrary Practice? Answered from p. 73 to 79.  
Obj. 20. The Apostle tells us that neither Circumcision availeth any thing, nor Uncircumcision, but a New Creature. It is our main business therefore to press after the Power of Godliness; And we are afraid that while there is so much stress laid upon the Circumstantials of Religion, it tends to the losing the Substance. Besides having been already Baptised in our Infancy, what Necessity is there for the Repetition thereof? Answered, from p. 79 to 82.    
The Conclusion of the Second Part. 82, 85.   

The Third Part.  
Containing Some Animadversions on Mr. Sidenham's Treatise of Baptism; Wherein that of Infants is further disproved. Together, with some further Reflections on Mr. Allen's forementioned Discourse, to the same purpose. Whereunto is Annexed an Answer at large unto Mr. Baxter's chief Argument for the Church-membership of Infants, from the Nature of the Covenant made with Israel in the Land of Moab. Mentioned Deut. 29. where Children are Represented as fellow Covenanters with their Parents; which (saith he) was a Covenant of Grace, or a Gospel Covenant. And therefore neither it, nor the Church-membership of, Infants which was built thereon, Repealed.   

The Fourth Part.  
Wherein the Baptism of Infants is further Disproved; By way of Answer to the Arguments made use of by Dr. Burthogge and others, for the Support of that Practice. Wherein the Covenant made with Israel at Mount Sinai. Exod. 20. as also the Covenant of Circumcision made with Abraham, Gen. 17. 7, 8, 9 (Whereon so much stress is laid for the Support of Infant's Baptism) are plainly proved to be no other than two Several Editions of the Covenant of Works. And Consequently that no just Argument can thence be deduced for the Justification of that Practice.  
Together, with a clear and distinct Explanation of the true Nature and Difference between the two Covenants, that of Works, and that of Grace.   

The Fifth Part.  
Containing a Description of that truly Evangelical Covenant God was pleased to make with Believing Abraham; wherein lies the Sum of the Everlasting Gospel then Preached unto him; Since Proclaimed by the Apostles; And which now Remains to be yet further Published unto all Nations, for the Obedience of Faith. Rom. 16. 25. 26. Rev. 14. 6. 7.  
Wherein the true Nature and Difference between the two Covenants, that of Works, and that of Grace, is further Explained.  
Wherein Mr. baxter's Argument also concerning the Morality of Infants Church-membership, is duly weighed and Answered.  
The Conclusion; Containing a Solemn Call unto all God's People Speedily and Seriously to attend unto the Primitive Purity of the Gospel Doctrine, and Worship.    

THE FIRST PART.  
Containing some Animadversions and Reflections upon a Late Discourse of Mr. William Allen; Entitled, A Persuasive to Unity: or, A Serious and Friendly Address to the Nonconformists. And first in reference to his Arguments against the Antipaedobaptists.  
MR. Allen's first Argument is; That a known Anabaptistical Principle Condemns the Practice of Anabaptists themselves. The Principle is; That Christ's Commission is to be Interpreted as to the Extent of it, only by Scripture Examples. And it Condemns the Practice of Anabaptists; because there is no Scripture Example for the Baptising such Persons as they Baptise, viz. those of grown Age whose Parents were Christians, and who have been Educated from their Childhood in the Christian Religion; but only such as were newly Converted from Paganism or Judaisme, to Christianity.  
To this we Reply. First, That though it should be granted, that there is no express Example in the Scripture, concerning the Baptising Persons at Age, whose Parents were Christians; yet it is sufficient unto us, that there are Examples enough in the Scripture concerning the Baptism of Believers: So that let a Person be but a Believer, and we have no reason to inquire into his Pedigree; nor have we any Rule that so directs us, in Order to his Admission to Baptism. And as we have no Rule nor Reason to accept of a Person that Believes, the rather because he had Christian Parents; so neither to Reject him on that Ground. Can the like Command or Examples be produced from the Scripture concerning the Baptism of Infants, as can easily be produced concerning the Baptism of Believers, (for under that Notion only are we bound to take Cognizance of those Baptised by us;) the present Controversy would soon be concluded between us.  
Secondly, This Argument will easily fall to the Ground, if we duly consider the Scope of the forementioned Commission concerning Baptism, as it is Recorded. Mat. 28. 19, 20. Go ye therefore and Teach, or Disciple all Nations, Baptising them, etc. Wherein, as the Order to be observed, is plainly Exclusive of Infants, who are uncapable of Teaching, or Discipleship by Instruction, as the Rule here directs: So it is as evident, that it Includes all other sorts of Persons that are capable of Actual Teaching, whether they be Jews or Gentiles, or whether they be the Offspring of Pagans or Believers; there being therein no Exception of any, it extending to all sorts of People in all Nations that are capable of being effectually taught or instructed in the Rudiments of the Christian Doctrine, so as to make an Answerable Profession of the same; which we hope it will not be denied, but that the Offspring of Christian Parents are as capable of, as others, if not more, by the Advantage of their Education, when coming to years of Understanding, and therefore are plainly included in the Commission concerning Baptism, as well as others; which Infants are not, because uncapable of being taught, as the Commission directs.  
But against this it is objected, That if the Commission. Mat. 28. 19 Excludes none from Baptism but such as are to be excluded by the Order therein to be observed: And if Baptising and Teaching are to precede or follow one the other as there named by Christ: Then these two Conclusions will follow. First, That Infants are not there Excluded from Baptism. Secondly▪ That a Person may be Baptised before he is Taught. And that these Propositions do follow from those before mentioned, will appear from that Text in the Original, where, on a little Consideration it may be observed, that the Order so much talked of▪ and which so much stress is laid upon by the Anabaptists, is clearly for the Paedobaptists, and not for them. We have there First 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which will be easily allowed to signify, Disciple all Nations, Make them Disciples o● Christians. Secondly, we have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. which literally to translate is, Baptising,— Teaching.— Now then Discipling being a general Word, that centains in it the two other that follow, Baptising and Teaching; and being the Imperative Mood, whereas the other two are Participles; it is manifest that the whole Command or Commission is given in that, and that the Mode of Execution is expressed in these: And if the Mode of executing that general Commission be expressed in these where Baptising is first, and Teaching comes after: What is become of the Order the Antipaedobaptists have so long talked of? Certainly, the insisting on the Order in that place, proves to them an unhappy Weapon to stab that Cause, for the defence of which it hath been brought into the Field.  
For Answer hereunto, we say; That how fatal soever you suppose it may prove to us, or the Cause we plead for, to insist on the Order there mentioned: Of this we are sure, that if we neglect the Order Christ himself hath appointed, we shall come short of pleasing him; and consequently so to Teach, must needs prove an unhappy Weapon to stab that Cause, in the defence of which it is engaged.  
In the Scripture before us, Mat. 28. 19, 20. there are plainly 3 distinct Acts required by Christ, in the Commission he there gave his Apostles. First, Go Teach, or Disciple all Nations; that is, not by Baptising them, as the Objection supposeth, and afterward to teach them,; but singly by the Preaching of the Gospel unto them: For so it must of Necessity be understood, as appears by the Parallel Account that is given us of the same Commission. Mark. 16. 15. Go Preach the Gospel to every Creature. Secondly, to Baptise them. So it follows in Matthew, that is; such as shall give a believing Entertainment thereunto: For so it follows in Mark. He that Believeth and is Baptised shall be saved: And accordingly, this was the consequent Practice of the Apostles. Act. 8. 37. If thou believest with all thine Heart thou mayst. Thirdly, To teach them their following Duty; Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you.  
You tell us indeed That a Person may be Baptised before he is Taught, and that if the Mode of executing the general Commission be expressed in these, where Baptising is first, and Teaching comes after; What is become (say you) of the Order the Antipaedobaptists have so long talked of? But it may rather be demanded; What then is become of the Order the Scriptures have so long spoken of? For if Baptising is first, as you say, and Teaching comes after, than it will follow that the Apostles understood not their Commission aright; for they always first endeavoured to make Disciples by the Preaching of the Gospel, and then Baptised those that gave a Believing Entertainment thereunto. So did Philip to the Eunuch, he first Preached the Gospel to him, and then Baptised him. Act. 8. So did Peter to Cornelius, and the rest with him. Act. 10. And so did the same Peter to the 3000. Jews that were converted by that Gospel Sermon, Recorded Act. 2. And accordingly, upon the Profession of their Faith and Repentance, we are told Vers. 41. Then they that gladly Received his Word were Baptised: And thus runs the whole Current of the Scripture, and no Example to the contrary. But according to your Doctrine, neither Philip nor Peter did well in Preaching to them first, and Baptising them afterward: for (say you) Baptising is first and Teaching comes after. 'Tis true, there is a sort of Teaching that comes after, as hath been before expressed: But to say that a Person may be Baptised before he is Taught, is certainly Repugnant to the whole Doctrine and Practice of the Gospel.  
And indeed, according to this Reckoning; If a Minister were to be sent into a Foreign Land, among a Company of Ignorant Heathens, to Disciple them to the Practice and Profession of Christianity: His first work must be to take them by the Shoulder, and to lead them into the Water; or at least by Surprise, to sprinkle a little Water upon their Faces: For it may justly be doubted, few would readily submit thereunto; unless they were first Taught, and Instructed in the Mystery of that sacred Institution. And if any should be induced to submit thereunto, without the Precedency of Preparatory Instructions: This Practice you see would be Foreign to the Doctrine and Practice of Christ and his Apostles. And therefore, certainly to insist on such an Order must needs prove an unhappy Weapon, to sta●● that Cause, in the defence whereof 'tis thus engaged.  
The Scripture is indeed full in the Justification of the Order we now plead for, and to affirm the contrary, carries with it no small Absurdity, Go Teach, or Disciple all Nations (saith Christ to his Apostles) that is, according to the scope of the  Objection, Baptise them first, and Teach them afterward, this being the mode of executing that General Commission: But is the Opus Operatum of Baptism, think you, a likely way or means to beget or bring forth Disciples unto Christ? If Men be Preached by the Gospel into Discipleship, it is no wonder, For it is the Wisdom of God, and the Power of God unto Salvation, unto every one that believeth. 1 Cor. 1. 21. 24. And accordingly where the Spirits Energy doth accompany it, it Disciples Men into the very Life and Spirit of Christianity. But we never read that Baptism was ever appointed for that end, whether by itself, or in Conjunction with Preaching. It follows after, 'tis true, but not to make us Disciples, but to show that we are such, as a visible Mark to this purpose to be taken on us. Gal. 3 26, 27.  
If you say that Baptism is not sufficient to make a Disciple or Christian, without the after-Teaching; How comes it then to pass that Infants are Baptised, who are uncapable of the after-Teaching you speak of? Many of whom, also die in their Infancy, and so are never Taught, whether before or after: Of whom nevertheless it is affirmed; that the Baptised Infant is Regenerate, received into the Number of the Children of God, and an Heir of Everlasting Life. And hence it is that the Baptism of Infants is commonly called the Christening of them; that is, they are thereby made Christians. So that though you seem to allow the Necessity of joining Instruction with Baptism to make a Disciple or Christian; yet the common Practice shows that Baptism alone is reckoned sufficient for that Purpose.  
But (say you) These two Conclusions do plainly flow from the Premises. First, that Infants are not there excluded from Baptism. Secondly, That a Person may be Baptised before he is Taught. For Answer, you see we have plainly proved to you, from the constant Doctrine and Practice of Christ and his Apostles, that none ought to be Baptised before they are Taught. And then it will equally follow, and that with the same Clearness, that Infants are there excluded from Baptism, because uncapable after an ordinary rate of being taught as the Gospel directs.  
So that you see, the whole of your Argument falls to the ground. You may Criticise therefore at Pleasure, and talk what you will of Imperative Moods, and Participles: You see we have diligently considered the general Scope of the Commission, by comparing Matthew and Mark together, and the consequent Practice of the Apostles thereon, who were best able to understand the meaning of it; wherein we have plainly proved to you the Antecedency of Teaching or Preaching to Baptism: And therefore, unless you can produce another Commission for the Baptism of Infants, who are uncapable of being thus Taught, all you can say besides will avail you nothing.  
Mr. Allen's Second Argument is derived from those Words of our Saviour. Mat. 19 14. Suffer Little Children, and forbidden them not to come unto me, for of such is the Kingdom of Heaven. From whence it is Inferred, that if little Children are capable of a Membership in the Kingdom, from the gracious Respect Christ bears unto them, than they are equally capable of the Sign or Cognizance thereof, which is, Baptism:  
For Answer, Frst, it must be considered, that it remains as yet unproved, that the little Children here spoken of were Infants; the Context both here and elsewhere giving shrewd ground of Conjecture, that they were rather such little Children as were capable of making an Actual Profession of their Faith in Cbrist; which seems to be intimated by our Saviour. Mat. 18. 2. When having called a little Child unto him, and set him in the midst of them, he saith, Ver. 6. Whoso shall offend one of these little Ones that believe in me, etc. Which after an ordinary rate cannot with any shadow of pretence, be intended of Young Sucking Infants: For Faith cometh by Hearing, and Hearing by the Word of God; which such little Children, according to an ordinary Reckoning, are utterly uncapable of. Nor doth the Greek Word used Luke 18. 15. Which is translated in English, Infants, prove it: For the Greek Word which is there translated, Infants, as Piscator himself tells us; signifies a Child capable of Teaching: As when it is said, Timothy knew the sacred Scriptures from a Child; that is, ever since he was a Boy, not an Infant; it being the same Greek Word that is used in both places. It is an ungrounded Supposition therefore, that these were sucking Infants of whom Christ here speaketh; which till it can be proved, the Inference that is hence drawn, concerning the Baptising of such, must needs be acknowledged to have a very infirm and slender bottom.  
Secondly, Though it should be granted that they were indeed Young Infants, that are here spoken of, as such unto whom belongeth the Kingdom of Heaven: It may be (as Piscator also observes) referred not to their present state, as if for the present they were in the Kingdom of God, that is, Believers, and Justified; but that they were Elect Persons, and so in time, of them should be the Kingdom of God. Now that which gives right to Baptism, is the present state of a Person. And  
Thirdly, It ought also to be duly considered; that the little Children here spoken of, whatever they were, are expressly ordered to be brought unto Christ, who himself Baptised not, and not unto his Disciples; whose proper Work that was: Nor is there any mention made at all of their Baptising; but his laying his Hands upon them and blessing them. And from the Action of Christ's blessing them, to infer that they are to be Baptised, proves nothing so much as that there is a want of better Arguments: For the Conclusion would with more probability be derived thus. Christ blessed Children, and so dismissed them, but Baptised them not; therefore Infants are not to be Baptised. But let this Argument be as weak as its Fellow; sure we are that Christ hath other ways of bringing them to Heaven, than by Baptism. And as we are sure that God hath not commanded Infants to be Baptised; So we are sure God will do them no Injustice, nor damn them for what they cannot help, viz. If the Parents Baptise them not. Many Thousand ways there are by which God can bring any reasonable Soul unto him; but nothing is more unreasonable, than because he hath tied all Men of Years and Discretion to this way, therefore we of our own Heads shall carry Infants to him that way, without his Direction. So to conceive is groundless, and the Action consequent to it is too bold and venturous. Let him do what he pleases with our Infants, we must not.  
But it is Objected, That as it cannot be denied, but that it is our Duty to bring our Children unto Christ in the Arms of Faith and Prayer, (at least,) in order to their receiving the Holy Spirit; so we are assured, that in all the things that we ask of him according to his Will he heareth us: And if so, who can forbid Water that these should not be Baptised that have received the Holy Spirit as well as we? Act. 10. 47.  
To this we Reply, That though it is indeed our Duty to be Wrestling with God for ourselves, our Children, and others also, in Order to our obtaining the blessings of the Holy Spirit, for ourselves and them; yet we have no ground certainly to conclude that God heareth our Prayers in this respect, for others than ourselves. Of this we are assured, that if we sincerely desire it for ourselves, God will not deny us the same; having to this purpose given us his most faithful Promise, That he will give the Holy Spirit unto them that ask him. Luk. 11. 13. But we have not the same Assurance in respect of others; the Promise being only to those that ask it for themselves: He saith not, that he will give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him not, or that desire not the Knowledge of his Ways. True it is, that God is found sometimes of them that do not seek him, and he may accordingly give the Holy Spirit to them that do not desire him, when so it pleaseth him: But he hath no where bound himself so to do. What he may do is one thing, and what he hath promised is another; and 'tis God's Promise only that we are to build upon in this respect. 'Tis true, we are to ask God's Spirit, as for ourselves, so for others also, that if peradventure they may receive the same benefit with ourselves: And much more are we bound to become Petitioners to Heaven for our Children upon that Account: But till they are able to give some Convincing Evidence that our Prayers are heard, we have no just Reason to conclude that they are actually possessed of so rich a Benefit, there being no Promise giving us Assurance to this purpose.  
As for that Promise, Isa. 59 21. which is mentioned by Mr. Allen, upon this Account; It cannot without palpable streining be applied to the Natural Offspring of Believers, now as he supposeth: It having a most plain and absolute Reference to the Redeemer, spoken of in the foregoing Verse, and can be applied unto none other than unto him, and his Spiritual Seed; and that at the time of his second Appearance according to Rom. 26. 27. Out of whose Mouth, God there Promiseth, That his Spirit should never departed, nor out of the Mouth of his Seed, nor out of the Mouth of his Seeds Seed for ever. Indeed, If God's Holy Spirit were absolutely and everlastingly entailed upon all the Natural Offspring of Believers; now, as our Opponents from this Scripture do affirm it is; this would be comfortable Tidings indeed, could it be substantially proved unto us: But alas! As the present Scripture proves it not, so neither doth any other that we know of; and were it so that God had any where promised, that at the Request of the Believing Parents he, would not fail to give his Holy Spirit unto all their Natural Seed: No doubt, Noah, Abraham and David, with many other choice Believers, recorded in the Scripture, were not defective in their Duty, to be wrestling with God for their Offspring in this Respect, that they all might be Partakers of his Holy Spirit, and consequently that they all might be made Inheritors of the Heavenly Kingdom, (For the Holy Spirit once given, as the Scripture before alleged, proves, was never more to departed from them.) But alas! Most evident it is, that notwithstanding their most Zealous Prayers, and other Pious endeavours, for the Spiritual benefit of their Natural Offspring; they had many of them such Children, as were very Wicked, Flagitious and Profane, and such as were rejected by God; which yet they had not been, had they been at all possessed of God's Holy Spirit, as the Fruit of their Parents Prayers and Supplications to God for them. And to this doth the daily Experience that occurs to our own Observation, very sadly testify.  
The Sum then of our Answer to the forementioned Objection, is this; They that have Received the Holy Ghost, or such at least, concerning whom there is any convincing Evidence thereof (as was the Case of them in the 10. Act. of whom this word was spoken) such are the proper Subjects of Baptism. For who can forbid Water that such should not be Baptised? But till there can be convincing Evidence given concerning our Children, that either all or any of them are actually partakers thereof; according to this Rule, they are not the proper Subjects of Baptism: And therefore till then they are not to be Baptised.  
As for Mr. Allen's Third Argument, drawn from Rom. 11. 17. We say that that Scripture is by him and others impertinently alleged to this purpose: It being to be understood not of engrafting into the visible Church by an outward Ordinance, as Baptism; but into the Invisible by Election, and giving of Faith, as the whole Chapter shows.  
His Fourth Argument is drawn from. 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; from whence he would infer, that the Children of Believers are Holy with a faederal or Covenant Holiness, and therefore to be Baptised.  
To this we Reply; That the same sort of Holiness is ascribed to the Children, as is to be understood in reference to the unbelieving Husband, or the unbelieving Wife, who are both here said to be Sanctified by their Respective Yoak-Fellows; which cannot be understood of a Faederal or Covenant Holiness, but that which is Matrimonial: For if we must understand it of a Covenant Holiness, than it will follow that the unbelieving Wife, or the unbelieving Husband, may upon the same ground lay claim to Baptism as well as their Children; which yet yourselves will not grant. Besides, it is evident from the Words themselves, in which the term Believer is omitted, which would not be, if the Holiness were derived from the Faith of the one Party, and so to be understood of a Covenant Holiness. And the single terms of Husband and Wife are twice used, which shows that the Holiness is from the Conjugal Relation, and cannot b● meant of any other than Legitimation. And the term unbeliever is also twice used, and said to be Sanctified; which can have no other sense but this, That the unbelieving Yoke-fellow is Sanctified in respect of Conjugal Use to his or her Yoke-fellow; and so though the one be an unbeliever, they might comfortably enough live together in Lawful Wedlock. For else, saith he, your Children were to be accounted , that is Illegitimate: But this being determined, that the Husband is thus Sanctified to the Wife, and the Wife to the Husband, though the one be an unbeliever, hence it follows that your Children are Holy, that is, Lawfully begotten, which is the only sense ●pposite to the Determination. verse 12. 13. And as for the use of the Word Holy for Legitimate, that it is in this Sense used elsewhere in the Scripture is evident from Mal. 2. 15. Where a Seed of God can be understood in no other sense than that of a Lawful Seed in Opposition to those born by Polygamy.  
But though it should be allowed that the Holiness in the Text is indeed to be understood of a Faederal or Covenant Holiness; yet we cannot therefore grant, That that is a sufficient Reason for the Baptism of Infants: For let the Holiness in the Text be what it will, whether Moral, Faederal, or Matrimonial, neither of these is either there, or elsewhere assigned to be a Ground of Baptising Children upon; that which is laid down in the Institution being that alone that can Warrant the same. It is God's Word only, not our Reason that can Justify our Practice in God's Ordinances. That a Profession of Faith and Repertance is a Substantial Warrant for Baptism, is undeniable to be proved from the Scriptures: But that so is Faederal Holiness, or any other Indiscernible Qualification in Infants; the Scripture is altogether silent therein.  
His Fifth Argument for Infant's Baptism, is derived from Acts 2. 38, 39 Repent and be Baptised every one of you, in the Name of Jesus Christ for the Remission of Sins, etc. For the Promise is unio you, and to your Children▪ and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall Call.  
But whatever Mr. Allen or others suppose, First it is Evident that the Promise here spoken of, is not to be understood of a Promise of External Privileges, but the Promise of the Gospel, or the Grace of God ●● Christ Jesus, which was now freely held forth unto them upon their Repentance, notwithstanding they had been the Actual Murderers of the Lord of Glory, which he had before charged upon them; which only could be a Suitable Plaster for the Wound now given them thereby; telling them that they might have Remission of Sins, even of that Sin, if they did Repent: Because, beyond and contrary to their Acting, in Crucifying Christ, God had brought to pass the raising up of Christ for their Salvation, and their Children, and all whom God should Call, though a far off, if they also did Repent, and were Baptised into the Name of Christ.  
Nor indeed, Secondly, was the Promise to their Children, as Believers Seed; nor to them or any other uncalled by the Lord; But with this express Proviso; Even as many as the Lord our God shall Call. Which calling alone made them Christ's, and capable of Baptism. Nor are the Words, To you and your Children, mentioned as an acknowledgement of a Privilege to them before others; but by reason of their Wish. Mat. 27. 25. His Blood be on us, and on our Children: And so as a Remedy of their Perplexity, v. 37. When they heard this they were pricked to their Heart, etc. Nor is any Intimation given of a Title Baptism to them, or their Children as the Children of Believers, but an Exhortation to them and theirs to Repent and be Baptised, as their duty for their benefit; The Promise being not mentioned, as though of itself it gave a Title to Baptism, either to them, or to their Offspring, without Repentance: But as a Motive why both they and theirs should actually Repent, and be Baptised; because in so doing they would be in the way of obtaining the Remission of their Sins, and Receiving the Holy Ghost, the two grand Branches of the Promise here mentioned: Which duty of Repentance, Little Children being uncapable of performing, neither are they therefore, according to this direction of the Apostle, the proper Subjects of such an Ordinance. So that this Text is grossly abused by such as infer from thence, a Title to Baptism for the Children of Believers, by virtue of a Promise to them, as such; Whereas it is manifest from the whole Scope of the Con-text; that it is only an Encouragement to the Jews against Despair, by reason of their Crucifying of Christ; Letting them know, that yet there was hope of Mercy and of Pardon for them, and theirs, upon the Respective Repentance of either of them.  
A Sixth Argument for Infant's Baptism is drawn from Col. 2. 11. In whom also you are Circumcised with the Circumcision made without Hands, in putting off the Body of the Sins of the Flesh by the Circumcision of Christ. Ver. 12. Buried with him in Baptism, wherein you are also risen with him, through the Faith of the Operation of God, who hath raised him from the Dead. From whence a groundless Inference is drawn, concerning the Succession of Christian Baptism, into the Room, Place, and Use of Jewish Circumcision. And that therefore, as the Jewish Infants were Circumcised, so by way of Analogy, those Born of Christian Parents ought to be Baptised.  
To this We Answer; First, That to suppose that Christian Baptism comes in the Room, Place, or Use of Jewish Circumcision, is a mistaken Inference, which can neither be truly drawn from those Words of the Apostle to the Collossians, nor from any other place of Scripture. Not from the present Words, where no Circumsion in the Flesh is at all Expressed, or can be meant, but that of Christ's in his own Person; which is there made the Exemplary Efficient of Spiritual Circumcision: for so it is expressly told us. In whom also you are Circumcised with the Circumcision made without Hands, in putting off the Body of the Sins of the Flesh, by the Circumcision of Christ. So that this Text avails nothing at all to the present purpose; it being e●●dent that the Scope of the Spirit of God there, is to show that we are complete in Christ. v. 10. And to this purpose he Subjoins. v. 12. Buried with Him in Baptism, wherein ye are also risen with Him, through the Faith of the Operation of God. But whereas we are told that the Jewish Teachers would be ready to Object, that the receiving of the Inward Grace of Circumcision did not make them so complete as Abraham and his Seed was, because they had also an Outward Visible Sign. This is a groundless Conceit that either the Jews were ready thus to Object, or that the Apostle intended to Answer such an Objection: But supposing it were so, Doth it therefore follow that because the Jewish Infants were Circumcised, therefore ours must be Baptised? Is there a Syllable of that sound or signification in the Text? For it is plain that the Apostle is not there speaking of Infants, but concerning Adult Believers only; nor can it with any shadow of Reason be affirmed that Baptism is appointed to have the same Place, and Use in the Church of God that Circumcision had: For if so then it would also follow, that Females must be Excluded from Baptism, because uncapable of Circumcision. And that because Circumcision bound Men to keep the whole Ceremonial Law of Moses; therefore so doth Baptism also. And indeed, to affirm that there is the same Ground for Infant Baptism, as for Infant Circumcision, is to assert that the command of Circumcision is Obligatory to us. And to Imagine that there is a Parity of Reason from Analogy or Proportion between them, is no other than a groundless Supposition, that there is a Reason of them to direct us in their Use, besides what God hath expressly declared unto us; and to say, That though Christ and His Apostles have not told us so; yet we think it should be so, is to Impute a defect in them of what they should have done, and more Wisdom and Diligence in ourselves about Ordering the Divine Service.  
We can fetch (saith Mr. Baxter in his late Treatise of Episcopacy) no Model of a Gospel Ministry, nor proof of our Authority or Obligation as Instituted, from the Instituted Ministry of the Mosaical Church: Because the Law of Moses is Abrogate, and indeed did never bind the Gentiles. Nor is it safe (saith he) to Argue from Parity of Reason, that we must now be, or do, as they did, in point of pure Institution, while we so little know the total Reason of God's Institutions. And when He Himself hath taken them down and set up new Ones, we must not then plead our Reason against the Alterations which God Himself hath made. P. 29. Besides which.  
Secondly, The Argument from Circumcision is invalid upon many Considerations; For Figures and Types prove nothing, unless a Command go a long with them, or some Express to signify such to be their purpose: For the Deluge of Waters, and the Ark of Noah, were a Figure of Baptism, said Peter: And if the Circumstances of the one should be drawn to the other, we should make Baptism a Prodigy rather than a Rite. The Feast of the Passover was a Type of the Supper, which succeeds the other as much as Baptism doth to Circumcision: But because there was in the eating of the Paschal Lamb, no prescription of Sacramental Drink, shall we thence Conclude, that the Supper is to be Administered but in one kind? Or, that because the Passover was to be eaten in haste, with a Staff in their Hand; Must we thence conclude, that the Lords Supper ought to be so Celebrated also? No, we will easily conclude that we are duly to attend unto the Words of the Institution, which particularly concerns the right Celebration of that Ordinance of the Supper, whatever Circumstances were by the command of God to be Observed in the Celebration of the Type. And after the same sort must we Reason, if we will Reason aright, concerning Circumcision and Baptism also. And yet again,  
Thirdly, Even in the very Instance of this Argument; Supposing a Corespondency of Analogy, between Circumcision and Baptism; yet there is no Correspondency of Identity. For although it were granted that both of them did Consign the Covenant of Faith; yet there is nothing in the Circumstance of children's being Circumcised, that so concerns that Mystery, but that it might very well be given to Children, and yet Baptism only to men of Reason: Because Circumcision left a character in the flesh, which being Imprinted upon Infants, did its work to them when they came of Age. And such a Character was necessary, because there was no word added to the sign: But Baptism Imprints nothing that remains on the Body, and if it leaves a character at all, it is upon the Soul, to which also the word is added, which is as much a part of the Ordinance as the Sign itself. For which cause therefore it is highly requisite that the Parties Baptised should be capable of Reason, that they may be capable both of the word of the Ordinance, and the Impress to be made thereby upon the Soul. Since therefore the Reason of the Parity doth wholly fail, there is left nothing to Infer a Necessity of Complying in this Circumstance of Age more than in the other Annexes of the Type. Then also the Infant must be precisely baptised upon the Eighth day; And Females must not be baptised, because such were not to be Circumcised. But it were more proper if we would understand it aright, to prosecute the Analogy from the type to the Antitype, by way of letter and Spirit and Signification. That as Circumcision figures Baptism; so also the Adjuncts of the Circumcision, shall signify some thing Spiritual, in the Adherences of Baptism. And therefore as Infants were Circumcised; So Spiritual Infants shall be Baptised, which is Spiritual Circumcision. For therefore Babes had the Ministry of the type, to Signify that we must, when we give our Names to Christ, become Children in Malice and then the type is made Complete.  
The Seventh Argument for Infant's Baptism, and whereon the greatest stress is laid, by Mr. Allen, Mr Baxter, and others; is drawn from the Church-member-ship of Infants under the former Administration. That because Infants were comprehended with their Parents in the Jews Church state; they are so still under the Gospel, and therefore to be baptised.  
Reply. We know very well that Mr. Baxter and others, do Assert the Church-membership of Infants before Abraham's time; and that therefore it is a Moral Institution, and so not Capable of being Repealed as other Jewish Rites were. But that is a groundless Fiction, and cannot be at all proved from the Scripture: The Discussion whereof shall be reserved for the latter part of this Discourse. In the mean season, That they were admitted Members of the Jewish Church is Evident. And it is also as Evident that God hath now quite pulled down that House of his, broke up House-keeping, and turned the Servants, Infants, and all out of Doors, Rom. 11. 17. 24. The Natural Branches are broken of, and God hath now built him a New house into which God hath admitted none as his Household Servants but Believers only, or such as Profess so to be. Moses saith the Apostle, Heb. 3. 5. 9 was faithful as a Servant in all his house: But Christ as a son over his own House: Whose House are we, if we hold fast the Confidence, etc. Where the Servants of the new house, are described te be Beleivers, not Infants, and therefore called Living stones and a Spiritual House. 1. Pet. 2. 3. And that the Old House, the Jewish Church, with all the Appurtenances and Privileges of it, is pulled down, and a new One Built, into which Infants are not to be admitted, is Evident from the Apostles Reasoning. Heb. 7. 12. For the Priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the Law. Which must needs Include Circumcision with all the Appurtenances and Privileges belonging to it. And therefore, as Infants Church-membership came in with the Law of Circumcision, So it went out and was repealed with it. They were 'tis true of the Household of Old, but it was by a positive Law. Show us the like now, or you say nothing? Sure it is, There is now no Institution that makes Infant's fellow Citizens with the Saints, and of the Household of God, neither are they to be so accounted till they believe and are able to do Service in the House. And if you say, that among men Infants are counted of the Household though they can do no Service: we Answer; that as Comparisons do not run upon four feet: so it doth not follow that because we count our Infants of our Family, therefore they are to be accounted members of God's Family, the Gospel Church, unless God by any Institution had made them so. The Household of God is called the Household of faith, or a House Consisting of Believers. Now unless you can prove Infants to be Believers, they are not of this House: For all the Servants here must be Believers; either Really, or at least historically and Professedly, which Infants cannot be.  
If it be Objected, That as the Jews and their Children are broken off: So the Gentiles and their Children are Ingraffed in their Room, according to Rom. 11. 20. Because of unbelief they were broken off; and thou standest by faith.  
We Answer, That the Reason why the Jews and their Children were broken off, was not because they had not Believing Parents: For Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were still the Parents of them all. They were Abraham's seed when they were broken off) as well as before: But the true Reason was because the terms of standing in the Church were now altered. For before the Gospel came, they stood members of the Old Jewish Church, though as much unbelievers, for many Generations, as they were when they were broken off. But now Abraham's Church state is at an end, and all the Privileges and Immunities cease. The Jewish Church must give way to the Gospel Church; The Messiah being come, and about to build him a New House, into which none are of Right to enter, but such as are professed Believers: For the Old House or Jewish Church was not intended to abide for ever, but only to the time of Reformation. And then the Law must be changed, the Priesthood changed, the Privileges and Ordinances changed, yea the Covenant changed: Which they not believing, being willing to abide in the Old House still, and to remain Church Members upon the account of a mere Fleshly and Natural Birth, still crying out, Abraham is our Father, and we are his Seed, and are Free, and were never in Bondage: Wherefore they were broken off, and that whether they would or not, by reason of their unbelief, that is, because they would not believe that the Old Covenant, and all the Privileges thereof were ended, and the Substance come, the Lord Jesus, who was the true Antitype, and Substance of all these Shadows. So that thus then, the Jews were then broken off by Unbelief; And thou and thine (O! Gentile Believer) must stand by Faith: Mark it, thou standest by Faith; not by Virtue of any Birth Privilege whatsoever, but thy standing is by Faith; yet not thy Seed by thy Faith, but thou thy self by thine, and they by their own. Faith is that by which (thou standing and not thy Seed) hast right to stand in the Church, and not they. But if thy Seed have Faith, and thou hast none, they have right to stand in the Church, and thou shalt be Excluded.  
Most certain it is, that under the Law the Natural Seed or Progeny of Abraham were all Holy, with an External, Ceremonial, or Typical Holiness, and consequently they were then all admitted to an External Participation of Church Privileges. But remarkable to this purpose is that passage of the Apostle. 2 Cor. 5. 16. Wherefore henceforth know we no Man after the Flesh. It seems then, that heretofore, there had been a knowledge taken of Persons after the Flesh. And 'tis plain there was, that because the Jews were of the Natural or Fleshly Seed of Abraham, they were therefore all of them admitted to the Privilege of an External Church-membership, while others were Exempted. But we see the Apostle resolves henceforth to disclaim any such Cognisance of them, or any others, upon the Account of a mere Fleshly Descent. And to this very purpose immediately subjoins in the following Verse. Therefore if any Man be in Christ he is a new Creature: Old things are passed away, all things are become New: A new Church State, and new Ordinances, a new Seed. and a new way of Introduction, unto the Participation of the Privilege of Church-membership under the Gospel Dispensation. Now nothing but a New Creature will serve the turn; for God expects that they that Worship him now, do Worship Him in Spirit and in Truth; The Privilege of being admitted into God's House, and to stand before His Presence in the Actual Celebration of Gospel Ordinances, being now Entailed only upon the Spiritual Seed, even such who as lively Stones are built up a Spiritual House, a Holy Priesthood to offer up Spiritual Sacrifices acceptable to God, by Jesus Christ. 1. Pet. 2. 3. 4. Or such at least as make a visible Profession thereof.  
And therefore, when this New, and more Spiritual Dispensation was now about actually to be Introduced into the World; John, who was the Harbinger of it, giveth sufficient notice thereof, and to this purpose deals plainly with the Jews, the Pharisees and the Sadduces that came to be Baptised of him; And tells them upon this Account, Mat. 3. 9 Think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our Father: For I say unto you that God is able of these Stones to raise up Children unto Abraham. And now also the Axe is laid unto tho Root of the Trees; therefore every Tree that bringeth not forth good Fruit, is hewn down and cast into the Fire. It cannot be denied but that they had Abraham to their Father as much now as before; only the terms of their standing in the Church were now changed: So that now every Tree of whatsoever Natural Stock, or External Production, that bringeth not forth good Fruit must be hewn down. And the Reason is rendered for that Now the Axe is laid unto the Root of the Trees. Mark it, [Now] 'tis so; It was not so before. The Axe was never till now laid at the Root of the Trees; which must needs be understood in reference to that Birth Privilege before spoken of, which they had so long boasted of, as the whole Context shows. But now God is resolved to make other manner of Work of it, under the Gospel Dispensation than he did before. Now the Root of the Trees must belevelled at. A bare natural Descent, or Extraction from a Religious Root, will not now serve turn, as in times past it did, to give any right or title to Church Privileges.  
Whereas therefore Mr. Allen doth endeavour to demonstrate that the Jewish Church was as Pure and Spiritual in its Frame and Constitution as that of the Gospel, it doth from hence most plainly appear that there is a vast difference between them, in respect of the manner of their Constitution, or the terms upon which the Members of either were to be admitted. And as there is no particular Person in the World, whether before or since, that can pretend unto the like Privilege, or Prerogative as Abraham had, to be the Father of the Faithful; whose Natural Seed also were dignified with many External Privileges: So the Dispensation being now changed, and the Privileges that once belonged unto Abraham's Natural Seed being now Repealed, or rather expired: There is therefore no just claim that henceforth can be duly made unto any other of a like signification under the Gospel, by the Natural Posterity of any Believer whatsoever, but such alone as are found actually bearing and bringing forth the same Fruits of Faith and Holiness that Abraham did, or such at least as make a visible Profession of the same.  
As for the latter part of Mr Allen's Discourse, Wherein he labours to prove the Lawfulness of Imposing other Ceremonies in the Management of God's Worship, beside what himself hath appointed. In order to the Refutation of this Assertion of his, there needs no more to be done than attentively to give heed unto the Words of the Commission given by Christ to his Apostles, and in them, unto all true Church Guides, or Governors unto the end of the World; to this purpose; as it is Recorded. Mat. 28. 19 20. Go Teach all Nations. etc. Teaching them to Observe all things whatsoever I have Commanded you, and lo I am with you always, etc. Where we are to Note, that he saith not that they should teach them to Observe all things in the matters of his Worship which the Church Governors should hereafter Judge Decent or Convenient: But whatsoever I have Commanded. that is either by himself or his Apostles. Which words must of necessity be Exclusive of all humane Inventions, or Additions to the Worship of God; For that he hath frequently discovered his severest Displeasure against his People of Old, for their Presumption in adding those things to His Worship which He Commanded not. A Lively Instance whereof we have in the Case of Nadab and Abihu, in their Offering up of strange Fire, Leu. 10. 1, 2, 3, The Punishment Inflicted on whom was not for doing what was Expressly forbidden; but for their Presumption in doing that which God had not Commanded. In Matters purely Civil, 'tis true, We are to Submit to Every Ordinance of Man for the Lord's Sake; and that even in such things as are not expressly Commanded, provided they be not some way or other forbidden in the Word. But as for the matters of God's Worship, We have no such Rule, but rather the contrary: Render therefore to Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto GOD, the things that are GOD's. Mat. 22. 21. God having above all things expressed His Jealousy concerning the same, and hath frequently given Testimonies of his severest Displeasure against His People because of their Presumptuous Additions thereunto. Witness. Deut. 12. 32. and 18. 20. Prov. 30. 6. Ezek. 43. 8. Mat. 15. 9 Exod. 39 43. And among the rest to this purpose; Remarkable is that Reprehension given by our Saviour unto the Scribes and Pharisees; when he tells them that their Worship of this kind was but vain Worship. Mark 7. 7. 8. Howbeit, in vain do they Worship me, Teaching for Doctrines the Commandments of Men. For laying aside the Commandment of God, ye hold the Tradition of Men, as the washing of Pots and Cups; and many other such like things ye do. And he said unto them, ver. 9 Full well ye reject the Commandment of God, that ye may keep your own Tradition.  
Neither indeed is there any Power on Earth that hath Authority sufficient to Innovate, or Institute any thing in the Worship of God; the highest Government that Christ hath ordained in His Church being but of a Subordinate and Ministerial Property; and therefore not Absolute, but limited in its Commands by the Word of God. Deut. 12. 32. Whatsoever I command you, Observe to do it, thou shalt not add thereunto nor diminish from it. Deut. 18. 20. The Prophet that shall speak a Word in my Name, that I have not commanded, even that Prophet shall Die. Ezek. 43. 7, 8. Son of Man, the place of my Throne, and the place of the Soles of my Feet, where I will dwell in the midst of the Children of Israel for ever; and my Holy Name shall the House of Israel no more defile, neither they nor their Kings, by their Whoredom, nor by the Carcases of their Kings in their high Places; In their setting of their Threshold by my Thresholds, and their Post by my Posts. In the Work of the Tabernacle of Old nothing was to be Superadded, but what God had Expressly appointed. Exod. 39 43. And the Reason is the same in the Gospel Ministration.  
But by way of Opposition hereunto, is that general direction of the Apostle urged, 1 Cor. 14▪ 40. Let all things be done decently and in order. From whence it is Inferred that whatsoever Church Governors shall Judge decent and orderly in God's Worship, aught to be submitted unto.  
We Answer; That this cannot be justly Inferred from these Words for the following Reasons.  
For First, To Worship GOD in a way that is not decent and orderly according to Scripture Rule, is manifestly our Sin. 1 Cor. 14. 40. But to Worship Him in the use of those enjoined Ceremonies, is to Worship Him in a way not decent and orderly according to Scripture Rule, Therefore so to do would be manifestly our Sin.  
The Major is proved; the Minor is thus proved.  
If to Worship GOD in the use of such Ceremonies be decent and orderly according to Scripture Rule; then to Worship Him without such Ceremonies is not to Worship GOD decently and orderly, according to Scripture Rule: For one Rule cannot make the same Worship, decent and undecent, orderly and disorderly.  
But to Worship Him without the use of these Ceremonies is to Worship Him decently and orderly, according to Scripture Rule; the Apostles and Primitive Christians Worshipping Him decently and orderly without them; Ergo, etc.  

Second Argument.  
To part with our Christian Liberty purchased for us by the Blood of CHRIST, is our Sin. But to submit unto the Injunction of such Indifferent things, is to part with our Christian Liberty. Therefore so to do is our Sin.  
The Major is undeniable, from Gal. 5. 1. Stand fast therefore in the Liberty wherewith Christ hath made us Free; and be not entangled again with the Yoke of Bondage.  
The Minor is Evident from Scripture. 1 Cor. 7. 23. Ye are Bought with a Price, be not ye the Servants of Men. And from Reason: For all Actions fall into these three Classes, viz. Things Commanded, Things Forbidden, and Things Indifferent. In the two former we have no Liberty; it remains therefore our Liberty must consist wholly in the Latter, and to submit to the Injunction of those things as necessary, is to part with that, and consequently with all our Liberty; which would therefore be our Sin.   

Third Argument.  
To Derogate from Christ's Honour and Royal Authority is manifestly our Sin. But to submit to the Imposition of unnecessary Rites in the Worship of God by the Authority of Man, is to derogate from the Honour and Royal Authority of Christ: Therefore to submit to their Imposition is Sin.  
The Minor only needing Proof hath it abundantly, from all those Scriptures that Assert Christ to be the only Lord and Lawgiver to His Church. Mat. 23. 8. Be ye not called Rabbi: For One is your Master, even Christ. Jam. 4. 12. There is One Lawgiver who is able to Save and to Destroy. And all those Scriptures that Assert the Plenitude and Perfection of His Laws for Government. Heb. 3. 5. 6. Moses verily was Faithful in all his House as a Servant: But Christ as a Son over His own House, etc. 2 Tim. 3. 16, 17. All Scripture is given by Inspiration of GOD, and is profitable for Doctrine, for Reproof, for Correction, for Instruction in Righteousness: That the Man of GOD may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good Works. And by all those Scriptures which Condemn the Observance of any Religious Rites, Imposed by any other Authority. 2 Col. 21, 22, 23. Touch not, Taste not, Handle not; which all are to Perish with the using, after the Commandments and Doctrines of Men. Which things have indeed a show of Will-worship and Humility, etc. Mark, 7. 7. For laying aside the Commandment of God, ye hold the Tradition of Men, as the Washing of Pots and Cups: and many other such like things ye do.   

Fourth Argument.  
To cross the Imitable Example of Christ in our Practice is Sin: But to submit to the Imposition of things Indifferent, though by Men in a Lawful Authority, is to cross the Imitable Example of Christ. Therefore so to do would be our Sin.  
The Major is plain from all those Precepts that make it our Duty to follow Treading in His Steps. 1 Pet. 2. 21. To Walk as He Walked. 1 John, 2. 6. To be followers of God a● dear Children. Ephe. 5. 1.  
The Minor is as Evident from Mat. 15. 2, 3, 11, 13. Washing of Hands there spoken of, was an Indifferent Ceremony. The Authority Commanding it was Lawful, the Elders, or Sanhedrim, who at this time were not only their Ecclesiastical but Civil Rulers: Besides, the Argument from Decency to Induce it; yet all these Motives, in a thing so Innocent and Small as that was, could not prevail with our Saviour to quit His Liberty of Eating with unwashed hands; calls them Superstitious and Blind Guides who were offended at him; And Justifies His Disciples non Compliance by 3 Arguments! First that it was and Un-Scriptural Tradition, ver. 9 In vain do they Worship me, Teaching for Doctrines the Commandments of Men. Secondly; That the neglect of it Inferred no Moral Evil; That these things did not defile a Man. i. e. as to his Mind and Conscience. v. 11. Thirdly; That it being not of God's Appointing, must be plucked up. ver. 13. Every Plant which my Heavenly Father hath not Planted, shall be rooted up. Whereby our Saviour intimates, that as the Pharisees had no Divine Warrant to prescribe such a Toy as that was, so God would at last declare His Indignation against their Supererogatory Worship, by pulling it up Root and Branch. From whence we gather this Rule; That when once Humane Inventions become Impositions, and lay a Necessity upon that, which God hath left free; then may we Lawfully reject them, as Plants of Man's Setting, and not of GOD's owning.  
To Conclude; The Apostles praised the Corinthians for that they had kept the Ordinances as he delivered them. 1 Cor. 11. 1. 2. For surely GOD is more Jealous of His Honour, and tender of His Worship, than to leave it to our Pleasure, to Invent or to Add what we shall Judge Decent thereunto, beyond what Himself hath prescribed. And though 'tis true he hath not in so many Words Expressly forbidden the things in Controversy between us; yet he hath in all Ages testified His Dislike; yea, Abhorrency of Will Worship; and that for this very Reason, because He had not Commanded it, nor ever came it into His Mind. So Jer. 7. 31. Chap. 19 5. and 32, 35. Deut. 12. 32. And so likewise in that  Scripture, Ezek. 43. 8. Where God discovers His severe Displeasure against His People of Old, not for neglecting any part of His Worship which He had Commanded them: But for their Presumption in adding something to His Worship which He had not Commanded. In setting their Threshold by GOD's Threshold, and their Post by GOD's Posts. It appears not that they justled out any thing that GOD required; but only thought fit to Join something of their Own therewith: But for this very Reason must they be Consumed in GOD's Anger, as the following Words declare.  
Certain it is, that this very Principle is that which hath brought in all the Popish Ceremonies into the Romish Church: It cannot be denied that those things which Christ or His Apostles have expressly Commanded, we are to Receive and Practice, as they have Comwanded them: But if any others shall take upon them to appoint unto men's Consciences any Rite or Ceremony, on their own Conceived Reason, because they are such things as themselves do reckon decent or comely in the Worship of God; It is an high Presumption in such against Christ; and against the Apostles Command, to yield Obedience thereunto. Col. 2. 20. Though it hath a show of Wisdom. ver. 23. And not only doth the Apostles Example. Gal. 2. 3, 4, 5. bind us to 〈◊〉 it; but in the Name of Our Lord Jesus Christ are we Commanded to withdraw ourselves from such disorderly Walkers. 2 Thess. 3. 6. Now we Command you Brethren, in the Name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every Brother that walketh Disorderly, and not after the Tradition which he received of us.    

THE SECOND PART.  
Containing a Distinct and more Particular Consideration of the Arguments drawn from Rom. 11. 16, 17. Together with all other the most Material Arguments which are usually urged for the Support of Infant's Baptism.  
WE shall begin with those Arguments which are drawn from Rom. 11. 16, 17. Where the Apostle tells us; That if the First Fruit be Holy, the Lump is also Holy. And if the Root be Holy so are the Branches. And if some of the Branches be broken off, and thou being a Wild Olive Tree wert graffed in among them, and with them partakest of the Root and Fatness, of the Olive Tree, boast not against the Branches, etc. From whence 'tis urged; That We Gentiles have now the same Graffing into the true Olive which the Jews formerly had; and that our graffing is Answerable to their present Casting out. Now when they were taken in, they and their Children were taken in. When they were broken off, they and their Children were broken off. And therefore if our graffing in be answerable to theirs, We and our Children are graffed in together.  
To this we Reply; That the Incision, or Engraffing here Spoken of, may be either into the Visible, or Invisible Church. The graffing in may be either by Faith, or by Profession of Faith, or by Some outward Ordinance. Children may be either grown Men, or Infants. The graffing in may be either certain or probable. Certain, either by reason of Election, the Covenant of Grace made unto them, or their Natural birth, being Children of Believers. Probable, as being likely, either because frequently, or for the most part it happens so; though not necessary and so not certain. The thing that is to be proved is; That all the Infants of every Believer, are in the Covenant of Free Grace in Christ, and by Virtue thereof to be Baptised into the Communion of the Visible Church. Now it may be granted that Infants of Believers are frequently or for the most part under the Election and Covenant of Grace, and so in the Invisihle Church (which whether it be so or no, no mere Man can tell) And yet it not follow that every Infant of a Believer, in as much as he is the Child of a Believer, is under the Covenant of Grace, and therefore by Baptism is to be admitted into the visible Church. Now let it be never so probable that God continues His Election in the Posterity of Believers, and accordingly hath promised to be their God in the Covenant of Grace; yet if this be the Rule of Baptising, than the Infants of Believers only and no other are to be Baptised: For the Practice must agree with the Rule. And so not all Infants of Believers neither, are to be Baptised, but the Elect in the Covenant of Grace only. If it be said, But we are to Judge all to be Elected, and in the Covenant of Grace, till the contrary appears. We Answer, That we are not to Judge all to be Elected, or in the Covenant of Grace, because we have the Declaration of GOD's Mind to the contrary. Rom. 9 6, 7, 8. And all Experience proves the contrary to be true. Nor is the Administration of an Outward Ordinance, Instituted by God according to such a Rule as is not possible to be known; but according to that which is manifest to the Ministers of it. And therefore since God conceals His Purpose of Election, and the Covenant of Grace which is Congruous to it, in respect of the Persons Elected; It is certain God would not have this the Rule according to which outward Ordinances are to be Administered.  
But it is Urged, That our Graffing into the Olive Tree, the Church, is Answerable to that of the Jews. Now their Infants were Graffed in by Circumcision, and therefore ours are to be Graffed in by Baptism.  
Reply. Can we indeed think that the Apostle here means by Graffing in, Baptism, or Circumcision; or an Incision by an outward Ordinance? If that were the meaning, then breaking off must be meant of Vncircumcising, or Vnbaptizing. The whole Context speaks of the Election of some, and the Rejection of others: Of the Breaking off by Unbelief, and the Standing by Faith: And therefore the Graffing must be meant of the Invisible Church, by Election and Faith; which Invisible Church was first among the Jews, and therefore called the Olive, out of Abraham the Root, who is therefore said to bear them. And because Abraham had a double Capacity; one of a Natural Father, and the other of the Father of the Faithful: In respect of his former Capacity, some are called Branches according to Nature. In respect of his latter Capacity, others are called Wild Olives by Nature, yet Graffed in by Faith. And therefore when it is said that some of the Natural Branches were broken off, the meaning is not, that some of the Branches in the Invisible Church may be broken off: But it is plainly to be understood in reference to the Natural Branches only; that is, of such alone who had nothing but their Natural Pedigree, or descent from Abraham as a Natural Father to insist upon. And in this respect it is expressly told us, that some of the Natural Branches only were broken off: For some of them were Branches in both respects, and accordingly were not broken off; but we Believing Gentiles are said to be Graffed in amongst them, and with them are partakers of the Root and Fatness of the Olive Tree.  
If you say then, that the Gentiles have now the same Graffing into the true Olive, which tho Jews formerly had; We must Remember that known and allowed Distinction, Concerning the Substance of the Covenant, and the Administration of it. Now it is true that in respect of the Substance of the Covenant, we have the same Graffing in to the Olive, the Church of the Faithful, of which Abraham is the Root, that the Believing Jews had: And so we by Faith are said to be made Partakers of the Root and Fatness of the Olive Tree: Or in plainer Terms, as the Apostle Phraseth it. Eph. 3. 6. We are now made Fellow Heirs, and of the same Body, and partakers of his Promise in Christ, through the Gospel. In respect of which all Believing Gentiles are Abraham's Seed, the Israel of God, One in Christ. But if you mean it of the Outward Administration of this Engraffing, by Circumcision or Baptism; nothing is more untrue: For indeed the Outward Administration which then was, is utterly taken away, removed, and changed; It being that which whilst it stood was the Ground of a Separation between the Jews and the Gentiles. And it is therefore taken away on this very purpose, that the Enmity betwixt Jews and Gentiles might be removed, and they made One in Christ by his Death.  
And if you say that our present Graffing In must be answerable to their present Casting Out. It is true, our present Graffing In, is answerable to their (or rather for their) Casting out. That is, GOD would supply in His Olive Tree the Church, the casting away of the Jews, by the Calling of the Gentiles, who are now by Faith Graffed in among the Remaining Believing Jews, who continued as yet unbroken off: But it doth not therefore follow that the Infants of Believing Gentiles are Graffed In together with themselves, as the Jewish Infants were; because uncapable of making that Profession of Faith which the Gospel now requires.  
But it is further Urged, that if the Fruit be Holy, the Lump is also Holy. And if the Root be Holy, so are the Branches As for that of the Root, it is variously Conceived by Interpreters, some understanding thereby the Covenant to be meant; some Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; and some Abraham only; which last, in its proper Sense, I Conceive to be most Genuine. Whereas therefore the Apostle tells us, that the first Fruit is Holy; the Lump Holy, The Root Holy, and the Branches Holy: From whence some would Infer a derivative Holiness from the Parents to the Children; that is, the Father being Holy, and accepted in Covenant with GOD, the Children are so too, being Beloved for the Father's Sake. The Truth is, the Holiness the Apostle speaks of, is First in respect of GOD's Election, Holiness Personal; and Inherent in GOD's Intention. He hath chosen us, that we should be Holy. Eph. 1. 4. Secondly, It is also Holiness derivative or descending, but not from any Ancestors but from Abraham only; and that not as a Natural,, but as a Spiritual Father, or the Father of the Faithful, wherein he was a Lively Image or Figure of Christ Himself; and is derived from the Covenant of Grace which passed in his Name to him and to his Seed. And Lastly, It shall be Inherent, being actually Communicated by the Spirit of GOD, when they shall be actually Called. And this is such a kind of Holiness, as is more than a bare Adherent or Relative Holiness; being also inherent by Faith, whereby they are Holy as the Root is Holy.  
Now whereas you understand it to be the Case of any Believers to be a Holy Root to their Posterity: This is not true: For in the Apostles Resemblance, Abraham only is a Holy Root, in whose Name the Covenant runs: No other Man, though a Believer, being the Father of the Faithful but Abraham only; And the whole Body of Believers is compared to the Olive, and each Believer to a Branch that partakes of the Root and Fatness of the Olive Tree; not in outward Dispensations only, but in Saving Graces also; which indeed is mainly here intended: For it cannot rationally be Supposed that by the Fatness of the Olive Tree we are to understand any External Privilege whatsoever in its self, belonging to us or ours: For that of itself would be but a dry, a barren, and a sapless Advantage: But by the Fatness of the Olive Tree, we are certainly to understand that Spiritual Benefit and Advantage that from Christ is to be Communicated or Derived unto us, who was indeed herein Represented by Abraham, who is to this purpose therefore called the Friend of God, and the Father of the Faithful: And whose Prerogative herein no other Man, though a Believer, whether before or since, could ever justly pretend unto.  
But whereas it is yet further Urged; That the Church of the Jews, and that of the Gentiles is still the same; that is, It is still the same Visible Church now, that it was then. And so much (say you) the Apostles Simile or Metaphor of Engraffing will bear, or it signifies nothing. And if the visible Church be the same, Why should not the Subjects be the same, viz. Children, and the Privilege be the same, viz. an External Badge and Cognisance given to the Children of the Church now, as well as under the Law?  
We Answer; That true it is, the Church of the Jews and that of the Gentiles is one and the same, in reference to the true Essence, or Inward Substance of either: In which respect, as we have said before▪ the Believing Gentiles (according to the Apostles Metaphor) are here said to be Graffed in amongst them, and with them to be made Partakers of the Root and Fatness of the Olive Tree. And in reference hereunto, it is rightly added by the Apostle; that the Gifts and Callings of God are without Repentance; The Inward Substance of the Church, and of the Covenant of Grace whereon 'tis Founded, being Invariable and that which shall remain for ever . But it doth not therefore follow that there should be no Alteration, in respect of the Outward Form, or Administration of either: For in this Respect, as hath been already proved, there is a wide Difference between them: For barely to be of the Natural Seed of Abraham was sufficient to be admitted a Member of the Jewish Church; but not so under the Gospel, unless we be of the Seed of Abraham according to the Spirit. And till this be Evidenced, neither therefore doth the External Badge or Cognisance belong unto us.  
And thus it may appear, that this Illustrious Scripture is very much darkened, by applying that Holiness and Incision here spoken of, to Outward Dispensations only in the visible Church; which is meant of Saving Graces in the Invisible by Faith. And whilst you make every Believer a like Root to his Posterity, as Abraham the Father of the Faithful was to his; Since no Believer in the World, whether before or since, had ever the like Privilege or Prerogative conferred upon him, to be Called the Father of the Faithful, as Abraham was.  
But for the further support of Infant's Baptism, It is Objected.  
First, That since Infants stood visible Members of the Church for 2000 Years under the Legal Administration; It is unlikely they should be now Excluded.  
To this we Answer; First, That they stood Excluded altogether as much, above 2000 Years before Circumcision, as they do now: So that an Ordinance for their Church-member-ship was not so from the Beginning; but came in by special Institution long since.  
Secondly, The other Administration in which they stood, was Established with a Seed to be Propagated by Natural Generation according to express Command. Gen. 17. 9, 10. Thou shalt keep my Covenant therefore, thou and thy Seed after thee in their Generations. Verse 10. This is my Covenant which ye shall keep— Every Manchild among you shall be Circumcised. But where have we Command for the like in this Administration? For though it should be granted that the Believing Gentiles are intended as the proper Subjects of the general Obligation mentioned Verse 9 which yet cannot be for the Reasons given in the latter part of this Discourse upon that Subject. Yet the Baptism of Infants cannot thence be justly Inferred: For there God only saith; Thou shalt keep my Covenant therefore, thou and tby Seed after thee in their Generations. It is true by the Seed there spoken of, you understand the Spiritual Seed in the Gospel Day; and by keeping the Covenant, their keeping it in the proper Sign of it belonging to the Gospel, that is, Baptism: But where lies the Ground for Infant's Baptism in all this? Is there a Syllable there concerning Infants that they also must be Signed? To keep the Sign of GOD's Covenant (say you) is to wear it themselves, and to put it upon all theirs: The Believing Gentiles are to keep the Sign of GOD's Covenant: Therefore the Believing Gentiles are to wear it themselves, and to put it upon all theirs. But who told you so? Or what Scripture is there that proves that thus stands the Case with the Believing Gentiles? That is, that they are not only to wear the Sign of the Covenant themselves, but to put it upon all theirs? All that you can prove, is, that thus it was with Abraham and His, under the former Administration; and when you can also prove that thus it must be now; you say something, otherwise all you say is Impertinent. The Covenant of Promise, 'tis true (Gen. 12. 2, 3. Gen. 22. 16, 17, 18.) is one and the same to them and to us; but the Covenant of Circumcision, Gen. 17. 7, 8, 9, was plainly Typical and Temporary; and in a Figure it Ministered unto the ends of the Everlasting Covenant. And therefore it sufficed as unto that Administration, if the People, the Children thereof were of the Natural Seed of Abraham; because by that shadowy Covenant, Young and Old, Good and Bad, were all alike Covenanters; and all alike in a Capacity to be the Subjects of an Administration, which was to serve unto the Example and Shadow of Heavenly things, till the Seed should come to whom the Promise was made. Gal. 3. 19 But the Gospel Administration, that brings Christ, and all the Mystery of His Grace, in the Truth and Reality, and not in the Figure and Example; is not Receptive of Children, as to the Principle upon which it stands, any other way than upon some visible Demonstration of Faith, whereby CHRIST comes to be received, who are therefore called the Sons of God. John 1. 12, 13. As many as Received Him, to them gave He Power; that is, the Right or Privilege to become the Sons of GOD; Even to them that Believe in His Name: Born not of Blood, nor of the Will of the Flesh, nor of the Will of Man, but of GOD. Thus the Apostle, Gal. 4. 28. Calls the Saints of the Churches of Galatia, Children of the Promise, in Opposition to the Seed according to the Flesh. Verse 7. 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. Whereunto many other Scriptures might be added; yea, the whole Stream of the New Testament witnesseth to a Seed ' according to Calling, and (as to the 〈◊〉 of their Admission) all Living Stones for the Constitution of the Church of GOD; and not one Word in Favour of a Seed according to the Flesh, as to Admission into the Church upon that Principle of Birth Privilege.  
We are told indeed, that the Believing Gentiles are now Graffed in, not upon the Legal Branch, but upon the Root Olive, which affordeth all the Nourishment that either the Jews had, or the Gentiles have. Which Root Olive is the Covenant of Promise, that was 430 Years before the Law. Now into that State of things (say you) wherein not the Law, but the Gospel Preached unto Abraham, did Obtain: God was a GOD, not only to the Father, but to the Children; yea to all his Family. And the Father of the Family did not only give Himself, but all his Children, and even his Servants, all His to GOD, to take his Sign upon them, and so it must be now.  
To which We Reply; that it is indeed the unspeakable Blessedness of the Believing Gentiles, to be Graffed in upon such a Stock; not upon the Legal Branch, but upon the Root Olive, which affordeth all the Nourishment, that either the Jews had or the Gentiles have; that Root Olive being no other than Christ Himself; who was given for a Covenant of the People, and a Light to Lighten the Gentiles. The Gospel of whose Grace was indeed Preached to Abraham 430 Years at least, before the Law was given. But what then? Doth it therefore follow that the Believing Gentiles are put into that very State of things as under Circumcision? Where is that Scripture that affirms it? Evident it is that though Circumcision was in use before, as well as under the Law; and though Jesus Christ Himself is by the Apostle Styled, the Minister of the Circumcision, for the Truth of God, to confirm the Promises made unto the Fathers; yet as it cannot be denied, but that it was adopted into the Legal Family: And that it was also adopted unto the Nature and Quality of the Legal Dispensation: So it is as evident that it is now Abolished. And we can meet with no one Text in all the New Testament that tells us that Baptism is appointed to have the same Place and Use in the Church of God that Circumcision had; but rather much to the contrary, as hath been already proved. And it being manifest that the External Administration of the Covenant is changed, to what it was in Abraham's Time, it plainly follows that there is an Alteration of the Rule that must direct us in our Practice in that Respect.  
Obj. 2. If this Interpretation hold good, there would be a very great Change in the Extent of the Covenant; narrower under the Gospel, than it was under the Law; and yet no notice in all the Book of God given of such a Change.  
We Reply. First, That the Covenant of Grace, hath one and the same Extent, before, under, and since the Law, in Respect of the Substance of it, or considered singly in its self, as hath been already declared. In Respect of the Administration of it; indeed it is Changedble, and hath been often Changed.  
Secondly, we say, that the Administration under the Gospel, is not narrower, than that under the Law, because it admits not Infant's Baptism. The Administration under the Law was Circumscribed to a little Land, and a small People; the Bounds of the other are stretched from Sea to Sea, and from the River to the ends of the Earth. That was restrained to the Seed and Family of Abraham; the other extends to the Seed and Family of Christ. That had its Existence but 2000 Years, upon an Occasional, Temporary Principle; the other is suited to Answer a Principle existing from Everlasting to Everlasting. That Administration was the Shadow, Figure, and Example; the other, the Substance. That was the Handmaid, the other the Mistress. And if the Case be thus between these two Administrations, can we Reasonably Charge the Gospel Administration with more narrowness than the Law, because of the Discontinuance of the Birth-Priviledge?  
Thirdly. Although the Grace of the Gospel be extended far beyond the Grace under the Law; yet as to Persons, the Children of the Gospel, are form to so strict, and refined a Qualification; that in that Respect, we grant that the Law had a Latitude beyond the Gospel: But yet with this Mark; that the Indulgence of the Law was one of the great Imperfections, which the Gospel came to Reform. Mat. 3. 10, 11, 12. And of this Change, the Book of God doth give abundant Notice. Gen. 21. 10. Cast out the Bondwoman, and her Son, etc. Shortly after the Institution of the Ordinance of Circumcision, for the Privilege of the Seed according to the Flesh. The Lord brings forth a Prophetical Instance in the very Family of Abraham, wherein this great Change of Church Privilege, was revealed, viz. That it was to be taken from the Carnal Seed, and that it should be given to the Seed according to Grace, under the Gospel Administration. And to put that matter out of Question, we have the unvailing of this Prophetical Instance to the very same purpose, in Gal. 4. 30. So also, Isa. 14. 1. Sing O Barren, thou that bearest not. What she was the Apostle tells us. Gal. 4. 26, 27. ver. 5. Thy Maker is thy Husband, the Lord of Hosts is his Name, and thy Redeemer the Holy One of Israel. At ver. 13. We have the Refined Qualification of her Children and People. And all thy Children shall be Taught of the Lord: Where we have a Prophetical Description of the Gospel Church State, which the People of a Fleshly Extraction only, from the most sanctified Saints, cannot possible compare unto. It must therefore necessarily be understood of another Seed, even of a Seed begotten of God, by the Word of Truth. Jam. 1. 18. the Gospel People. And this was a fair Notice given of the Change in Question; to wit, narrower as to the Qualifications of the Persons, but more extended in Grace. Another fair warning for the Fleshly Seed; is, Isa. 65. 15. For the Lord God shall slay thee, and call his People by another Name. In all which, we find plain notice given of the Change of the Old Administration, which gloried in the Seed of Abraham, after the Flesh; and as plainly foretelling the Cessation of that Propagation, to give place to the New Administration, and the true Seed of Abraham, the Seed according to the Spirit. And indeed, the Change of the Administration, necessarily removes the fleshly Seed, because it hath a standing by no other Right, than what it had under that Covenant.  
As for the New Testament, it every where abounds with Evidence to the Proof hereof, as appears from the several Scriptures that have in part been already opened and discussed, in the former part of this Discourse: Wherein it hath been proved, that though Infants were comprehended with their Parents in the Jewish Church; yet none but such as are capable of making an Actual Profession of Faith and Repentance, with some competent Measure of Fruitfulness, answerable thereunto, are to be admitted to the Privilege of Church-Membership, under the Gospel. To this purpose we are told. Mat. 3. 7. That when many of the Pharisees and Sadduces came to be Baptised of John: Though their being of the Natural Seed of Abraham, was a sufficient ground why they should be Circumcised; yet it was no sufficient ground why they should be Baptised: And therefore their Birth-Priviledge notwithstanding, John rejects them as a Generation of Vipers, and bids them bring forth Fruits meet for Repentance. 'Tis true, those that John had now to deal with were Men at Age, and such also as were exceedingly Debauched, and Vicious in their Conversations: But than it must be withal considered, that we Read of none at Age that were rejected upon any such Account from Corcumcision, which is a clear Argument of the Change of the Administration, and that the terms of Admission into the Gospel-Church, were far stricter now than they were before. And to take off their former Plea, he deals therefore plainly with them upon that Account, And tells them, ver. 9 Think not to say within yourselves, we have Abraham to our Father; for God is able of Stones to raise up Children unto Abraham. And now also, the Axe is laid unto the Root of the Trees, therefore, every Tree which bringeth not forth good Fruit is hewn down; which hath been already explained to be clearly Exclusive of a mere Carnal Seed, or a Seed barely after the Flesh, in respect of Gospel Church Ordinances: For upon that Account, the Axe is here said to be laid unto the Root of the Trees.  
And as plainly doth the Spirit of God by the Apostle, give us an Account of the Exclusion of the Fleshly Seed, in that respect; when he tells us as he doth, 2 Cor. 5. 16, 17. Wherefore, henceforth know we no Man after the Flesh, etc. For if any Man be in Christ, he is a New Creature, Old things are passed away, all things are become New; which hath been already distinctly explained to the same purpose: Together, with Rom. 11. 17. 24. Where he tells us, that the Natural Branches are broken off, And that the Gentiles have their Standing in the Church, only by Faith. And no where doth the New-Testament Countenance that conceit, that our Posterity have any Right of standing as Members of the Christian Church, by Virtue of our Faith: But we ourselves must stand by our Faith, and they (if they have any) by their own: Otherwise, they are of course excluded; The Natural Branches being now broken off, and no others in their Room, barely as such, according to Gospel Rule, to be admitted to Gospel Ordinances.  
But against this it is Objected; That as the same Church continued under the Gospel, which did exist, or was in being before: So the very same Church Members kept their places and standing in it, which were of it before; except such as were broken off by Unbelief; which must not (say you) be understood in Reference to the Little Children of the Believing Jews, unless it can be made out that their Little Children were guilty also of the same Sin of Unbelief, upon the Account of which, others were thus broken off.  
To this we Reply. First, that as it is Evident that the Children of the unbelieving Jews, are to this day, together with their Parents, broken off and unchurched (which can be upon no other Account, than because of the Personal Unbelief, both of the Parents and Children: For they have both of them Believing Abraham to their Father, as much now as before) So it is as Evident, that the same Sin of Unbelief, was as justly Chargeable upon the Children of those of them that did believe, until wrought upon as their Parents were by the Preaching of the Word. And by Reason hereof it was that all sorts of Little Children, as well as those at Age, that were destitute of actual Faith, were now to be broken off from the Gospel Church. For though 'tis true, the Children of the Believing Jews, and the Children of the unbelieving Jews also, were upon the bare Account of their Relation to Abraham, only, by the Express Command of God, under the former Administration, admitted to a State of Church Membership, their Unbelief notwithstanding: (For whether they were Believers or no, was not at all any Matter of Enquiry, in Respect either of the Parents, or the Children, as to a State of Church-Membership then) yet as hath been already proved, the Case is now altered: A New Law, and a New Church-State, (in Respect of the External Administration thereof,) was now to take place in the World: So that the terms of their former standing in the Church would not suffice for their standing now: For nothing short of Actual Faith and Repentance, or an External Profession thereof, could be now sufficient; which Qualifications not being to be found in Young Infants, whether those of Believers, or those of unbelievers; they were therefore both broken off, as well the one, as the other of them.  
Secondly, In this Respect therefore it ought to be duly considered, that the Holy Scripture doth conclude us all, by Nature, to be in a state of Unbelief, and Children of wrath, as well as others; and such we continue from our Infancy, till converted, and wrought upon by the Grace of the Gospel. A vain thing it is therefore to pretend unto a Faith wrought in us from our Natural Birth, as the Seed of Believers: For Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God. Rom. 10. 17. As the ordinary means by which it is wrought in us. And this way of Conveyance, little Infants, as well those of Believers, as those of unbelievers being uncapable of; they are therefore all of them, till then, to be reckoned as the Scripture concludes them, in a state of Unbelief. Rom. 11. 32. And this being the true state of the Case; No wonder if the Children of Believers, as well as others, were broken off from the Olive Tree, the Church, the terms of standing therein being now altered, as hath been declared.  
Mr. Allen indeed also tells us; that since the Jewish Infants were under the former Administration, at the Call, Election, and Appointment of God, admitted with their Parents, as Visible Members of the Jewish Church: And since the Gifts and Callings of God are without Repentance, Rom. 11. 29. We have Reason therefore to conclude, that the Infants of Christian Parents have the same Right to a Visible Church-Membership now, as theirs had then.  
But then Mr. Allen should have considered, that though the Gifts and Callings of God are indeed without Repentance, in respect of the Inward Substance of the Covenant of Grace: Or of an Invisible Membership, in the Invisible Church; yet it doth not therefore follow, that they are without Repentance, in Respect of an External Membership in the Visible Church; but are and were Repealable, as by sad Experience it is found to be too true, by the main Body of the Jewish Nation, Children and all, who by Reason of their Unbelief, are actually, and undeniably, both Parents and Children also, un-churched, broken off, and rejected to this very day. True it is as the Apostle also tells us; if they abide not still in Unbelief, they shall be graffed in again. And he there also tells us, God is both able and willing so to do: But then we must also remember, that as they and their Children were both broken off because of Unbelief; upon which very Account, they do both still continue broken off to this very day: So therefore as a Just and a Necessary Consequence of the former; it will also naturally follow, that it is only by the Actual Faith of both Parents and Children, as an Instrumental means, by which either of them, shall be blessed with that their desired Restauration.  
And this may serve also for a Confutation of that Groundless and Unscriptural conceit of Mr. Allen; when he affirms that the Infants of Believers are Abraham's Spiritual Seed, and that upon this Account it was that they were admitted to the Privilege of Church-Membership under the Law. For thus he tells us; If such Infants are as much of the Church; and as much Abraham's Spiritual Seed, as ever Infants in the Old Testament-Church were; then they can be no more uncapable than they were of a solemn Admission into the Church, by the Ordinance of Initiation for the time being, as Baptism is now, and as Circumcision was then. But this which Mr. Allen takes here for granted, and is indeed the Foundation of his Argument, we utterly deny, as not having been at all proved, nor indeed can be proved by him, or any other; to wit, That the Infants of Believers have any where in Scripture, the Denomination of Abraham's Spiritual Seed. This is a most certain Truth, that as Abraham himself had a double Capacity, one of a Natural Father, the other, the Father of the Faithful: So he had a twofold Seed. For First, he had a Seed that proceeded from him, according to the Course of Natural Generation only. And Secondly, some were his Natural and Spiritual Seed also; such as was Isaac, and all the Faithful, who proceeded from Abraham's Loins. To which, we must add a Third sort, and that is, all true Believers, or the Elect of God in all Nations, who by Virtue of their Interest in Christ, have also in Scripture, the Denomination of Abraham's Seed, who yet can lay no claim to Abraham as their Father, according to the common Course of Nature. And to imagine that Abraham hath any Seed in any other Religious or Spiritual Consideration whatsoever under the Gospel, is to be wise above what is written: For (whatever the Jewish Children were,) to say that the Children of Christians are Relatively Holy, that they are Church-Members, and as much Christians externally, as the Children of the Jews were Jews externally, as some have suggested: All these are but unproved Figments, and Unscriptural Dictates. And therefore from hence to infer their Relation to Abraham as his Spiritual Seed; and thence that they are the proper Subjects of Baptism, is no other than to build a lofty Structure upon a Sandy Foundation. If then we shall affirm that the Infants of Believers now are Abraham's Seed, they must of Necessity come under one or another of these Heads. To say that they are so, in either of the two former Respects, cannot be at all pretended unto, if in the latter; neither can this with any shadow of Truth be affirmed: For thus it was not with all the Natural Seed of Abraham himself, as the Apostle expressly affirms. Rom. 9 7, 8. Neither (saith he) 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; these are not the Children of God, but the Children of the Promise are counted for the Seed. So likewise, Gal. 3. 29. If ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's Seed, and Heirs according to the Promise. Therefore to affirm that all the Infants of Believers are the Spiritual Seed of Abraham, as there is no Scripture that proves it, so it is directly contrary to the Scripture; and indeed, contrary to our own most common and obvious Experience; whilst we consider with all, that as for many of Abraham's own Natural Posterity, they are so far from being his Spiritual Seed, that as hath been already observed, together with their Children; they are Unchurched, broken off, and rejected by God, because of their Unbelief, to this very day: Which yet had not been, had they been the Spiritual, as well as the Natural Seed of Abraham: For sure it is altogether Inconsistent with the terms of the Covenant of Grace, the Gifts and Callings whereof are without Repentance, that Abraham's Spiritual Seed, or that such as are Members of the Invisible, as well as the Visible Church, should be at all cast off, rejected and forsaken as the Jews now are.  
Upon the whole therefore of our Answer to the forementioned Objection; That if this Interpretation hold good, there would be a great change in the extent of the Covenant, narrower under the Gospel than it was under the Law; and yet no notice in all the Book of God given of such a Change: We say that there is abundant notice given unto us, in the Book of God, and that both in the Old and New Testament also, concerning the change in question, viz. the disfranchisement of Infants, from their so long enjoyed Privilege of Church-Membership. We grant that under the Law they were admitted thereunto with their Parents: But the Scriptures already alleged, do abundantly prove their Exclusion under the Gospel Administration. Unto which we shall only at present add, Heb. 7. 12. For the Priesthood being changed, there is made of Necessity, a change also of the Law; which Change of the Law there spoken of, must needs include Circumcision, with all the Privileges and Appurtenances belonging to it. And therefore, as Infant's Church-Membership, came in with the Law of Circumcision; so it went out, and was Repealed with it.  
Objection 3. If this Interpretation be true, the Believing Jews should have loss upon their Repentance and Belief of the Gospel, if their Children formerly Church Members, should now be Excluded upon the Faith and Repentance of their Parents.  
To this we Answer; First, It is true that insome Sense a Jew converted to the Gospel should have loss; and particularly in that point of Signing his Fleshly Seed, by an Ordinance; together with the Fall of all the Glory of their Sanctuary, and pompous Priesthood, so much, and so long, the joy and boasting of that Nation: Which the Spirit of GOD foresaw and foretell. Isa. 8. 14. And hence it came to pass that Christ became so great an Offence, and the Gospel so sore a Stone of Stumbling, and Rock of Offence to them all; yea, even to many of them, after they had submitted to the Gospel: yea, the Gentile Churches were scarce, if at all, preserved from Stumbling hereat, with the Jews. But all this Loss, well considered, would amount to no more, than what befalls a Man, who from the Privileges of a Servant, is Invested into the Privileges of a Son. And this was the very Case. Gal. 4. 4. God sent forth His Son, etc. Verse 5. To redeem them that were under the Law, that we might receive the Adoption of Sons. Verse 7. Wherefore thou art no more a Servant, but a Son. And the Reason of this Change the Apostle plainly showeth us, Verse 23. He that was after the Bondwoman was Born after the Flesh, but He of the Freewoman was by Promise. There was an Infinite difference in the Propagation of the Seed of the former Church-state, and of the Seed of the Gospel-state; no less than between Nature and the power of God, as was in the Types Ishmael and Isaac.  
Secondly; Neither hath this Change brought any other loss upon the Child: But First, The Interest which it had in the Everlasting Covenant under the former Administration, it still retains. Secondly, The Benefits and Advantages which it had by the Parent, are so much bettered, by how much the Spiritual State of the Parent under the Gospel, by Baptism after Faith, is better ratified than under the Law. Thirdly, All other and further Benefits from the Covenant, are more freely and fully tendered, and with many enforcing Advantages brought near to be had and enjoyed. Fourthly, It is an Advantage, that as a Token of the Expiration of the Bondage Church State, their Signing upon the Natural Birth is also at an end; and their Signing into all these Privileges transferred to an Ordinance upon the visible Test of their New Birth: Without which no Word of GOD can be found to raise them to the visible Dignity and Prerogative of the Sons and Heirs of Sarah, the Gospel Covenant, or Administration.  
Thirdly. There is no Colour or Warrant from the Word of GOD, that Jesus Christ in the Day of His Appearing, did Establish any one Ordinance in the Church, which did Import a Communion in his Intercession, to be practicable duly, by a Person in an unregenerate State; or at least, that makes not an External Profession thereof.  
Object. 4. But what hope can we have of our Infants, if they must not be admitted unto Christian Baptism, nor reputed as Members of the Common Body and Church of the Faithful?  
We Answer: First, If the Hope of the Parent for the Child's Salvation be grounded upon the Administration of an Ordinance in Infancy; then neither had the Patriarches for above 2000 Years, Hope of their Children; which we find untrue by Noah's Prophecy, Gen. 9 26, 27.  
Secondly, We demand what Hopes are intended; and by what Scriptures the same are Annexed to the Administration of an Ordinance in Infancy?  
Thirdly, We justify a Holy Hope in Believers in behalf of their Children, which is grounded upon plain Scriptures without Infant Baptism.  
Fourthly, This Argument seemeth to carry in it this Conclusion, That Christian People by Infant's Baptism, are by Scripture Grounds assured according to Gospel Hope, of the Salvation of their Children. But there wants a Proof for it; and we suppose it is not received as a Truth by many that Oppose us in this Point.  
Object. 5. If Children may not now be Baptised, this makes the Privilege of Believers under the Gospel to be less than was theirs under the Law: For their Children were all admitted as Members of the Visible Church by the Ordinance of Circumcision; and we cannot but conclude, that our Privileges for ourselves and for our Children, are at least as Honourable, Large, and Comfortable as theirs; and therefore our Infants are to be Baptised.  
To this we Answer, That it is true our Privilege is the same with theirs, in respect of the Substance of the Covenant of Grace: But neither was that made to the Jews Natural Posterity, as such, nor is it made to ours. As for Circumcision, It was indeed a Privilege to the Jews, in comparison of the Heathens, but a Burden in comparison of us; And it is accordingly so termed by the Apostle, Acts 15. 10. Now therefore why tempt ye God to put a Yoke upon the Neck of the Disciples, which neither our Fathers nor we were able to bear. And to the same purpose the Apostle Paul also exhorts the Believers. Gal. 5. 1, 2, 3, 4. to stand fast in their Christian Liberty, and not to be Entangled again in their former Yoke of Bondage in this respect. And therefore it is so far from being a Privilege to our Children that they should have either it, or any other thing in the place and use of it, that the Truth is, it is a great Privilege that they have neither it, nor any other thing in the stead of it, but Christ manifested in the Flesh. And the Parents lose nothing by denying Baptism to Infants, in the place and use of Circumcision; but it is indeed, if rightly considered, a Benefit to them to want it, God not appointing it, nor making a Promise of Grace to be confirmed by it to the Infants of Believers.  
Clear it is, that we have no better Promises in respect of the Substance of the Covenant of Grace now, than they had then; only the Administration of the Covenant is now better than it was to them. Then it was with Expectation of Christ to come; now, with Assurance of Christ already come in the Flesh, and accomplishing what was foretold of Him. Then Christ was shadowed with dark Types; now we see Him unvailed in a plain History: So that though it be true that the Privileges of Believers are now many ways Enlarged in some respects; yet simply the Covenant of Grace is not enlarged in respect of the Substance of it. The Promises of Grace are still belonging to the Elect and Believers, and to no other.  
In respect of the Covenant made with Abraham, Gen. 17. 7, 8, 9 it is plain the Jews had some Privileges above us: but the want of some Privileges which they had, is abundantly recompensed unto us, by other Privileges which they had not: Particularly in respect of the clearness of the Revelation of the Gospel Covenant; and also in respect of the universal tender and publication of it; in as much as now not only the small Nation of the Jews, but also of all Nations, Believers are brought into the participation of the same; together with the more abundant Communication of the Holy Spirit. To which purpose we are told that the Holy Spirit was not yet given; to wit, neither in that manner, nor measure, as afterward, because Christ was not yet Glorified. Jo. 7. 39 So that it is no Absurdity to grant that the Jews might have more Privilebges in some things than we; and yet our Case and Condition to speak simply better than theirs, by reason of other Privileges we have above them, which abundantly recompense the defect of those Privileges of theirs, whether real or supposed. And the Truth is, Privileges are so Arbitrary and Various, that God gives them as He thinks good, oft times, without assigning any special Reason. So that no Argument can be drawn, thus; GOD gave such a Privilege to the Jews; therefore we must have such a Privilege too, except we can prove it is GOD's Will it should be so. And therefore this Argument is of no force without an Institution, to attempt to prove, that because the Jews▪ had a Privilege to Circumcise their Infants, therefore we must have a Privilege to Baptise ours. Nor indeed is there any Scripture that proves that Baptism of Infants is a Privilege granted by GOD in lieu of Circumcision.  
Object. 6. But Circumcision was a Seal of the New Covenant to Believers and their Seed under the Law; and therefore so is Baptism to the Seed of Christian Parents under the Gospel: the denial therefore of Baptism to Infants, is the denial of a great Privilege which of right belongs unto them.  
To this We Answer in the Negative; That neither was Circumcision a Seal to them; nor much less a Seal to them of the New Covenant; for than they had been all Saved. It is true it was a Seal, Confirmation, or Ratification of the Faith that Abraham had long before he was Circumcised: But so it could not be said of Infants that had not Faith. It was indeed a Sign put into the Flesh of the Infant; but a Sign and Seal only to Abraham, Witnessing to Him that he not only had a Justifying Faith, but to the Truth of the Promises, viz. That he should be the Father of many Nations, Rom. 4. 17. Gen. 12. 2. 3. The Father of the Faithful. Rom. 4. 11. Heir of the World. Rom. 4. 13. Which was no way true of any Infant that ever was Circumcised; for none had before their Circumcision such a Faith, that entitled them to such singular Promises and Prerogatives. The Scope of that place, Rom. 4. being to show that Abraham himself was not Justified by Works; no not by Circumcision, but by Faith, which he had long before he was Circumcised, and so but a Seal or Confirmation of that Faith which he had before; and to assure him of the Truth of those special Promises then made to him.  
So that though Circumcision is rightly termed by the Apostle, A Seal of the Righteousness of Abraham 's Faith, which he had yet being Uncircumcised; of which see further p. 51. 52. 53. but more especially from p. 205 to p. 206. Yet the Scripture no where affirms that so it was to any others; neither indeed could it be a Seal of the Righteousness of Faith to Infants that had no Faith; Besides, divers others, who as it appears from the Scriptures, were utterly destitute of that Saving Grace: For some were Circumcised, to whom no Promise in the Covenant made with Abraham did belong. Of Ishmael GOD had said that His Covenant was not to be Established with him, but with Isaac; and yet he was Circumcised. Gen. 17. 20, 21, 25. Rom. 9 7, 8, 9 Gal. 4. 29, 30. The like may be said of Esau. Together with which it must be considered; That all that were in Abraham's House, whether Strangers bought with Money, or Born in his House, though not of his Seed, were to be Circumcised: To whom nevertheless, none of the Promises of that Covenant were made, as is plain from Gen. 17. 7, 8, 20, 21, 23, 27. So that as far as appears to us from the Scriptures, Circumcision was a Seal of the Rightcousness of Faith only to Abraham, not so to the rest; as all the Jews also were not called the Fathers of the Faithful, or the Fathers of many Nations, as Abraham was:  
Secondly, Neither is Baptism: more than Circumcision, called a Seal. It is indeed called a Figure, 1 Pet. 3. 21. And it is a Sign also; but a Sign and Figure proper only to Men of Understanding; not as Circumcision, which was a Sign not Improper for Infants, because it left a signal Impression upon their Flesh to be remembered all their Days: But so cannot Baptism be to any Infant. To affirm Baptism therefore to be a Seal of the Covenant of Grace is groundless; for that is the peculiar Work and Office of the Holy Spirit. Eph. 1. 13. and 4. 30. And since neither hath GOD any where Commanded Infants to be Baptised, the denial therefore of Baptism to Infants, cannot be the denial of any Privilege due unto them.  
Object. 7. But Circumcision was Administered to Believers, as Believers, and to their Seed after them as such; to which Baptism was to correspond.  
We Answer; That Circumcision was an Ordinance, which by the Institution, belonged to all the Natural Lineage and Posterity of Abraham, good or bad, without any such Limitation as was put upon Baptism; If thou Believest with all thine Heart thou mayst. Acts 8. Or any such Qualification that an Infant capable to receive it must of necessity have a Believing Parent: For we know that the Servants Born in Abraham's House, and Strangers Bought with Money, were also to be Circumcised, as well as those proceeding from Abraham's Loins; who yet surely could not pretend to be all of them the Offspring of Believing Parents: Which clearly shows, that Circumcision was not Administered to Believers as Believers, and to their Seed after them as such: But though the Natural Posterity of Abraham, whether they were Believers or no, were to be Circumcised, because God had so Commanded it; yet this was not sufficient for their Admission to Baptism. The main Plea indeed of the Jews in John's time was, That they had Abraham to their Father; But notwithstanding this he rejects them, and bids them bring forth Fruits meet for Repentance, as that which alone would give them Admission to the Baptism of Repentance. And if you say that this concerns the Adult only; We say that it concerns Infants as much; who are uncapable of that Faith and Repentance which the Gospel every where requires in those to be Baptised.  
From what hath been already said therefore, it clearly appears that the not Baptising Infants makes not our Privilege under the Gospel less than theirs under the Law, to which Circumcision was annexed, inasmuch as they were not Circumcised because they were the Children of Believers, but because GOD had Commanded it; neither were they by Circumcision Sealed with a New Covenant Seal, as being thereby Interessed in the Mercies of God's New and Everlasting Covenant; many being then Circumcised, as Ishmael and others who had no right or title at all thereunto: But they were Circumcised by the Command of God, to distinguish them from the Nations, and to keep that Line clear from whence Christ, according to the Flesh should come; and to oblige them to keep the Law, etc. but no such thing in the Gospel. The Body and Substance being come, the shadow was to vanish and pass away. No common Father now but Christ; and if Christ● then Abraham's Seed, and Heirs according to Promise. No Birth Privilege but the New Birth: therefore to go back to the National Birth Privilege, is so far from being a Privilege, that it is a Bondage rather; and no other than to rt●urn to the Type and Shadow, the Anti-type and Substance being come.  
Neither ought such a thing to be any more esteemed the loss of a Privilege, than our not enjoying literally a Holy Land, City, Temple, a Succession of a High Priest, and a Priesthood, by Generation, or Lineal Descent, as it was with them; since all these Types are Spiritualised to us the Believers under the Gospel, who are now the Holy Nation, City, Temple, and Royal Priesthood; being all Church Members by Regeneration, not Natural Generation. And therefore we are so far from being Losers by the Bargain, that as far as Christ exceeds Moses and Aaron; the Gospel the Law; the Anti-type the Type; the Spiritual Birth the Carnal; and the extent of all Nations the Confines of Judea: so far are we better, and not worse than they.  
Obj. 8. But since by the express Command of God, the Jewish Infants were Circumcised: Are not our Infants as capable of answering the ends of Christian Baptism, as theirs of Circumcision?  
Reply. This is a true and a satisfactory Answer, that they are not: Forasmuch as the Profession of a saving Faith is expressly required in order to Baptism. Mark 16. 16. Act. 8. 37. And in like manner, Repentance upon the same Account, Mat. 3. 7, 8. Act. 2. 38. Whereas neither of them were a● all required, whether of Children, or others, in Order to Circumcision. Abraham, 'tis true, in his own Person, received the Sign of Circumcision, a Seal of the Righteousness of Faith, which he had being Uncircumcised, that he might be the Father of all them that believe, whether Circumcised or no: But it follows not, that because thus it was with Abraham, the Father of the Faithful; that therefore it was either a Sign or Seal of the Righteousness of Faith unto others: For as Faith was not where required in Order to the Admission of any to a participation thereof; so it is as plain, that for the greatest part of the Subjects of that Ordinance, they were according to ordinary Rule utterly uncapable thereof; such as were Infants of Eight Days Old. And as for others, who were then to be Circumcised, that were of Age, there is sufficient Evidence in the Scripture, that they were many of them, not only destitute of the inward Habits of that saving Grace; but for aught as we find, did not make so much as any Profession thereof: For not only were believing Proselytes to be admitted to that Ordinance; but Strangers bought with Money also, whether Proselyted to the Jewish Religion or no, Gen. 17. 30. So that since it is evident that a Profession of Faith and Repentance is indispensibly required under the Gospel of all that are to be admitted to Baptism; which was not at all required, neither of Children, or those at Age, in Order to Circumcision; from hence it plainly follows, that our Infants are not as capable of Baptism as theirs of Circumcision. And there being no Institution in the whole New Testament in reference to Baptism; but what concerns such only as are so qualified, which Infants are uncapable of; we cannot therefore but reckon it a great Profanation of so sacred an Institution as Baptism is; upon an ungrounded Supposition of Analogy or Proportion between that and Circumcision, to proceed to an answerable Practice, without a Divine Warrant.  
Obj. 9 If this be so, then how doth the Blessing of Abraham come on the Gentiles, according to Gal. 3. 14. which blessing of Abraham was, I will be a God to thee, and to thy Seed. Gen. 17. 7.  
In this Objection it is supposed; that if the Infants of believing Gentiles are not to be Baptised; then neither can they pretend to any share in the Blessing of Abraham, mentioned, Gal. 3. 14. Gen. 17. 7.  
To which we Reply. First, That it follows not that because the Carnal Seed of Abraham, had a day wherein they were Privileged under Circumcision; that therefore the Carnal Seed of every Believer should in the Gospel Day be admitted into the visible Privileges of the Sons and Heirs of Christ. It is a very undue Supposition, that the Proportion between Abraham in the Flesh, and his Carnal Seed, in the time when Circumcision was in date; should be the same to Abraham in the Spirit (who is Christ) and the Carnal Seed of every Believer, in that season when Circumcision is out of date.  
Secondly, If we will know what is this Seed of Abraham, to whom God doth here promise to be a God; according to the Letter indeed Abraham obtained the Blessing and Privileges of the whole Inheritance which came by the Law, to be the peculiar Inheritance of himself, his Fleshly Seed and Family; together, with all the singular Advantages, which thereby were ministered among them, for calling and gathering a Seed unto Christ in an Everlasting Covenant; whereunto that Covenant in which they stood, under Circumcision, with the Prerogatives of the Inheritance thereof, did Minister as an Example, Figure, and Shadow. The Sum of the Covenant of Circumcision, See 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, unto ver. 15. That Circumcision was part of the Law is plain. John 7. 23. And that it obliged all that were under it to the keeping of the whole Law, is also as evident, Gal. 5. 3. That the Law was a Covenant Ministering as an Example, Figure, and Shadow of Heavenly Things, to wit, of the Sanctuary, and of the true Tabernacle, whereof Christ alone was the High Priest and Minister, See Heb. 8. 1, 2. 5. Chap. 9 Vers. 1. 9 Chap. 10. Vers. 1. That the Covenant of Circumcision fell with the Law. See Acts 15. 24. Subverting your Souls, saying, you must be Circumcised, and keep the Law. As also, Col. 2. 14. In this Sense, the Blessing of Abraham was not to come upon the Gentiles; neither consequently the Birth-Priviledge, which had its Institution from that Covenant only, and was a principal part of the Blessing thereby given.  
Thirdly; The Blessing therefore of Abraham, in the Mystery, and according to the Gospel, is the Manifestation of Jesus Christ, with all the Blessings of the Everlasting Covenant, to be the peculiar Privilege, Inheritance, and Right of every true Believer; who therefore are called the Children of Abraham, that the Type, and the Substance, having a mutual, and respective Application each to other, the mind of God might be clearly seen in them both, for the distinguishing of Shadows and Figures; which were to be done away from the Substance, that was not capable of any Change. Which we are manifestly instructed in by the Apostle. Gal. 3. 26. Ye are all the Children of God by Faith in Christ; Jew, Greek, Bond, Free, Male, Female. Mark ye how the Apostle resolves the point in Question. at Verse 29. And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's Seed, and Heirs according to the Promise; not if ye be the Seed of Believers, then are ye Abraham's Seed; as is suggested. And this is the Blessing of Abraham which was to come on the Gentiles, even this, that Christ with all his Benefits, should be given to the Believing Gentiles for a Covenant.  
Objection 10. Then how can Believers be Heirs according to the Promise. Gal. 3, 29. If their Children should be Excluded from the Promise: For the children's right to the Promise, is a part of the Father's Inheritance: For the Promise unto Abraham was; I will be a God to thee, and to thy Seed after thee.  
We Answer; First, That we know of none that do affirm, that the Children of Believers are Excluded from the Promise. But this we say; That as the Denial of Infant's Baptism, imports no Exclusion from the Promise; so neither doth every Right to the Promise; Instate a Person into the Inheritance. The Jew had a Right to the Promise, uncalled. First, As God had his Remnant among them according to Election. Secondly, He had a Right to the Promise, as God gave him a Priority, and Precedency in the tenders of the Promise above and before all other People. Thirdly, They had a right to the Promise, as they were lost Sinners, whom Christ came to seek and to save. But in neither of these Respects, was the Jew an Heir in the Promise: Such an Interest and Right to the Promise, declares the Person to be a Son by Adoption. And if Sons, than Heirs of God through Christ. Gal. 4. 7. a Privilege which no title to the natural Father could ever prefer a Creature unto, whether under the Gospel Administration, or before.  
Secondly, The Scripture made use of for Infant's Baptism in this Objection, is this. If ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's Seed and Heirs according to the Promise. How plainly doth this Scripture lay the Title of the Heir upon this conditional Qualification of being Christ's? And he that is Christ's, is an Heir by this Text, be the Children never so great Aliens and Strangers.  
Thirdly, It is said, that the children's right to the Promise, is part of the Father's Inheritance: For the Promise is to thee, and to thy Seed; whereby is intended, that if the Father be Christ's, and so cometh to be an Heir, than the Promise carrieth the same Title of the Inheritance down to the Children; that is, if the Father be a Son of Abraham, (which in Gospel Construction, is a Believer) than the Child must be a Son of Abraham, and a Believer also, even by his Birth Privilege; directly confronting many Scriptures, which restrain the Blessing of Sonship to Abraham, and the Inheritance in all manner of Persons, to Faith in Christ; Gal. 3. 9 They which are of Faith, are blessed with faithful Abraham. Not they which are the Children of Believers. And in the Text alleged; If ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's Seed; not if ye be the Children of Believers.  
Fourthly, As to the Interpretation of that Passage, taken from Ver. 16. The Promise is to Abraham and his Seed: Besides what hath been said in Answer to the foregoing Objection: It ought to be duly considered, that the Covenant of Grace, or the Gospel Covenant which God made with believing Abraham, before his Removal out of his own Country; Gen. 12. 1, 2. was not made with Believers and their Seed; but with Abraham and his Seed. In thy Seed, saith the Text, shall all the Nations of the Earth be blessed, Gen. 22. 18. compared with Gen. 12. 2, 3. In thy Seed, that is, Christ. For so the Apostle tells us expressly, That to Abraham and to his Seed, were the Promises made; He saith not unto Seeds, as of many; but as of one; and to thy Seed, which is Christ, Gal 3. 16. So that all Gospel Promises run directly to Christ the Inheriting Seed. To him they are made. In him do they all centre, and ●● him alone, all the Blessings in Promise are to be communicated to all his Members.  
'Tis true in the Covenant of Circumcision which God made with Abraham, Gen. 17. 7, 8, 9 which was a legal conditional Covenant: As God doth therein promise to be a God unto Abraham, so he had also a Noble Seed, to whom the Blessings therein promised as an Inheritance, did inure: But under this Qualification, as they were his Natural Seed, privileged under that Typical Administration, by which this Prerogative was so settled. Now to improve this aright, the Heavenly Mystery vailed in this Dispensation, must be sought out: For although Abraham stood a common Father under the Law; yet Christ is the only Father, the Everlasting Father under the Gospel Administration. And this Ancestor hath also his Seed more nobly descended than the Natural Seed of Abraham; being all the Sons of God by Faith in Christ, ver. 16. Yea it is impossible, that by any other Qualification, men can come to be the Sons of this Ancestor, than by being made one with him in the Participation of the Everlasting Grace of the Unchangeable Covenant. Now than it is an incompetent Application of Persons, to compare every particular Believer and his Children, to Abraham, the common Ancestor of a whole Administration, and the Seed privileged thereby. And no less incompetent is the Application of the Qualification, requisite in Persons to be accounted Heirs; that because it sufficed to Abraham's Heirs, that they were the Sons of his Natural Generation, and that they were thereby made capable of an Inheritance in the Figure and Letter; That therefore it sufficeth by being the Child, according to Natural Generation of any Believer, to be upon that account an Heir of God, and joint Heir with Christ, in the very Substance and Mystery, which the former Administration did Prefigure. Upon the whole then, as to this; We say, that it is no right Reasoning to infer or suppose, that the Infants of Believers, are Joint Heirs with Christ and their godly Parents, under the Administration of Grace; because of the Birth Privilege given to Abraham and his Seed, by the Law.  
Objection 11. Those to whom the Gospel Covenant belonged, to them the Seal thereof appertained: But to Believers and their Seed, the Gospel Covenant belonged. Gen. 17. 7. I will be a God to thee and to thy Seed; therefore to them the Seal thereof did appertain: For the Faederati, were to be Signati; that is, those that were in Covenant, were to have the Seal thereof. Gen. 17. 10. By way of Consequence therefore it naturally follows; that if Circumcision, the Seal of the Gospel Covenant, belonged to the Seed of Believers under the Law; then doth the Gospel Seal Baptism, much more appertain to the Seed of Believers now.  
To this we Reply; First, That there is no natural Consequence at all from this Scripture, to infer the Baptising of Infants; nor any ground to build the Gospel Ordinance, Baptism, upon the command of the legal Ordinance, Circumcision; as hath been already manifested by what we have said in our Answers, to several of the foregoing Objections; wherein it hath also been made evident, that neither the one, nor the other are Represented in the Scripture, as the common Seals of the New Covenant; that being the peculiar Office of the Holy Spirit. Eph. 1. 13. We shall therefore in Answer to the present Objection, take occasion, more particularly to consider the Nature and Scope of the Covenant God made with Abraham, in the Text alleged. Gen. 17. 7. And therein to inquire, whether the New Covenant made with Believers under the Gospel, and that be one and the same? In order to the Resolution whereof, we must understand, that as Abraham by Promise stood in a double Capacity; viz. First, As he was a natural Father unto the Jews, who proceeded from him in a course of Natural Generation. Secondly, As he was a Spiritual Father; in which respect he was the Father of many Nations. comprehending the Spiritual Israel, whether Jews or Gentiles throughout the World: So accordingly, the Promises made unto Abraham, were of two sorts; some respecting his Natural Seed; whether Domestic or National, which were Typical of the Spiritual; as the Birth of Ifaac; the Deliverance of his Posterity out of Egypt; the possessing of the Land of Canaan, with many other temporal Blessings and Benefits, Annexed thereunto. And others again respecting in a peculiar manner, the Spiritual Seed, the Family of the Faithful, the Elect, of whom through Christ he was the Father; and which are Evangelical, belonging in an especial manner to the Gospel Covenant; As Gen. 17. 5. I have made thee a Father of many Nations. And that which we find, Gen. 15. 5. So shall thy Seed be. In which it is promised, That there should be of the Nations innumerable, that should be Abraham's Seed by believing. Rom. 4. 17, 18. And again it was an Evangelical Promise that we find, Gen. 12. 3. and Gen. 18. 18. And in thy Seed shall all the Families of the Earth be Blessed. For in these is promised a Blessing to Believers, of whom Abraham is Father. Gal. 3. 8, 9 And by Christ who is the Seed of Abraham. Gal. 3. 16.  
And therefore Secondly; It is of great moment in the present Case, rightly to distinguish, and truly to apply the several Promises God made unto Abraham, according to their proper Subjects: It being evident from what hath been already said, that though under the Domestic, or National Promises to Abraham, peculiar to him and his Posterity by Sarah, Spiritual Blessings in Christ were shadowed; yet Circumcision was not a Token to every one Circumcised, that the Promises, whether National or Spiritual, did belong to him. Nor was Interest in the Covenant, the Adequate, Formal, or proper Reason of the Circumcising of them: For Ishmael was Circumcised, and others were to be Circumcised, to whom none of the Promises in that Covenant were made; as is plain from Gen. 17. 21. Rom. 9 7, 8. Gal. 4. 28, 29. It is no good Argument therefore, to say they were in the Covenant; therefore to be Circumcised: For Females were in the Covenant, yet not to be Circumcised. Nor on the other side, Males were to be Circumcised; therefore they were in the Covenant: For Ishmael and others were to be Circumcised, yet not in the Covenant. Whereby 'tis plain, that the true; Reason why any were Circumcised, was the Command, not Interest in the Covenant. Much less is it true that is suggested by some; That Children are to be Baptised by Virtue of the Promise, first to the Parents, as Believers, and in them, to their Seed as subordinate's: For besides that, there is no such Promise in Scripture, that God will be a God to every Believer, and his natural Seed: So the Rule of Baptising, either Parents or Children, is not Interest in the Promise, by God's Promise to them: But their Profession of Faith, or being actual Disciples of Christ, whom alone Christ hath appointed to be Baptised.  
Thirdly, As to what concerns the Covenant of Grace therefore, or the Gospel Covenant, which according to the foregoing Argument, is said to be now made with Believers and their Seed, as the ground of their Admission to Baptism: We must know that the Covenant of Grace is to be considered, either in respect of the Promises of Eternal Life, made to all the Elect in Christ, the which remains one and the same in all Ages, though variously Administered in the times of the Old and New Testament, or else in respect of the manner of its Administration.  
For if the Covenant be understood in the first sense of the Promise of Eternal Life and Salvation, made to the Elect in Christ; That did never belong to all the Children born of Believing Parents, as hath been already Instanced in Ishmael and Esau, etc. but only such as are Elected of them. Rom. 9 7, 8, 9 Neither because they are the Seed of Abraham, are they all Children, etc. The Covenant of Grace being first made between God and Christ, and all the Elect in Christ. And therefore in Scripture it is called, The Promise of Eternal Life, which was made to the Elect before the World began; who are therefore called, the Heirs of Promise. Which Promise, had its first Promulgation to Adam, in the Garden of Paradise; where we have also the first Discovery of the Mystery of the two Seeds. Now the Covenant of Grace in this Sense, is not the Ground and Reason of Administering Ordinances to any Person whatsoever: But the Law of Institution only, is the Ground and Reason of visible Administrations; For the Administration of Ordinances, belongs not to the substance of the Covenant; but depends merely upon the Law of Institution, without any other Consideration. And hence we find, that from the first Promulgation of the Covenant to Adam, until God made the Covenant of Circumcision with Abraham, there was no Ordinance to be administered to Infants: Though some Infants as well as grown Persons, both of Believers and Unbelievers, might be comprehended in the Covenant: Yet not to be Circumcised; and so not to be Baptised, for want of an Institution. So the Promise, Acts 2. 39 is said to be to them afar off, in the present tense, while uncalled: And yet not to be Baptised before calling, unless you will Baptise Gentiles in professed Gentilism. And so the Jews; some not yet born, some not called, have the Promise of God made to them. Rom. 11. 27. For this is my Covenant unto them, when I shall take away their Sins. And yet they are not to be Baptised 'til Converted. Nor indeed can the Covenant, considered in its pute Nature, be a Ministers Rule to Administer Ordinances by, seeing it is unknown who are in the Covenant, and who are not: But that which is their Rule must be something that is manifest.  
As for the External Administration of the Covenant, as you have already heard, that hath varied in several Ages, according to the Will of the Lawgiver: for during all that period of time, from Adam to Abraham, there was no Ordinance to be Administered to Infants. In Abraham's time indeed, Circumcision was Instituted, which Ordinance belongs peculiarly to the Old Testament Administration, and was part of Moses' Law, which is now Abrogated and done away. And this was the first Ordinance that was Administered to Infants; and not to all Infants, but only to Male Infants, Living in Abraham's Family, if they did Live to the Eighth Day; otherwise they had no right to this Ordinance, though many of them doubtless in the Covenant of Grace, and so Saved. So we say of Infants in the Days of the Gospel; many of them are in the Covenant of Grace, and so Saved by Virtue of the Free Promise: But yet not to be Baptised, if they do not Live to the time of Believing and Repenting, the only time appointed for Baptism: So that the Administration of Ordinances to Infants depends upon the Law of Institution only, and not upon their being in Covenant.  
Fourthly; In this respect therefore it ought to be duly considered, as hath been before Observed; That the Covenant of Grace, or the Gospel Covenant, which Believers are now under (whereof Christ is the alone and only Mediator) was not made with Believers and their Seed, but with Abraham and his Seed; that is Christ: For so the Apostle tells us expressly; That to Abraham and his Seed were the Promises made; He saith not unto Seeds as many, but as of one: And to thy Seed which is Christ. So that all Gospel Promises run to Christ, the Inheriting Seed; To Him they are made; In Him do they all centre; and from Him alone are all the Blessings in Promise to be derived unto all His Members.  
'Tis true; In the Covenant of Circumcision, Gen. 27. 7, 8, 9 (which was a Legal Bondage Covenant, and therefore now repealed, as shall be afterward shown) God doth indeed therein promise to be a GOD to Abraham and his Fleshly Seed; and to give them the Land of Canaan for an Inheritance. And their Obedience to Circumcision is expressly called the Covenant on their Part. Gen. 17. 10. This is my Covenant which ye shall keep between Me and you, and thy Seed after thee; Every Manchild among you shall be Circumcised. So Acts 7. 8. And he gave them the Covenant of Circumcision; and so Abraham begat Isaac, and Circumcised him the Eighth Day. By which they stood engaged to keep all those other Additional Ordinances which Moses gave them, when they were about to enter their Promised Inheritance. Gal. 5, 3. For I testify that whosoever is Circumcised, he is a Debtor to do the whole Law. But the Covenant of Grace which God shade with Believing Abraham before his departure out of his own Country (and therefore long before the Covenant of Circumcision was in being) runs in another strain. For therein as GOD freely Promiseth to Bless Abraham himself; so he doth as freely Promise to make him a Blessing: For that in him, that is, in his Seed, Christ, should all the Families of the Earth be Blessed. Gen. 12. 2, 3. And this was a Covenant of Grace indeed; a Covenant that was purely Evangelical; every way Extensive and Absolute, and therefore unchangeable: For therein God hath freely Promised a Blessing unto all sorts of true Believers, whether Jews or Gentiles; in giving unto them an Eternal Inheritance. Heb. 9 15. Incorruptible and Undefiled, that fadeth not away, Purchased by the Blood of Jesus, and reserved in Heaven for them; of which the Earthly Inheritance in the Land of Canaan was a Type. So that as there was a twofold Covenant made with Abraham, a Covenant of Grace, and a Covenant of Works: So there is a twofold Seed of Abraham, a Fleshly and a Spiritual, Typed out by Ishmael and Isaac; and a twofold Inheritance, an Earthly and a Heavenly: But the Heavenly Inheritance was not given to the Fleshly Seed, but only in Types offered to them; and confirmed only to the Spiritual Seed, whether Jews or Gentiles; who in that respect are called the Heirs of Promise; yet not immediately, or at first hand rate, but through the Mediation of Christ alone, in whom all the Families of the Earth are Blessed. For as Ishmael the Child of the Flesh had no right with Isaac▪ in the outward Typical Promise; so Isaac himself by virtue of his fleshly descent, had no right nor interest in the Heavenly Inheritance. Rom. 9 7. any otherwise, than as he came to have an Interest in Christ. And therefore we find the Apostle expounding the Word of Promise; showeth that the Evangelical Promises made to Abraham, were not made to any one Fleshly Seed; no not with the mere Fleshly Seed of Believing Abraham himself; but these Promises did all run to Christ the Inheriting Seed, to whom they were made; and when Christ was come they all centre in Him. Now to Abraham and his Seed (saith the Text) were the Promises made. He saith not unto Seeds as of many, but as of One; and to thy Seed, which is Christ. In whom all the Promises of the Gospel, are Tea and Amen.  
Fifthly: Having thus followed the Promises down from Abraham unto CHRIST; let us now see to whom they come forth again, and it is not to any ones Fleshly Seed whatsoever; but from Christ they all Flow forth again to Believers, and only to Believers; and that by virtue of their union with Christ. To this purpose the Apostle tells us; That if we be CHRIST's, then are we Abraham's Seed, and Heirs according to the Promise; There being no way to partake of the Promise, but by Faith in Christ. Gal. 3. 22. The Scripture hath concluded all under Sin, that the Promise by Faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that Believe. So that all the Promises run to Christ, and from Him Flow forth again only to Believers; not to them and their Natural Offspring, as is Suggested, further than they are Believers also in their own Persons: For no otherwise was it with the Fleshly Seed of Believing Abraham himself. Which being Impartially Considered, is a full Answer to all Arguments drawn from the Covenant, and the the Promises made to Abraham; and certainly, and unavoidably cuts off Infant's Church-member ship in the Days of the Gospel (unless you can find a new Institution for it;) and consequently it leaves no room for Infant's Baptism; unless it can be proved that all the Infants of Believers, are Heirs of Abraham's Faith, Believing as he did: and that the Promises are theirs, not by Application or Analogy, but directly and properly; and by their own Personal Faith: Which the Scriptures do no where Affirm.  
And indeed so to Assert, would be not only contradictory to the Scriptures; which tell us that we are all Children of Wrath by Nature: But to all former and latter Experience. Then would Grace be a Birth Privilege; and Regeneration tied to a Natural Generation. Then must all the Posterity of Believers be Saved; unless that Doctrine be true, that Men may fall from Grace. Then must we tie up and restrain the Grace of God's Covenant to the Children of Believers only; and then what Hope for the Posterity of unbelievers? Contrary to the Experience of all Ages; whilst Grace was extended to the Gentiles, who were not the Offspring of Believers; when the Natural Branches the Children of Believing Abraham were cut off.  
Sixthly. Whereas you tell us; That all those that were Faederati, were to be Signati; that is, all those that were in the Covenant, were to have the Seal thereof. Gen. 17. 10. And that therefore it naturally follows, that if Circumcision the Seal of the Gospel Covenant belonged to the Seed of Believers under the Law; Then doth Baptism much more appertain to the Seed of Believers under the Gospel. We Reply, by denying the Consequence of the Argument: For though it should be granted that the Covenant of Circumcision, mentioned Gen. 17. 7, 8, 9 is indeed a Gospel Covenant; and that all the Infants of Believers are therein comprehended with their Parents; Yet it follows not that they are therefore to have the Seal thereof. For the consequence must be proved from this Universal; All that are in Covenant must be Sealed: Which is not true. If it were true, it must be so 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 for the confirmation thereof; It may be present or absent from the Subject. God made a Special Promise to Joshua, that he should bring Israel into the Land of Canaan: To Phineas a Covenant of an Everlasting Priesthood. without any special Sign or Seal distinct from the Covenant. Or else it must be so by reason of GOD's Will declared concerning the Covenant of Grace: But that is not true. The Promise made to Adam, which was the same in substance with the Covenant of Grace, had no special Sign or Seal annexed to it. Noah and Abel were within the Covenant of Grace; yet no special Sign appointed them. Therefore it is not God's Will that all that are in the Covenant must be Sealed; If they had, it had been W●ll Worship, God not appointing it to them. And if you say, All that are in Covenant since Abraham's time, should be Sealed: But neither is that certain; since we find no such thing concerning Melch●sidek and Lot, that Lived in Abraham's time; nor concerning Job, that it's conceived lived after his time. You will say, but it is true of those that were in Covenant in Abraham's Family: But neither is that true: For Male Children before the eighth day, and Women though in Covenant, yet were not to be Sealed. So that you see it is so far from being universally true, that all that are in Covenant must be Sealed, that this is all which is true. All the Male Children of Abraham 's Family, if they were eight days old, must be signed with the Sign of Circumcision; which will never be able to prove the Consequence of the Argument; That therefore All the Children of Believers, Males, or Females must be Baptised, unless there were an Express Command, or Example in the New Testament, signifying God's mind unto us therein.  
The Covenant of Grace was Ratified and Confirmed unto Abraham, a considerable time before the Covenant of Circumcision was given to him, viz. about twenty five years before it; and had then no outward Sign or Seal annexed thereunto. And indeed that which hath been of late affirmed; That the Covenant of Grace always had an Outward Sign or Seal added to it. is so wide a Mistake, that on the contrary it may be affirmed; That although the Efficacy of its Grace, did reach Believers in all Ages; yet it was not filled up with Ordinances of Worship proper and peculiar to itself, until the times of Reformation; nor had till than any outward Sign or Token, immediately belonging thereunto: For had it been so, this Sign or Token, as the Covenant itself, had remained without change, and not vanished away with the other Shadows of the Mosaical Oeconomy. Mr. Cox in his Discourse of the Covenants, p. 83, 84.  
If it be said; That though the sign of Circumcision was Actually applied only to the Males; yet it must be understood, that the Females were virtually Circumcised in them, as the Nobler Sex. We answer, That the Conclusion to be proved, is, that Infants are to be Sealed Actually; not Virtually: For if a Virtual Sealing, or Baptising, were all that you would prove we might grant it, we may say, Infants are virtually baptised in their Parents, and yet it may be unlawful to Baptise them Actually, as it would have been unlawful to have Circumcised Women Actually, (had they been capable thereof) notwithstanding their Virtual Circumcision: For it had been a Will-Worship, there being no Command to do it. And indeed to speak exactly; Women were not Circumcised Virtually in the Males: For he is said Virtually to have a thing by another, as by a Proxy or Attorney, that might receive it by himself; yet according to the Effect of Law, another's receiving it, is as if he had received it: But so the Males did not receive Circumcision for the Females; For the Females had they been capable, might not be Circumcised in their own Persons: It had been their Sin if they had received it, God not appointing it; as it had been a Sin for a Child to be Circumcised before or after the eighth day, in them that altered or swerved from the Appointment of God. So that the Conclusion remains yet to be proved, that all the Infants of Believing Parents are to be Actually Signed, or Sealed by the Ordinance of Baptism, unto which you give the term of the Gospel Seal. For as there is no Command for the same in the New Testament; nor any Example that may give hint unto us, of the mind of God therein: So neither can it be proved by any just Analogy or Proportion, between that and Circumcision. Together with which it must be considered, that there are other signs of the Covenant, besides Baptism: As Circumcision, and the Pass-over of old, so the Lord's Supper now. If then we should grant the Conclusion in general, that the Infants of Believers are to be Signed; yet you would say, they are not to be Partakers of the Lord's Supper, because it is not appointed for them: So in like manner, it follows not that they are to be Baptised, unless you can prove that it is appointed to them. And indeed there is as much reason for the one, as for the other: For if we must Examine ourselves before we be admitted to the one; which you say Infants cannot do: So Faith and Repentance are required as the Condition of the other. which Infants are as uncapable of; and therefore cannot be duly admitted to either, without some Express, signifying God's Mind unto us therein. For though it may be good to argue thus; It is God's Mind, therefore it is to be done; yet it is too much for us to argue, This should be, and therefore God hath appointed it; Inasmuch, as no Reason of ours, in Positive Worship, such as Baptism is, but God's Will alone, gathered by some Express Command, or Example in the New Testament, can acquit an Action so performed from the Gild of Will-Worship.  
Seventhly, Whereas you conceive that Circumcision and Baptism are appointed by God, as common Seals of the New Covenant; this is affirmed without Proof: For no where doth the Scripture give that Character to them; that being the peculiar Work or Office of the Holy Spirit, as hath been already proved. 'Tis true, Abraham's Circumcision in his own Person, is by the Apostle Rom 4. 11. Termed, A Seal of the Righteousness of the Faith which he had yet being Uncircumcised, that he might be the Father of all them that believe. But so it cannot be said of Infants that had no Faith; much less could any of them pretend to that Prerogative that Abraham had. Indeed, from hence to conclude that Circumcision was appointed by God, as a Seal of the Righteousness of Faith, or of the Covenant of Grace, to the Generality that were the Subjects thereof, is groundless: For neither Isaac, nor Jacob, nor any besides, had before or after their Circision, such a Faith, which Entitled them to such singular Promises. It cannot be justly affirmed of Isaac, Jacob, David, or any of the other Patriarches; That they received the Sign of Circumcision, a Seal of the Righteousness of the Faith which they had, yet being Uncircumcised, that they might be the Fathers of all them that believe, as it is of Abraham; This being a peculiar Honour, that is by the Spirit of God conferred on Abraham alone, and is indeed Incommunicable to any else, how famous soever for Faith and Holiness; much less can it be affirmed of the Generality of the Jewish Infants, that were the ordinary Subjects of Circumcision. We deny not, that the Circumcision of others than Abraham, was a Token (as the Spirit of God himself expressly terms it) of the Covenant then made with Abraham: But it doth not therefore follow, that every one's Circumcision was to him a Seal of his Right, to any of the Promises thereof; as is evident in the Case of Ishmael and many others, the Servants born and bred in Abraham's Family, and Strangers bought with Money, who were all to be Circumcised; to whom, nevertheless none of the Promises in that Covenant were made; as is plain from Gen. 17. 7, 8, 20, 21, 23, 27. Much less was Circumcision a Seal to all that received it, of their Interest in the Righteousness of that Faith that Abraham had; for than they had been all saved. It was therefore intended only as the Restipulation of the Covenant made with Abraham, and his Seed after him, on their Part; or as a Sign or Token of their Duty to God; not as a Seal of God's Promise to them. Gen. ●7. 9 Thou shalt keep my Covenant therefore, thou and thy Seed after thee, in their Generations. Ver. 10. This is my Covenant (or this is the sign of my Covenant) which ye shall keep, every Man Child among you shall be Circumcised. Besides it is evident, that by Circumcision, they were obliged unto a perfect and universal Obedience to the whole Revealed Will and Law of God. Gal. 5. 3. For I testify to every Man that is Circumcised, that he is a Debtor to do the whole Law. And that under the Penalty of the Curse upon the least Transgression or Disobedience. Gal. 3. 10. Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things, which are written in the Book of the Law to do them, which perfect Obedience, was yet impossible to be performed. Gal. 3. 11. Rom. 3. 19, 20. So that Circumcision was so far from being a Seal of the Righteousness of Faith, or of the Gospel Covenant, to the Generality that were under it, that it was rather a Token of Servitude and Bondage; and such a Yoke, that as the Apostles tell the Jews; Neither they, nor their Fathers were able to bear it. Acts 15. 10. Gal. 5. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Which yet it had not been, had it been to them, as well as to Abraham himself, a Seal of the Righteousness of Faith: For that brings with it true Christian Liberty and Freedom.  
Notwithstanding the Promises made in the Covenant of Circumcision, (faith Mr. Cox in his Discourse of the Covenants, p. 152, 153, 154.) and the Separation of Israel, to be the peculiar People of God, in pursuance of them; yet that Covenant did not confine the solemn Worship of God (by Sacrifices or otherwise) to Abraham's Family: Nor were other Holy Men then living under any Obligation, to Incorporate themselves thereinto by Circumcision; or at all to take upon them that Sign, or token of that Covenant that God then made with Abraham; which yet without doubt they should have done, if it had been a Seal of the Covenant of Grace: For then by reason of their Interest in that Covenant, both in point of Duty and Privilege, it had equally belonged unto them, as to the Seed and Family of Abraham. But from the sacred History, it is evident, that the command, by virtue of which Circumcision was Administered, extended no further than to Abraham and his Family. And therefore we have no ground to conclude, that Lot (though nearly Allied to Abraham) was Circumcised. Seeing there is nothing in the Command of God, or first Institution of Circumcision that obliged him thereunto, or interested him therein, and yet there is no doubt to be made of his Interest in the Covenant of Grace. Neither was Lot the only Righteous Man then living in the World, besides those of Abraham's Family: For of the Patriarches, Heber, Salah, and Shem, were then living; and as they had their distinct Families and Interests, so there is no question, but the pure Worship of God was maintained in them, and they promoted the Interest of true Religion to the utmost of their Power, while they lived. Yea Melchisedeck was in being about this time, (whether he were Shem before named, or another, it concerns not us to determine; but this is certain, that it was he) who was the Priest of the most High God, and King of Salem; and in both these Respects, the most Eminent Type of Jesus Christ that ever was in the World; a Person greater than Abraham: For Abraham paid Tithes to him, and was blessed by him. Now considering that he was both King and Priest, there is no doubt but there was a Society of Men that were ruled by him, and for whom he Ministered: For a Priest is ordained for Men in things pertaining to God. And this Society was at this time, as much a Church of God, as Abraham's Family was, and as truly interested in the Covenant of Grace, as any therein; yet were they not concerned as Parties in the Covenant of Circumcision, nor to be signed thereby: From whence it is manifest, that Circumcision was not applied as a Seal of the Covenant of Grace; nor did an Interest therein render a man the proper subject of it.  
Again; It is no ways difficult (saith he) to conceive, that Circumcision might have a different Respect, according to the differing Circumstances and Capacity of its Subject.— It was to Abraham a Seal of the Righteousness of the Faith which he had, etc. But this arose from the peculiar and extraordinary Circumstances and Capacity that he was in: For it is not possible to conceive, that Circumcision should be a Seal of the Righteousness of the Faith which he had while Uncircumcised, that he might be the Father of all them that believe in Uncircumcision, to one that never had Faith, either before or after his Circumcision, nor ever had, or should have the Relation of a Father to all Believers, as Abraham had. In which respect, it is equally absurd to say, that Circumcision was a Seal unto all its Subjects, of the Righteousness of the Faith which they had while Uncircumcised, as to affirm, that it was the Seal of a Paternal Relation to all Believers, unto every one that received it: And therefore both these must necessarily be resolved into the particular Circumstances of Abraham; the particular Relation he had in the Covenants made with him, and not into the Nature of Circumcision, considered simply, and in itself. What Circumcision was directly, and in its immediate use, is one thing; and what it was as subordinate to a better Covenant and Promise, that had Precedency to it, is another. And it is easy to conceive, that it was that to the Father of the Faithful, in its extraordinary Institution, that it could not be to the Children of the Flesh, or carnal ●●ed, in its ordinary Use. Page 189, 190, 191. 194.  
Upon the whole therefore, it clearly appears, That Circumcision was never appointed by God, as a Seal of the Righteousness of Faith, or of the Gospel Covenant, to the Generality of the Subjects thereof. It was indeed a Token of the Covenant then made betwixt God and them; but a Seal only to Abraham, and that in respect of the Righteousness of the Faith, which he had, being yet Uncircumcised, that he might be the Father of all them that believe; which cannot be affirmed of any others. And so for Baptism; it is indeed called a Figure, 1 Pet. 3. 21. But a Sign or Figure proper only for men of Understanding; not as Circumcision, which was a Sign not improper for Infants, because it left a signal Impression upon their Flesh, when they came to understand the Reason of it: But so cannot Baptism be to any Infant. And indeed if Baptism be as you say it is, a Seal of being already engrafted into Christ, and consequently into the Church; than it is a Seal only to Believers, who alone are capable thereof: Since it is by Faith that men are in Christ, and Christ in them, 2 Cor. 13. 5. Rom. 11. 20, 29. Eph. 3. 17, And therefore it cannot be any Seal at all to Infants that have no Faith; But as it is evident, that a Profession of Faith is required of all to be Baptised. Mark 16. 16. Act 8. 37. which Infant's are uncapable of; so it is as evident, that though Baptism is indeed a Sign or Figure of Regeneration to the Baptised. 1 Pet. 3. 21. yet a Seal it cannot be, that being the Work which the Holy Scripture assigns unto the Holy Spirit only. Eph. 1. 13. In whom also after ye believed, ye were Sealed by that Holy Spirit of Promise. And no where is it assigned unto Baptism, Besides, as the true Seal of the Gospel Covenant is not at all at Man's dispose. Jo. 3. 8. as Baptism is, if that be it; So it is as certain, that God never sets his Seal to a Blank: Which yet it must of Necessity follow, that he doth, if Circumcision or Baptism either, were appointed by God as Seals of the Gospel Covenant; or as Seals of their Interest, in the Righteousness of Faith, to whom soever they were to be Administered.  
'Tis true, both serve to represent Spiritual Things and Mysteries, and therefore may be justly enough termed Signs, Tokens, or Figures: But yet in a different Respect, as well as also in a different manner: For though Circumcision might and did signify the Duty of Regeneration, or the Necessity thereof to Infants, when they came to Years of Understanding: Yet Regeneration in Actual being before their Circumcision, could not be signified by it (for then they had been all saved) as it ought to be in the Baptised, at least, in Profession. Mar. 16. 16. Acts 8. 37. Which is all the Baptizer is to require, which cannot be expected of Infants: However, by the Secret Operation of God; the great Work of Regeneration may be wrought in them, from which they are not excluded by us, though they are from Baptism for want of an Institution. And if you say you have as much Reason to look upon Infants of Believers to be Sanctified, as we have to esteem grown Christians to be such; because our owning of these as such, depends upon their own Testimony only, in a Verbal Profession, which may be Counterfeit. We Answer, That this is not Cogent; forasmuch, as we have no Testimony of Infants that they are Regenerate; but Visible Profession of grown Per, sons, being Free and Serious, is not only in the Judgement of Charity, bu● also of Ministerial Prudence, to be taken for a Sign of Regeneration, though it may be in God's Sight Sergeant, which belongs to us to examine.  
Eighthly. But then at last you tell us; That though it cannot be made out, that God hath promised to be a God by Regenerating and Justifying every Believer's Child; which cannot be affirmed of all the Natural Posterity of Believing Abraham himself, without contradicting Rom. 9 6, 7, 8. Yet, say you, they are in Covenant in Respect of outward Privileges. But this we also deny: Nor do the Scriptures any where give any Countenance at all unto such a conceit. No Scripture in the whole New Testament doth affirm it; neither by their Profession; nor any other way, as a Nation; or by solemn Oath; or by having Prophets sent unto them; or by any other Revelation of God's Mind or Promise; are Infants said to be now at all in Covenant with God, upon this Account? And if it could be made out that they have an External being in the Covenant; yet that gives them no Interest in the Covenant of Grace, by God's Promise to be a God to Abraham's Seed. Gen. 17. 7. And therefore that Text is in vain alleged, to prove Infants to have an Interest in the Covenant of Evangelical Blessings, and so of right to be Sealed with the Seal thereof. For your Argument, if the terms be distinctly opened, is nothing else but this. Infants of Believers, as their Natural Seed, are all in the Gospel Covenant; not in the Inward; but the Outward; that is, in the Outward Administration; that is, Baptism; and therefore to be Baptised. Which is mere trifling; as proving that they are to be Baptised, because they are to be Baptised; and is but a mere Petitio Principij or a pitiful begging the Question in dispute.  
It hath been frequently demanded by us, what plain Scripture can you produce for the Warrant of Infant's Baptism? But for want of a plain Scripture Proof, you are driven to make Use of Consequental Deductions. And among the rest, you seem to have your Principal Reliance upon those drawn from Gen. 17. 7. deriving your Consequence concerning Infants Baptism, from the Covenant of Evangelical Blessings, which you say was there made with Abraham, and his Seed after him: And from the Interest, which as you say, the Children of Believers have, together with themselves in that Covenant; you thence Argue, they are to be Baptised: Because all that are in the Covenant, aught to have the Seal thereof. When the invalidity of this Plea is made manifest; you then fly to a Covenant of outward Privileges, which you say the Children of Believers are concerned in with themselves: But then we would willingly know, what Scripture is it that makes mention of this Covenant of outward Privileges? Gen. 17. 7. makes not mention of it: For that you have often told us is to be understood of the Covenant of Grace; containing purely, Spiritual and Everlasting Blessings; and therefore cannot be understood of outward Privileges; or concerning the bare Administration or Susception of an outward Ordinance, which is the thing driven at. Where then shall we find this Covenant of outward Privileges mentioned, or Recorded?  
Besides, both Circumcision and Baptism also, according to your former Reckoning, are but Seals of the Covenant, and not the Covenant itself. All that are in Covenant (say you) must have the Seal thereof; that is, aught to be Baptised: Whereas, after this Rate, the Seals and the Covenant itself are strangely confounded together. The Children of Believers (say you) are in Covenant, equally with themselves; not in the Inward, but in the Outward part of it, in respect of External Privileges, that is, Baptism. But then, what becomes of the Seal, so much contended about? Unless, we must take it for granted, that the Seals of the Covenant, and the Covenant itself, are the same thing, and no Distinction at all to be made between them. So that upon the whole, it clearly appears that your Arguments from the Covenant, however set forth or managed by you, are no other than a darkening of Counsel, by Words without Knowledge. And therefore, while you do Labour to fasten such Dismal Consequences on our Doctrine, who deny the Children of Believers to be taken into Covenant with themselves, in the sense expounded: We say they are unduly charged on us, forasmuch, as we do not exclude the Infants of Believers from the ordinary way of Salvation. For though we say not that they are in Covenant by their Parent's Faith: And though we deny that they have any Right to Church Privileges, till they are capable of making an Actual Profession of Faith and Repentance, according to the Gospel Rule; yet we say, they may be by God's Election saved; and may be sanctified by the Spirit of God; and Parents may have ground of Comfort in their Death, as much or more than according to your Doctrine, which tells them, that their Children are in the Covenant only, in respect of outward Privileges; the Enjoyment of which, nevertheless, can give us no undoubted Assurance of their Salvation.  
Ninthly. And Lastly (as to this) whereas you tell us that Christian Baptism is come in the Room, Place, and Use of Jewish Circumcision; So as that the Institution of that should be our Rule about Baptism. To answer this doubt, let us consider the great difference between Circumcision and Baptism. Circumcision was a Legal Ordinance, appointed to the Jewish Males, Reprobate, as well as Elect, by a positive Command, to distinguish them from the rest of the World, as a Token of the Covenant, God made with Abraham, and signified, that the Messiah should come of his Loins, according to the Flesh. But Baptism is an Evangelical Ordinance, whereby Jew or Gentile, Male or Female; upon a Profession of Faith and Repentance, is Baptised in Water, in token of Regeneration; and to signify the Death, Burial, and Resurrection of Christ, the Messiah already come; and so added to the Visible Church, and admitted to all the Privileges thereof.  
The Consideration of the great difference in their Institution, illustrates this also: For when Christ instituted Baptism, he says; Go Teach, and Baptise; and in the Administration, they confessed and were Baptised; not a Word of Infants. And in the Precept of Circumcision, not a Word of Teaching, or Faith, but of Infants, the command expressly notes the Time, Age, and Sex. And therefore, since things become Ordinances to us, by Virtue of a Word of Institution, and no such Word is to be found, to make out that Baptism succeeds Circumcision, in its Room, Place, and Use: We think it safe to be sober, and advance no further than the Scripture guides. And indeed, to make Circumcision Institutive of Baptism, is no other than to send us to School to the Law, and that First, Old, Vanishing Covenant, as it is styled. Heb. 8. 13. as if the Lawgiver in the New Testament had not by a positive Institution established his Ordinances; nor left us any warrant for our Gospel Duties, without that Retrogression to Moses, and assimulating them to the Paedagoggy, and similitude of Types.  
Besides, when you tell us that Christian Baptism is come in the Room, Place, and Use of Jewish Circumcision; so as that the Institution of that should be our Rule about Baptism. This is not right: For First, than Infant Females should not be Baptised, as hath been already noted. And to say that Females were Virtually, and Reputatively Circumcised, in the Circumcision of the Males, is frivolous: For if so, by Analogy, the Females should be only Virtually, and Reputatively, and not Actually Baptised. And if Infants out of Abraham's Family were not Circumcised, though the Parent believed in God, as a Proselyte of the Gate. e. g. Cornelius: Then neither should an Infant of a Believer in Christ, not in a National, or other Constituted Church, be Baptised. And if Circumcision were of the Use of Baptism, the Circumcised Infant needed not to be Baptised. Secondly, it appears from Col. 2. 17. That a Principal Use of Circumcision, was to signify Christ to come of Abraham; which Baptism not doing hath not a Principal Use of Circumcision. Thirdly. though Baptism distinguish between Believer and Unbeliever; yet it doth not make a Partition Wall between Nation and Nation, as Circumcision did; which was not to be imparted to all Believing Males of the Gentiles, as is manifest in the Case of Cornelius, who though fearing God, was not Circumcised, nor to be Circumcised; unless, joined as a Member of the Jewish People. Fourthly, Circumcision bound Men to keep the whole Law of Moses, or else was Unprofitable. Rom. 2. 25. Gal. 5. 3. But Baptism Witnesseth, that the whole Ceremonial Law of Moses, is now made void, and only Christ's Law is to be kept. Fifthly, Circumcision was Administered to Abraham's Natural Seed, without any Profession of Faith, Repentance, or Regeneration; whereas, Baptism is only to be Administered to the Spiritual Seed of Abraham; upon an Actual Profession of Faith, Repentance, and Regeneration. Mark 16. 16. Acts 8. 36, 37.  
It is granted, that in some things there is an Analogy betwixt them; both signifying Heart Circumcision, and an Initiating into the Church: though as the Church itself is a different Church from that under the Law; so it hath different Subjects and Church Members, and those to be Admitted upon different Grounds, and to different Ends, and in a different manner: The one to be done in a private House, and by a private Hand; the other in some public Place, by the hand of some public Minister, appointed by the Church to administet the same. But it follows not that because there is some Analogy between Baptism and Circumcision, therefore one cometh in the room, stead, and use of the other: For by the same reason we may as well conclude that Baptism cometh in the room and stead of the Ark, Manna, Rock, etc. And from such like Arguments drawn from Analogy, what Jewish Rites may not be Introduced to the Justification of the Roman Church, in their High Priesthood, and all other their innumerable Rites and Ceremonies, which without any Institution of Christ, or New Testament Authority, they have Introduced upon the account of Analogy with Old Testament Rites and Ceremonies. And therefore if we will follow this way of Reasoning from Infant Circumcision to Infant Baptism, we must fall back not only to Popish but Jewish Ceremonies also. Nor is that Plea sufficient to avoid it, to say we bring not in a new Rite in Baptising Infants, if we use it not as Christ appointed. So they might say of Bell Baptism; and the Pharisees of their washing of Hands, Cups, and Vessels of Brass; yet condemned by Christ, because not Commanded, but after men's Traditions taught. Papists say they bring not in a New Rite in their Mass; yet we charge them with a great Sin in making it a Propitiatory Sacrifice, and the Priest a Sacrificing Priest, as the Jews. The Corinthians did not bring in a new Rite; yet when they used it otherwise than Christ appointed, it was not to Eat the Lord's Supper. 1 Cor. 11. 20. It being the Apostles Rule, to use it as it was received by him of the Lord. And they that admitted Infants to the Lord's Supper, or shall do it, may say as much as you for Infant's Baptism; that they do only apply an Instituted Ordinance, by way of Proportion to such Subjects, though they are not Expressly called to a Participation thereof.  
Object. 12. But it is yet further Objected; That though 'tis true, when God made a Promise to Abraham, to be a GOD to him, and to his Seed. The Seed there mentioned, is applied to Christ. Gal. 3. 16. He saith not unto Seeds, as of many, but as of one; And to thy Seed, which is Christ. Yet this is not to be understood of Christ Personal, but of Christ Mystical; as in 1 Cor. 12. 12. And so is to be understood of the Visible Church, of which Infants Born of Believing Parents are a part.  
To this we Reply; That we must not be put off with bare Affirmations; but we expect Solid Proof from Scripture as to the point in hand; it being evident that the Apostle, Gal. 3. 16. refers not to Gen. 17. 7. but to Gen. 12. 2. 3. and Gen. 22. 17, 18. as shall be afterward made manifest. And whereas you say, that the Promises are to be considered, as made to Christ Mystical; that is, to the Visible Church; the contrary appears. Gal. 3. 16. where the Apostle affirms, that Christ was the Seed to whom the Promises were made. And in Verse 19, He saith, the Law was added because of Transgressions, till the Seed should come to whom the Promise was made. Where it is Observable, that the Law, that is the Mosaical Administration, is said to be before the Seed was come, and was to have its Period then. Now if by the Seed Christ be not to be understood Personally, but Mystically, for the Visible or Invisible Church (take which you will) than the Law could not have been before the Seed: For God had His Church in Abraham's Family 400 Years, at least, before the Law was, of which Christ was the Head, and they His Mystical Body. And so by this Interpretation the Seed should have been before the Law; contrary to the Apostle, who makes the Law to have been before the Seed, and to have its Period, when the Seed to whom the Promise was made, was come. And now the Promises running to Christ Personal, GOD makes Him over for a Covenant to the Elect, and all the Promises in Him. Isa. 42. 6. So that in Christ he is Our GOD; and in Christ He takes us to be his People. In Christ, and a right to the Promises; Out of Christ and Strangers to the Covenants of Promise. Eph. 2. 12. So that it is evident, that the Promises were first made to Christ Personal, and in Him to His Mystical Body the Church, who are united to Him by Faith.  
Secondly. As to that Scripture, 1 Cor. 12. 12. For as the Body is One, and hath many Members, and all the Members of that One Body being many, are one Body: So also is Christ. It rather seems also to be meant of the Invisible Church of true Believers, than of the visible: For the Apostle▪ there calls none the Body of Christ, but such as had received the Gifts of the Spirit. And such as by one Spirit, as the concurring Cause, had been Baptised into one Body; yea, such who had received the Spirit to profit withal; such that had a real Sympathy one with another. Verse 26. If one Member suffers, all the Members suffer with it. If one Member be Honoured, all the Members rejoice with it. All which cannot in any tolerable Sense be applied to the visible Church, amongst whom there are many Hypocrites that never received the Spirit; nor by the Spirit could sympathise one with another. But however it be, most certain it is that Infants are not called the Body of Christ, if it be meant of the visible Church. Indeed by Virtue of the Grace of Election, some of them may be Members of the Mystical Body, the Invisible Church; but not at all Members of the Visible: Especially from this Chapter; where it is said that if one Member suffer, all the Members suffer with it, and the Manifestation of the Spirit is given to every one to profit withal: which cannot be applicable to Infants: For none in this Chapter are counted the Body of Christ, but such as are useful to the Body, as an Eye, an Ear, a Hand, a Head, etc. as v. 21. The Eye cannot say to the Hand, I have no need of thee; nor the Head to the Foot, I have no need of you. From whence we draw these two Conclusions. First every Member in a Church stands in need of the help of all the other Members. Secondly, That every Member in a Church must be useful in his place to the rest of the Members. But of what use are Infants to the rest of the Members, in respect of Edification? So that notwithstanding this Objection, It is plain that all the Promises respecting Spiritual Blessings and the Eternal Inheritance, were first made to Christ Personal; and in Him they are made over to his Mystical Body the Church, who are united to Him by Faith. And in this respect therefore, it still lies upon you to prove that God hath made the Natural Birth Privilege, a way under the Gospel Administration to be Ingraffed into Christ Mystical▪ So that upon the whole as to this, you may see to how little purpose the Promise in Gen. 17. 7. is alleged to Prove the thing in Question, to wit, the Baptism of Infants now under the Gospel. That Text speaks of a Covenant made with Abraham and his Seed▪ It doth not say with all Believers and their Seed, or all Church. Members and their Seed. Neither doth it follow by any necessary Consequence, that because GOD made a Covenant with Abraham and his Seed, therefore He hath made a Covenant with Believers and their Seed. Certain it is, the Apostle was of another Mind, who when he Expounds the Covenant of Grace, understands it to be made to Abraham, not as a Natural Father, but as the Father of the Faithful, both Jews, and Gentiles. Rom. 4. 11. 12. He received the Sign of Circumcision that he might be the Father of all them that Believe, and walk in his Steps. So Gal. 3. 7. Know ye therefore that they which are of Faith, the same are the Children of Abraham. And those only are the Seed to whom the Gospel Covenant was made, and not to the Natural Seed either of Abraham, or any other Believers. Which hath been already made appear, and that beyond any just Contradiction.  
Object. 13. But than it is yet again Objected. That in the Commission Mat. 28. The Apostles are there commanded to Teach or Disciple all Nations, Baptising them; But Infants are Disciples, and therefore to be Baptised.  
To this we Answer; That by that very Commission. Mat. 28. The Lord hath plainly given a Caution for the leaving out of Infants in this Administration, according to ordinary Rule: For in that he directs them to Baptise Disciples, upon Preaching he doth exclude Infants, who are not such Disciples; nor according to ordinary Providence can be. Infants after an ordinary rate, are uncapable of understanding the Gospel when Preached; and therefore are uncapable of being made Disciples thereby: And there is no other way according to an ordinary Rule, of being at all made Disciples but by that means. And this the Apostles could easily understand, as knowing that under the term Disciple, in common Speech, and in the whole New Testament, those only are meant, who being taught, Professed the Doctrine Preached by such a one: As John's Disciples; Christ's Disciples; the Disciples of the Pharisees; and the Disciples of the Perverters. Acts 20. 30. And accordingly they Administered Baptism. And in that Christ appoints these to be Baptised he Excludes others: For the appointment of Christ is most certainly the Rule according to which we are to Administer Holy things; and they that do otherwise follow their own Inventions, and are guilty of Will Worship. If you say that Infants are Disciples Seminally, in and by their Parents; as if Believers could beget Believers or Disciples of Christ by natural Generation; this hath been already at large disproved: The Christian Church being not made up of Persons by mere humane Birth, but Spiritual Regeneration. And to say that Infants are Born Disciples by a Relation to the Covenant, and so may have the Seal set on them, without any precedent Teaching, is but an unproved Dictate; as if a Title to Baptism were by a Relation to the Covenant, and Baptism were in its Nature a Seal of the Covenant, which the Scripture no where Affirms; nor is there any Rule for the Baptising of Persons because of Relation to the Covenant.  
But it is further Urged to this purpose; that Infants are called Disciples by the Apostle. Acts 15. 10. Now therefore why tempt ye God to put a Yoke upon the Neck of the Disciples? Which being spoken of Circumcision, must needs (say you) refer to Infants, as the Disciples there spoken of, as well as others. To this we Answer, That there is no necessity nor colour of giving to Infants the Name of Disciples from that Text: For though it is true that they are called Disciples, upon whose Necks the false Brethren would have put the Yoke of Circumcision; yet this proves not Infants to be certainly meant by Disciples; since adult Believers of the Gentiles also were required by the Jews to be Circumcised, as Timothy. Acts 13. 20. And again, though it is true that they would have had Infants, as well as the converted Gentiles to be Circumcised; yet the putting the Yoke of Circumcision, is not Actual Circumcision, in their Flesh: For that the Jews were able to bear for many Ages, and that both before, and since also to this day: But the Yoke of Circumcision is the Necessity of it on Men's Consciences, and therewith the whole Law of Moses. ver. 5. and that as Necessary to Salvation. ver. 1. And therefore Peter having said ver. 10. Why tempt ye God to put a Yoke upon the Necks of the Disciples. Adds ver. 11. But we believe, that through the Grace of the Lord Jesus, we shall be saved even as they. Plainly implying that the Yoke he meant, was the necessity of Circumcision, and keeping Moses his Law to Salvation. Now this Yoke was not put upon Infants, but upon Brethren, taught the necessity of it. So that upon the whole, to insist upon a Command by virtual Consequence from hence for the Baptising the Infants of Believers according to ordinary Rule, is so far from being right and genuine, that on the contrary this Text, Mat. 28. 19 clearly proves Infants are not by ordinary Rule to be Baptised; because Disciples of all Nations, and no other are Appointed thereunto▪ Whence it follows that the Baptism of Infants is beside the Institution and Rule of Christ; and therefore no other than Will Worship and a Humane Invention.  
Obj. 14. But the Infants of Believers, even while they are Infants, are capable of being made Partakers of the Inward Grace of Baptism as well as grown Men: And therefore they ought to receive the outward Sign of Baptism.  
Reply. The Question between us is; Whether the Infants of Believers, universally or indifferently, are to be admitted to the Ordinance of Baptism, according to ordinary Rule? Now it cannot be supposed that the Infants of Believers, indifferently or universally, have actually the thing signified by Baptism; that is, the Holy Ghost, Union with Christ, Adoption, Forgiveness of Sins, Regeneration, and Eternal Life: For than they are all Sanctified, and all Believers. And if this could be proved, there would be no Question about Padobaptism. Those Texts, Acts 8. 37. Acts 10. 47. Acts 11. 17. would undeniably prove it. And there is no Antipaedobaptist but will grant, that all those concerning whom there is any tolerable Evidence given that they are Regenerated Persons, United to Christ, whose Sins are forgiven, and that have received the Holy Ghost; are to be Baptised. Now to affirm that all Infants of Believers, either Actually or Imputatively, are Sanctified, Regenerated, Justified, is quite contrary to Rom. 9 6. etc. as also to daily Experience. To Baptise them all therefore is most certainly a Preposterous and Irregular Practice: The outward Sign according to your own Reckoning, of right belonging to none, but such as have the Inward Grace. And who they are among them that have, or have not this Inward Grace, is not determinable, according to ordinary Rule, till discovered by an answerable Profession when coming to Years of Understanding. And then indeed when such a Profession is made, we are bound according to a Judgement of Charity to reckon them as such as are made partakers of the Inward Grace, whether so in realty or no. And according to this Rule only are we to proceed in our admission unto Baptism.  
Obj. 15. But doth not our Saviour tell us, that unto such belongeth the Kingdom of Heaven? If Children therefore are capable of the greater, than they are capable of the lesser. If capable of a Membership in the Kingdom, then of the Sign and Cognisance thereof: But the First is true; Ergo, the Latter.  
To this We Answer, First, That that which you are to prove is, that all the Infants of Believers, or the Infants of Believers, in as much as they are the Infants of Believers, are Actually partakers of the Inward Grace of Baptism, and consequently such to whom appertains the Heavenly Kingdom. Now neither doth the Apostle's Speech, 1 Cor. 7. 14. prove it; as hath been already showed: Nor doth this Text, Mat. 19 14. prove it. And as neither of these prove it; So Rom: 9, 6, 7, 8, 9 Positively disproves it. For first it is doubtful, whether those were Infants or no, of whom Christ here speaketh: There being several Learned Men, as Piscator and others, that do maintain that the Speech of Christ, Mat. 19 14. is not of Infants; but of Children that were capable of Instruction: Which they gather from this that Christ called them Luke 18. 16. And elsewhere He saith, Whoso shall offend one of these little Ones that Believe in Me. Mat. 18. 6. Mark 9 42. Which after an ordinary rate of Speech cannot be intended of Infants. And whereas it is said in Mark. He took them up in His Arms. The Word so Translated; is used Mark 9 36. for the Embracing of those that were of some growth, whom He placed in the midst, and of whose Scandalising He there warns. Nor doth the Greek Word, used Luke 18. 15. Translated in English Infants, prove it: For the Greek Word there Translated Infants, as Piscator himself tells us, signifies a Child capable of Teaching. As when it is said Timothy knew the Sacred Scriptures from a Child: that is, ever since he was a Boy, not an infant: It being the same Greek Word that is used in both places.  
Secondly Though it should be granted that those were Infants; yet there is no Certainty, only Conjecture, that they were Believers Infants; which yet ought to be proved if you say any thing from hence to the purpose. For though Christ was then in the Coasts of Judea, yet it might as well be, that the Children were brought by others, as Parents, and that without Faith in Christ, as the Messiah, upon the Fame of his Miracles and the conceit that ●e was a Prophet. And so they might bring Children to him to be Blessed, as Jacob and Esau by Isaac; and Joseph's Children by Jacob.  
Thirdly. Let it be granted they were the Infants of Believers, of whom our Saviour here speaketh, that of such is the Kingdom of God. It may be (as Piscator also observes) referred not to their present state, as if for the present they were in the Kingdom of God, that is Believers and Justified; but that they were Elect Persons, and so in time of them should be the Kingdom of God. Now that which gives right to Baptism is the present Estate of a Person.  
Fourthly. Though it should be granted that the little Children Christ here speaketh of, are indeed young Sucking Infants, that they are also the Infants of Believers: and that unto them also belongeth the Kingdom of Heaven; yet this is no sufficient Ground or Warrant for us therefore to Administer Baptism to Infants; It being only the ground laid down in the Institution that can justly warrant the same. That a Profession of Faith and Repentance is a sufficient ground is undeniably to be proved from the Scriptures: But because some of our Infants are, or may be in a state of Salvation: or because, for aught as we know, unto all of them belongeth the Kingdom of Heaven; that therefore they must all be Baptised, whether capable of making an Answerable Profession or no: Neither doth the present Scripture prove it, which speaks nothing at all of Baptism; nor doth any other that we can meet with, give any Warrant, or Countenance at all unto such a Practice.  
Obj. 16. But the Gospel took place just as the Old Administration did, by bringing in whole Families together: When Abraham was taken in, his whole Family was taken in. So in this New Administration, usually if the Master of the House turned Christian, the whole Family came in and were Baptised with him. The whole Household of Cornelius, the first Converted Gentile. Acts 11. 14. The Household of Stephanus. The Household of Lydia. The Household of the Jailor.  
Reply. Whereas you say the Gospel took place just as the Old Administration, by bringing in whole Families together; By the Old Administration you mean Circumcision: But we do not find the Gospel, or Baptism took place just in the manner that Circumcision did. For Circumcision was but in one Family, singled out from all the Families of the Earth, of the Males only; whether in the Covenant of Grace or no; Children or Servants, Elder or Younger; by the Master of the Family, or others in his stead: But in Baptism it is clean otherwise. And as to the bringing in o● whole Families together, it was but contingently so, not always so, nor constantly so, according to any Promise or Prophecy. And when it did so happen, we find not any infant Baptised; nor any Intimation of Baptising Households in Conformity to the Administration of Circumcision, but rather the contrary; Express notice being given of the Faith and Repentance of those Admitted unto Baptism, in the several Households recorded to have been Baptised; (whereas all were to be Circumcised that were of Abraham's Family, both Children, Servants, Slaves, and all, whether making a Profession of Faith and Repentance or no.) And this may appear by taking a view of the several Examples of Baptising, recorded in the New Testament.  
Concerning John the Baptist, it is said Mat. 3. 5. There went out to him all Jerusalem, and all Judea, and all the Region about Jordan, and were Baptised of him in Jordan, Confessing their Sins. In which the practice of Baptising was not by taking in a Family, but by admitting all that would become Disciples, over all the Countries. After the Ascension of Christ, the first Example of Baptising is that recorded Acts 2. 44. And there it is said, they that gladly received the Word were Baptised. And those were they of whom he had said, V 39 The Promise is to you and to your Children. And there were added unto them about 3000 Souls. But no mention of any Infants: neither indeed is there any probability that any Infants were at all Comprehended in that Number; in as much as 'tis afterwards told us, Ver. 42. That they continued steadfastly in the Apostles Doctrine and Fellowship, and in Breaking of Bread, and in Prayers. Which cannot with any shadow of pretence be applied to Sucking Infants. The next Example is that of the Samaritans; of whom it is said, Acts 8. 12. That when they ●elieved, Philip Preaching the things Concerning the Kingdom of God, and the Name of Jesus Christ, they were Baptised both Men and Women. Where Children, if any had been Baptised, might very aptly have been Inserted: But we find none mentioned to have been Baptised, but those that Believed and Received the Word of God, both Men and Women, not Children. Concerning Cornelius we are told that he was a Devout Man; One that feared God with all his House. Acts 10. 2. And Ver. 44. we are told; While Peter yet spoke these Words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the Word, and they spoke with Tongues, and magnified God; which cannot be affirmed of Infants. And accordingly there being convincing Evidence that they that had thus heard the Word, had received the Holy Ghost; he commanded them to be Baptised in the Name of the Lord. Concetning the Household of Stephanus; which is said to be Baptised, 2 Cor. 1. 16. they are said to have addicted themselves to the Ministry of the Saints. To which most aptly may be adjoined the House of Crispus; concerning whom it is said. Acts 18. 8. And Crispus the chief Ruler of the Synagogue, Believed on the Lord with all his House; And many of the Corinthians hearing, Believed and were Baptised. Where under the term Household those only are meant that Believed. And those that among the Corinthians were Baptised, are said first to hear and Believe. The next mentioned, is the Household of Lydia, of whom it was said that She was Baptised and her Household. Acts 16. 15. But this must be understood by other places, which when they express the Baptising of the Household, they express also the Believing or Receiving of the Word by the whole Household; and by the frequent use of the Word, which is to put the House for the People of Growth in it. The last mentioned is the Household of the Jailor, Acts 16. 33, 34. of whom it is said that he was Baptised, he and all his; and when he had brought them into his House, he sat Meat before them, and Rejoiced, Believing in God with all his House.  
Upon the whole than it doth not appear that either one Infant was Baptised, or that the Gospel always took place as the Old Administration did, by bringing in whole Families together; yea the contrary appears, out of the 1 Pet. 3. 1. As also from 1 Cor. 7. 13, 16. That the Husband was Converted sometimes without the Wife; and the Wife sometimes without the Husband. So sometimes in the House of Infidel Masters, were Converted Servants. 1 Tim. 6. 1, 2. And on the contrary, Phil. 11, 12, etc. And our Lord Jesus foretell it should be so in the Preaching of the Gospel. Mat. 10. 35. 36. To affirm therefore that there were Infants in any of those forementioned Households, or if there were that they were Baptised, is more than doth well become us to assert, since the Scripture makes no mention of them in either respect: And consequently much to blame are they that build their Practice upon so infirm a Bottom.  
Obj. 17. But than it is again Objected; That as there is no Express Command or Example in the Scripture concerning the Baptism of Infants; so neither is there any concerning the Baptism of Persons at Age, whose Parents were Christians, and who have been Educated from their Childhood in the Christian Religion; the Scripture giving no account of the Baptism of any in the Apostles Days, but such as were Converted from Judaisme or Paganism to Christianity. And if a just Consequence may be admitted for the proof of the one, Why not for the other also? You are wont to reject all Scripture Consequences in respect of Infant's Baptism; and yet here you must of necessity admit of the same: So that this Argument therefore returns upon yourselves.  
To this we Reply; First that though it should be granted that there is no express Example in the Scripture of the Baptism of Persons at Age, whose Parents were Christians, yet the Precept concerning Baptism is as express for such, as for any others. Mat. 28. 19 Go Teach all Nations; Baptising them, etc. Mark 16. 15, 16. Go Preach the Gospel to every Creature. He that Believeth and is Baptised shall be Saved. Where none are excluded that are capable of being Taught or Discipled into the true Faith or Profession of Christianity, let their Parentage be what it will.  
Secondly, It is sufficient unto us, that as the Commission is express, so there are Examples enough in the Scripture concerning the Baptism of Believers. So that let a Person be but a Believer, and we have no Reason to look into his Pedigree; nor have we any Rule that so directs us, in order to his Admission to Baptism. And as we have no Rule nor Reason to accept of a Person that believes, the rather because he had Christian Parents; so neither to reject him upon that ground. Can the like Command or Examples be produced from the Scripture concerning Infant's Baptism, as can easily be produced concerning the Baptism of Believers (for under that Notion only are we bound to take Cognisance of those Baptised by us) the present Controversy would suddenly be concluded betwixt us. And therefore;  
Thirdly, This cuts not off our Pretensions, to something more than a bare consequential Deduction for the Justification of our Practice; whilst Consequences only, and those far fetched, and strained enough, are the best bottom that Infant's Baptism is built upon: Which Consequences of yours, are a most insufficient ground for the Justification thereof: For though it is true, that in respect of all sorts of moral Duties, or other concernments of Christianity, Consequences are allowable enough, and we are sufficiently warranted in our Practice therein, and that not only from the Practice of our Saviour himself, who took this Method for the Proof of the Resurrection; but from several other such like Instances in the Scripture. And indeed without them, neither can the Word be Preached, not the Duties of Christianity enforced, as they ought upon the Conscience; yet this is an infallible Maxim, a Rule beyond all just Contradiction, and which hath accordingly been urged by multitudes of Protestant Divines, by way of Opposition to the Papal Usurpation; That in respect of all Positive or Instituted Worship, such as Baptism is, that hath no other Rule nor Reason, than the mere Will of the Lawgiver; there must be something in the Scripture, either by way of Precept or Example, that alone can justly warrant our Practice therein. The Reason is obvious, because Baptism (being a part of Instituted Worship, not found in Nature's Garden) hath of itself no virtue, but what it receives from the Institutor: It being a right Note, That Moral Laws are good, and therefore commanded: But Positive Worship is commanded, and therefore good. And accordingly, though Moral Duties are easily deducible from their proper Premises; yet we cannot possibly arrive unto any certain Knowledge of our Duty in reference to Positive Worship, without some express signification of God's mind unto us therein. True it is, that in some Cases, if an express Precept be wanting, we may justly enough recur to the Example of the Apostles, as a sufficient Authority for our Practice. As for Instance, in the Case of the Observation of the Lord's day; concerning which though we have no express Precept to warrant our Practice therein, we are yet justifiable enough upon that Account, in that we have the frequent Examples of the Apostles, recorded in the Scripture to that purpose; whose steps we are bid to follow. But when Precept and Precedent do both fail us, as is most evidently the case with us in respect of Infant's Baptism, and which hath been accordingly ingeniously owned, by some of the chiefest of the Paedobaptists themselves: We do certainly step aside into a wrong Path, in our Practices of that kind. And justly enough therefore, may our common Adversaries the Papists, twit us in the Teeth with the Gild of a Self condemned Practice, while we blame that in them, which yet we ourselves do allow in other Cases. And how can we call upon them, to produce something o● other by way of Precept or Precedent from the Scripture, for the justification of their Ceremonies, without the one or the other of which, we justly condemn them as unlawful, when we ourselves are found highly guilty of the same Transgression, and that in a greater degree in other Respects.  
Object. 18. But it is yet further Objected; That Infants by God's express Command, were to be Circumcised under the former Administration; and all God's Commands about His Institutions then, (according to the Rules of Analogy or Proportion) are equally binding unto us, as well as to the Jews. As in the case of the Christian Sabbath, unto which the Fourth Commandment binds us, as it did the Jews to the former. And thus it is in reference to Infant's Baptism; in respect of which, though there is no express Command to that purpose, recorded in the New Testament; yet we cannot but conclude, that God's Command unto the Jews to Circumcise their Infants, carries with it the force, at least, of a virtual Command unto us to Baptise ours.  
To this we reply; That certain it is, that that which concerns the Worship of God, which hath not an express Institution in the New Testament, is now to be rejected by us; which is to be understood, as we have said before, in respect of Positive Worship, consisting in outward Rites; such as Circumcision, Baptism, and the Lord's Supper are, which have nothing Natural or Moral in them; but are merely Ceremonial. For as for that which is Natural, or Moral in God's Worship, we allow that an Institution or Command in the Old Testament, is Obligatory to Christians under the New. And such do we conceive the Sabbath to be, as being of the Law of Nature: For outward Worship being due to God, Days are due to God to that end; and therefore even in Paradise appointed from the Creation; and in all Nations, in all Ages observed, enough to prove so much to be of the Law of Nature. And therefore the Fourth Commandment is justly put among the Morals; which proves, that at least a seventh Portion of time is to be dedicated more immediately to the Service of God. Now Circumcision hath nothing Moral in it; it is merely Positive. Neither was it so from the beginning; nor observed by all Nations, in all Ages; nor is it in the Decalogue. And therefore the Observation of the Lord's Day may stand, though Circumcision fall, and though there be no other Ordinance come in the room of it, that bears Analogy or Proportion with it.  
Secondly, When we require express Institution in the New Testament, in respect of the Matters of God's Worship now to be practised by us; We do not mean, that in all Positive Worship, there must always be of necessity a positive Command in so many Words, in form of a Precept: But we conceive, that the Example of the Apostles, which hath not a mere temporary Reason, is enough to prove that Institution from God, to which that Practice doth relate. And in this therefore as we said before, in Answer to the foregoing Objection; we reckon it a sufficient Warrant for the Justification of our Practice, in the Observation of the Lord's Day, that such was the Practice of the Apostles, according to those plain Testimonies thereof, recorded in the Holy Scripture, though it be not expressly commanded. Now if the one half of this Evidence could be brought for the Baptism of Infants, we should make no question, but readily subscribe unto it, But Infant's Baptism not consisting with the Order of Christ in the Institution; being contrary to the Practice of John the Baptist, and the Apostles; there being no Footsteps of it at all in the Scripture; nor till about 200 years after Christ's Incarnation; we dare not assent unto the Practice of it, upon a supposed Analogy, or Proportion between that and Circumcision.  
And evident it is, that it is a most dangerous Principle upon which they go, that so argue; to wit, that in mere positive things, such as Circumcision and Baptism are, we may frame an Addition to God's Worship from Analogy, or Resemblance conceived by us, between two Ordinances, whereof one is quite taken away, without any Institution, gathered by Precept, or Apostolical Example: For if we may do it in one thing, why not in another? Where shall we stop? Certain it is, that this very Principle hath brought in all the Popish Ceremonies into the Romish Church. That which Christ and his Apostles have taken from the Jews, and appointed unto us, we are to receive as they have appointed. But if any others shall take upon them to appoint to men's Consciences, any Rite, in whole or in part, on their own conceived Reason, from Analogy with the Jewish Ceremonies; It is an high Presumption in such, against Christ, and against the Apostles Command to yield to it. Col. 2. 20. Though it hath a show of Wisdom. verse 23. And the Apostles Example binds us to oppose it. Gal. 2. 3, 4, 5.  
Object. 19 But if the Baptism of Believers, be the only Baptism which Christ hath appointed: How comes it to pass, that so many learned and pious Men, should for so long a Season, and throughout so many Generations cleave to Infant's Baptism, whilst so few, in Comparison do embrace the contrary Practice?  
For Answer hereunto: First, It is to be duly noted, that as the Scripture hath clearly foretold us of a Defection, or an Apostasy from the Primitive Purity and Simplicity of the Gospel, in respect both of Doctrine and Discipline, which was to happen, when the Man of Sin was to be Revealed, and the Mystery of Iniquity was to be discovered in the World; even that Lawless one, who should sit in the Temple of God, as God; Opposing and Exalting himself above all that is called God, or that is Worshipped: And as Paul doth also forewarn the Elders of the Church at Ephesus, not only, that grievous Wolves should enter in among them after his Departure, not sparing the Flock. But also, that of their own selves should Men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away Disciples after them: Which should lessen our Wonder in this Respect. So it is no less observable, that as the Apostasy came in gradually, the Mystery of Iniquity prevailing step by step; so doth the Wisdom of the Lord seem to order the Recovery thereof. And therefore so it is, that in these last Ages, when the Reformation first began to be set on foot in the World, the Doctrinal part of the Gospel was first notably cleared up, whilst yet there remained a very great Corruption in point of Discipline, or in respect of the Primitive Purity of Gospel-Worship: As in the Case of Luther, and many others of the first Reformers, who notwithstanding their zealous Pleading for the Doctrine of free Justification, by the Blood of Christ, in Opposition to Popish Merits, etc. yet held fast Images in Churches, Consubstantiation, Bowing to the high Altar, the Surplice in Preaching, the Cross in Baptism; and many other things which the After Reformers could not but see them, to be clearly defective in. So that the light of God's People comes not up to its proper Acme all at once, but by degrees. And suitably hath the Reformation advanced, and the Truths and Ordinances of Christ been cleared up, and recovered from the Encroachments, and Corruptions of the Man of Sin: One Age recovering one part; and another, another; making good that Word, Prov. 4. 18. The Path of the just is as the shining Light, that shineth more and more unto the perfect Day; which holds good in reference to the general Dispensations of God's Providence toward his People, as well as in particular Cases.  
Secondly; We must follow no Man's Example therefore, no not the Apostles themselves, further than it can be made out unto us, that they were followers of Christ. 1 Cor. 11. 1. And certain it is, that the Examples of the best Men living, will be no sufficient Justification to us in the matters of Divine Worship, when contradicting an express Word. Jehoshaphat and Asa, were both good King's of Israel, and great Reformers; yet in many things they did prevaricate, and transgressed the Commandments of the Lord; and particularly in their not removing the High Places; and for which they are both taxed by the Holy Spirit, 1 Kings 15. 14. and Chap. 22. 43. And indeed, as the High Places than ought to have been removed; so the same aught to have been done by our first Reformers, in respect of Infant's Baptism, and other Ceremonies of the Romish Church: Which other Ceremonies they retained in hope, 'tis true, of gaining over the Papists, to a Compliance with the then Established Discipline; though it succeeded far otherwise than was expected: For the retaining of those Ceremonies, did but so much the more harden the Papal Party in their other Devices. We must follow no man's Example therefore, against the Word of God, upon an undue Presumption, that any of the Sons of Men, how Pious or Learned soever, are infallible, either in point of Doctrine or Practice. Humanum est errare, must not be forgotten.  
Thirdly. To lay the stress of your Argument, upon the Unlikelyhood, that so great a Number of God's People, in so many Ages, should be left in the dark, in Reference to such a Gospel Ordinance as Baptism is; As it proceeds from the want of a due Consideration of that Apostasy of the Church from its Primitive Purity, in respect both of Doctrine and Worship, which the Scripture do so clearly foretell us concerning: So the Language of it sounds no other than this; That we cannot miss of doing right and well, if we follow the Pious Examples of those that are gone before us; not considering that as they were Men, and Men of like Infirmities with ourselves: So that it no way follows, that because there is a beginning Reformation, in respect of the forementioned Apostasy, we must go no further. True it is, that we are to give no Entertainment unto any New Light or Doctrine in these Respects, that hath not been already declared unto us in the Holy Scriptures: But if upon a due search it can be made appear unto us from the Word of God, that we have hitherto gone astray in a point of such Importance to the Worship and Service of God, as Baptism is: As we ought not to shut our Eyes against the Light so shining upon us; so it will not excuse our Continuance in such a Path of Error, that we have the Company of so many Wise, Learned, and Holy Men, that are therein Fellow Transgressors with us.  
Fourthly. We have not been without the Testimony of many Learned, Pious, and Holy Men, who have born Witness unto the Truth we are now pleading for, and that in many former Ages, as well as in this. For it is well known that Infant's Baptism was very early opposed, if not so soon as it was born; for no Antiquity mentions it to have had any peaceable being in the World any long time before it was opposed: And if it be said that it was not opposed at the beginning, assoon as it came into the World; it may be so: For Christ saith, Whilst the Servants slept the Evil One Sowed Tares. And surely it was a sleepy Time amongst Christians when it came in; but when they began to awake they opposed it. Besides which,  
Fifthly. We have the Witness of some of your own Party, whose Tongues and Pens God hath (at least) so overruled, that they have born a Famous Testimony for our Practice.  
First. Dr. Taylor saith; This indeed is true Baptism, when it is both in the Symbol and the Mystery. Whatsoever is less than this, is but the Symbol only, and a mere Ceremony; an Opus Operatum; a dead Letter; an empty Shadow; an Instrument without an Agent to manage it. Lib. of Proph p. 242.  
Secondly. Baptism is never propounded, mentioned, or enjoined, as a means of Remission of Sins, or of Eternal Life; but something of Duty, Choice, and Sanctity, is joined with it, in order to the Production of the end so mentioned. p. 243.  
Thirdly. They that Baptise Children, make Baptism to be wholly an Outward Duty; a Work of the Law; a Carnal Ordinance: It makes us adhere to the Letter, without regard to the Spirit; and to Relinquish the Mysteriousness, the Substance, the Spirituality of the Gospel. Which Argument is of so much the more Consideration; because under the Spiritual Covenant of the Gospel of Grace; if the Mystery goes not before the Symbol▪ (which it doth when the Symbols are Cognations of Grace, as the Sacraments are;) yet it always accompanies it; but never follows in Order of Time, and is clear in the perpetual Analogy of Holy Scripture.  
Fourthly, That the words mentioned in St. Peter's Sermon, Act. 2. (which are the only Records of the Promises) are interpreted upon a weak mistake. The Promise belongs to you and your Children: Therefore Infants are actually Receptive of it in that Capacity. That is the Argument: But the Reason of it is not yet discovered; nor ever will: For (to you and your Children) is to you and your Posterity; to you and your Children, when they are of the same Capacity, in which you are, receptive of the Promise. But he that whenever the Word Children is Expressed, understands Infants, must needs believe that in all Israel there were no Men; but all were Infants: And if that had been true, it had been the greater wonder that they should overcome the Anakims, and beat the King of Moab, and March so far, and Discourse so well, for they were all called the Children of Israel. p. 233.  
Fifthly. Whereas 'tis Argued from the Commission. Mark 16. 6. He that Believeth and is Baptised shall be Saved. Infants are Believers, and therefore according to the Commission they are to be Baptised. Whether Infants (saith he) have Faith or no, is a Question to be disputed by Persons that Care not how much they say, and how little they prove. First, Personal and Actual Faith they have none: For they have no Acts of Understanding: And besides, how can any Man know that they have, since he never saw any sign of it, neither was he told so by any that could tell? Secondly, Some say they have Imputative; but then so let the Sacrament be to; that is, if they have the Parent's Faith, or the Churches, than so let Baptism be imputed also by Derivation from them; And as in their Mother's Womb, and while they hung on their Mother's Breasts, they live upon their Mother's Nourishment: So they may upon the Baptism of their Parents, or their Mother the Church: For since Faith is necessary to Baptism (and they themselves confess it by striving to find out new Kind's of Faith to dawb the matter up;) such as the Faith, such must be the Sacrament; for there is no Proportion, between an Actual Sacrament, and an Imputative Faith; this being an immediate and necessary Order to that. And whatsoever can be said to take off from the necessity of Actual Faith; all that and much more may be said to excuse from the Actual Susception of Baptism. The first of these Devices, was that of Luther, and his Scholars; the second of Calvin, and his. And yet there is a Third Device, which the Church of Rome Teaches, and that is. that Infants have Habitual Faith, but who told them so? How can they prove it? What Revelation or Reason teacheth any such thing? Are they by this Habit so much as disposed to an Actual Belief, without a Miracle? Can an Infant, sent into a Mahometan Province be more confident for Christianity, when he comes to be a Man, than if he had not been Baptised? Are there any Acts precedent, concomitant, or consequent to this pretended Habit? This strange Invention is absolutely without Art, without Scripture, Reason, or Authority; but the Men are to be excused unless there were a better. p. 240.  
To which, (saith he,) This Consideration may be added; that if Baptism be necessary to the Salvation of Infants (as the Fathers of Old, and the Church of Rome and England since) upon whom is the Imposition laid? To whom is the Command given? To the Parents or the Children? Not to the Parents, for then God hath put the Salvation of Innocent Babes into the Power of others, and Infants may be damned for their Father's Carelessness, or Malice. It follows that it is not necessary at all to be done to them, to whom it cannot be prescribed as a Law, and in whose behalf it cannot be reasonably entrusted to others with the Apendant Necessity: And if it be not necessary, it is certain it is not Reasonable; and most certain it is no where in terms prescribed; and therefore it is presumed that Baptism ought to be understood and administered, according as other Precepts are, with Reference to the Capacity of the Subject, and the Reasonableness of the thing.  
And again, p. 242. If any Man runs for Succour to that exploded Cresphugeton, that Infants have Faith, or any other inspired Habit, of I know not what or how; we desire no more Advantage in the World, than that they are constrained to answer without Revelation against Reason, common Sense, and all the Experience in the World.  
Sixthly. But Tradition (saith he) by all means must supply the place of Scripture; and there is pretended a Tradition Apostolical, that Infants were Baptised. But at this (saith he) we are not much moved; for we who rely upon the written Word of God, as suffcient to establish all true Religion, do not value the Allegation of Tradition. And however the World goes, none of the reformed Churches can pretend this Argument for this Opinion: Because they who reject Tradition, when it is against them, must not pretend it in the least for them. But if we will allow the Topick to be good; yet how will it be verified? For so far as can yet appear, it relies wholly upon the Testimony of Origen; for from him Austin had it. Now a Tradition Apostolical, if it be not consigned with a fuller Testimony than of one Person, whom all other Ages have condemned of other Errors; and whose Works, saith ●rasmus, are so spurious, that he that reads them, is uncertain, whether he read Origen, or Ruffinus; therefore will obtain so little Reputation amongst those, who know that things have upon greater Authority, been pretended to be received from the Apostles, but falsely; that it will be a great Argument, that he is Ridiculous, and Weak, that shall be determined by so weak Probation in matters of so great Concernment. But besides that, the Tradition cannot be proved to be Apostolical; we have very good Evidence from Antiquity, that it was the Opinion of the Primitive Church, that Infants ought not to be Baptised; which (saith he) is clear in the Canon of Neocaesarea; which he mentions at large in the Original Greek; determining that none ought to be Baptised, without giving an Account of their Faith, and desiring the same.  
And therefore whoever will pertinaciously persist in this Opinion of the Paedobaptists, and Practise it accordingly, they pollute the Blood of the Everlasting Covenant: They Dishonour and make a Pageantry of the Sacrament: they ineffectually represent a Sepulture into the Death of Christ, and please themselvet in a Sign without effect, making Baptism like the Figtree in the Gospel, full of Leaves, but no Fruit; and they invocate the Holy Ghost in vain, doing as if one should call upon him to illuminate a Stone of a Tree Thus far Dr. Taylor. p. 244.  
Mr. Baxter saith, If there can be no Example given in the Scripture of any one that was Baptised, without the Profession of a Saving Faith. nor any precept for so doing; then must we not Baptise any without it: But the Antecedent is true; therefore so is the consequent. 2. Disp against Mr Blake. 16. Arg. p. 149,  
2dly. Christ hath instituted no Baptism, but what is to be a sign of present Regeneration: But to Men that understand not a Justifying Faith it cannot be Administered as a sign of present Regeneration; therefore he hath Instituted no Baptism to be Administered to such. 10th. Arg. p 117, 118.  
3dly. If it be the appointed Use of all Christian Baptism to solemnize our Marriage with Christ, or to Seal and Confirm our Union with him: Then must we Baptise none that profess not justifying Faith: But the Antecedent and Consequent are evident. Gal. 3. 27, 28, 29. p. 98.  
The Lord Brookes saith; That the Analogy which Baptism now hath with Circumcision in the Old Law, is a fine Rational Argument to Illustrate a Point well proved before: But I somewhat doubt whether it be Proof enough for that which Some would prove by it; Since (besides the vast difference in the Ordinance) the persons to be Circumcised are stated by a Positive Law so Express, that is leaves no place for Scruple: But it is far otherwise In Baptism; Where all the Designation of Persons fit to be Partakers, for aught I know are such as Believe: For this is the Qualification, which with Exactest Search, I find the Scripture Repuires in persons to be baptised. And this it seems to require in all such Persons. Now how Infants can be properly said to Believe, I am not yet fully resolved.  
Dr. Barlow Bishop of Lincoln, hath these Words, in a Letter of his in Print. I do believe and know (saith he) that there is neither Precept, nor Example in Scripture for Paedobaptism; nor any just Evidence of it for ahove 200 Years after Christ. That Tertullian condemns it as an unwarrantable Custom. And Nazianzen a good while after him dislikes it too. Sure I am, that in the Primitive Times they were Catecheumeni; then Illumina●i, or Baptizati; And that not only Pagans, and Children of Pagans, converted; bu● Children of Christian Parents. The Truth is, I do believe, Paedobaptism (how, or by whom, I knnow no●) came into the World in the second Century. And in the Third and Fourth began to be practised, though not generally, and descended as Lawful, from that Text grossly misunderstood. Jo. ●. 3. Upon the like gross Mistake of Jo. 6. 53. They did for many Centuries, both in the Greek and Latin Church, communicate Infants, and give them the Lord's Supper. And I do confess they might do both as well as either. But although they Baptised some Infants, and thought it Lawful so to do; yet Austin was the First that ever said it was Necessary.  
I have read what my Learned and worthy Friends Dr. Hammond, Mr. Baxter, and others say in Defence of it; And I confess, I wonder not a little, that Men of such great Parts should say so much to so little purpose: For I have not as yet seen any thing like an Arguument for it. Thus far Dr. Barlow.  
Obj. 20. But the Apostle tells us; That neither Circumcision availeth any thing, nor Uncircumcision, but a New Creature: It is our main Business therefore to press after the Power of Godliness: And we are afraid that while there is so much stress laid upon the Circumstantials of Religion, it tends to the losing the Substance. Besides having been already Baptised in our Infancy, what necessity is there for the Repetition thereof? It being an approved Maxim, that that which ought not to be done, being done, ought not to be undone.  
We Answer, First, whereas you tell us, that neither Circumcision availeth any thing, nor Un▪ circumcision, but a new Creature. Certain it is, that once Circumcision was something, when the Lord would have killed Moses because of the Circumcision. Exod 4. 24, 26. And when the Lord said, That whosoever was not Circumcised should be cut off from his People. Gen. 17. 14. True it is, that now under the Gospel it is nothing, because Abolished. Gal. 5. 2. If you be Circumcised Christ shall profit you nothing: But shall we therefore say that Baptism is nothing? Baptism is the Counsel of God. Luk. 7. 29. And is that nothing? Baptism is a Command of the Lord Jesus. Mat. 28. 19 And is his Command nothing? And therefore;  
Secondly; We cannot be justly affirmed to have placed more stress on the Ordinance insisted on, than the Scripture itself chargeth on it. In which respect it ought to be considered, what our Saviour himself speaks, when he was to be Baptised by John, after the manner we are now pleading for. Mat. 3. 15. Suffer it to be so now: For thus it becometh to fulfil all Righteousness. And what is that Righteousness or Holiness which God now requireth of us; but our answerable Conformity to the revealed Will of God; and that both in respect of the Duties of the first, as well as the Second Table? Upon which account we ought further to consider, what a special charge our Lord Jesus left with his Apostles upon his Departure hence; That they should teach the Nations to observe all things, whatsoever he had commanded them. And this of Believers Baptism amongst the rest. Mat. 28. 19, 20. Mark 16. 16. And elsewhere Paul commends the Corinthians, for that they had kept the Ordinances as they were delivered unto them, 1 Cor. 11. 2. It is therefore certainly an undue Reflection, when you suppose, that we place too much stress upon an Ordinance of Christ; while we plead for the Purity of its Practice, according to the Primitive Institution. It was our Saviour's passionate Expression to his Disciples. John 14. 15. If ye love me, keep my Commandments. And John 15. 14. Ye are my Friends. if ye do whatsoever I Command you. We cannot therefore express our Friendship to Christ as we ought, if we are negligent on this Account. And certain it is, that as we cannot express our Love to Christ aright, if we do not whatsoever he hath commanded us: So if we do it not as he hath commanded us; for if God were so strict as we all know he was upon this Account, under the former Administration; we cannot rationally expect to be Indulged in a known Deviation. in respect of any part of that Worship which he hath now Prescribed unto us. Holiness and Righteousness, respecting our Duty both to God and Man, is indeed indispensibly required of us; and it cannot be denied, but that the Baptism of Believers we are now pleading for, is a main part thereof; it being that Homage or Worship which we do more immediately perform, and offer up unto the great God: So that we place no more stress thereon, than the matter requires; we dare not indeed lay that stress upon it; as some of our Adversaries in this point have done, who have made it absolutely necessary to Salvation: From a gross Misunderstanding of that Text. John 3. 5. Except a Man be born of Water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God; but though an Ignorant, or Unwilling neglect thereof, will not unavoidably shut us out from God's presence; yet since Christ hath commanded it, and hath promised his presence to his People in the due performance of it, it cannot be denied, but that we are infinitely obliged to be found in an answerable Practice. And therefore;  
Thirdly; Whereas you tell us, that having been already Baptised in your Infancy, you reckon there is no necessity lying on you, to be again Baptised; We Answer, that it is no way safe for any to rest Contented with that Pretended Baptism they received in their Infancy, It being a mere Nullity in respect of the New Testament Ordinance of Baptism. And the Reason is plain, because there was that wanting in it, which is Absolutely Essential thereunto. For when you Baptise Infants, or were yourselves baptised in that Capacity, by sprinkling a little Water only on the Face, there was a manifest failure, First in respect of the right Subject; and Secondly in respect of the right form or manner of the Administration of that Ordinance.  
First, In respect of the right Subject, which must be qualified according to the Institution; that is, the Person to be Baptised, aught to be a Believer; or at least one that makes an External Profession of Faith in Christ, as hath been already proved from Mark 16. 16. Acts 8. 37, etc. Now unless you can demonstrate that at the time when Baptism was Administered to you in your Infant state, you were then Actual Believers; or at least that you did then make some sensible Profession thereof, you were not according to Christ's Rule, the right or proper Subjects of such an Ordinance.  
Secondly; In respect of the External Mode, or Form of its Administration; which if we consult the Scripture Rule, is not to be performed by sprinkling or pouring a little Water upon the Face only; but by dipping the whole Person under Water, and raising him up again, to Figure out unto us, our Communion with Christ, in His Death, Burial, and Resurrection. And that the Manner and Ceremony of Baptism ought to be by dipping or plunging the whole Body under Water; and not by sprinkling or pouring a little Water only on the Face or Head (as hath been commonly used, since the Subjects have been changed from Men to Babes;) is thus made good.  
First from the proper and genuine Signification of the Word, so well agreeing with the ends and use of Baptism, the Ceremony with the Substance, and the Sign with the thing signified. The Word we call Baptism, and the Latins Baptismus, is no other than the Greek Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and in plain English, is to dip, plunge, or cover all over. Which we find witnessed unto by the following Authors; Men of Learning and Piety, though differing from us in our present Practice.  
Stephens and Scapula, two as great Masters of the Greek Tongue, as we have any (and both Defenders of Infant's Baptism) do tell us in their Lexicons, That 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, signifies Mergo, Immergo, obruo; item tingo, quod fit immergendo, inficere, imbuere. viz. To dip, plunge, overwhelm, put under, cover over, to Die in Colour, which is done by Plunging. They tell us also it signifies abluo, lavo.  
Leigh in his Critica Sacra, saith, It's native and proper Signification, is to dip into Water; or to plunge under Water.  
Salmatius, in his Book de Prim. Papae. p. 193. saith, That is not Baptism they give to Children, but Rantism.  
Mr. Dan. Rogers, in his Treatise of Sacraments. Part 1. C. 5. P. 70. Saith, the Greeks wanted not other Words to express any other Act besides Dipping, if the Institution could bear it, What Resemblance of the Burial, or Resurrection of Christ is in Sprinkling? All Antiquity and Scripture, saith he, confirm that way. To Dip therefore is exceeding Material to the Ordinance; which was the usuage of Old, without Exception of Countries, hot or cold.  
Dr. Tailor in his Rule of Cons. L. 3. C. 4. If you would attend to the proper signification of the Word; Baptism signifies Plunging in Water, or Dipping, with Washing.  
Mr. Joseph Mede, in his Diatribe on Tit. 3. 2. Saith that there was no such thing as Sprinkling, or Rantism, used in Baptism in the Apostles Days, nor in many Ages after them.  
Chamier. ●an. Gathol. Tom. 4. l. 5. c. 2. Serm. 6. The Ancient Use of Baptism was to dip the whole Body into the Element, which is the Force of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: Therefore did John Baptise in a River; which is nevertheless changed into Aspersion, though uncertain when and from whence that Custom was taken.  
Dr. Martin Luther, in his Book de Baptismo, Tom. 1. p. 71. 72. Speaking of the signification of the Word. Baptismus Graecum est, Latin potest verti mersio, cum Immergimus aliquid in Aqua ut totum tegatur Aqua, & quamvis ille mos aboleverit, apud pleresque debeant tamen prorsus immergi, & statim retrahi & sane si Spectes quid Baptismus significet, idem requiri videbis. That is, Baptism is a Greek Word, and may be Interpreted an Over-whelming, when we plunge any thing into the Water, that it may be covered all over. And although that Custom is now out of use with many, yet they ought truly to be dipped, and presently lifted up again. And certainly if you consider the nature of the thing, you will see that to be necessary.  
Secondly. It is very considerable how Emphatically this Sense and Signification of the Word is confirmed unto us, by the several Metaphors used by the Holy Spirit in Scripture, in allusion hereto. viz. when Persons are Implunged into great Afflictions, they are said to be Baptised therein. Mark 10. 38. And so for Persons that were endowed with great measures of the Spirit, they are said ●● be Baptised therewith. Acts 1. 5. The Children of Israel being encompassed with the Cloud over their Head, and the divided Sea on both sides, were said to be Baptised in the Cloud, and in the Sea. 1 Cor. 10. And Baptised Persons are said to be Dead and Buried, in allusion to putting Men into the Earth, and covering them therewith. None of which can be figured by the sprinkling of a little Water upon the Face.  
Thirdly. It appears to be so from the Practice and Usage we find hereof in Scripture; and the Opinion of the Learned upon it.  
First in the Story of Christ's Baptism, we read Mat. 3. 5. That Jesus came from Galilee to Jordan unto John to be Baptised of him. And ver. 16. When he was Baptised, he went up straightway out of the Water. The Learned Cajetan upon the place saith; Christ ascended out of the Water; therefore Christ was Baptised by John, not by sprinkling, or by pouring Water upon him; but by Immersion, that is by dipping or plunging in the Water.  
A Second Scripture considerable is that of John. 3. 23. And John was Baptising in Aenon near Salim: And the Reason why he pitched upon this place is given; because there was much Water there. Piscator upon the place, tells us: This (saith he) is mentioned to signify the Ceremony of Baptism, which John used in Dipping or Plunging the whole Body of a Man standing in the River; Whence he saith, Christ being Baptised by John in Jordan, is said to ascend out of the Water.  
A Third Scripture worthy our notice is, Acts 8. 36. 38. As they went on their way, they came unto a certain Water, and the Eunuch said; See here is Water, and they went down both into the Water, both Philip and the Eunuch, and he Baptised him. And when they were come up out of the Water, etc. Upon which place Calvin saith; We see what Fashion the Ancients had to Administer Baptism; for they Plunged the whole Body into the Water. The use is now (saith he) that the Minister casts a little Water only upon the Body, or upon the Head.  
A Fourth Scripture we shall mention, is Rom. 6. 4. Buried with Him in Baptism: Where the Apostle elegantly alludes to the Ceremony of Baptising into Death, and Resurrection with Christ. Cajean▪ upon the place saith; Thus we are Buried with Him by Baptism into Death; by our Burying he declares our Death from the Ceremony of Baptism; because he who is Baptised is put under the Water, and by this carries a Similitude of him that is buried, who is put under the Earth. Now because none are buried but dead Men; from this very thing that we are buried in Baptism, we are Assimulated to Christ buried, or when he was buried. Keckerman Syst. Theol. l. 3. c. 8. Says that Immersion, not Aspersion, was the first Institution of Baptism, as it doth plainly appear from Rom. 6. 3. The Assemblies Annotations upon the place do say, That in this Phrase the Apostle seemeth to allude to the Ancient manner of Baptising, which was to dip the Party Baptised, and as it were to bury them under Water for a while, and then to raise them up again out of it, to represent the Burial of the Old Man, and our Resurrection to newness of Life. The like saith Piscator and Diodate upon the place.  
Dr. Cave also a great Searcher into Antiquity, in his late Book called Primitive Christianity saith, p. 320. That the Party Baptised was wholly Immerged, or put under Water, which was the almost constant, and universal Custom of those times; whereby they did most notably, and significantly express the great end and effect of Baptism, etc.  
And most remarkable is the Testimony that Mr. Baxter himself gives to this Truth. As to the manner (saith he) It is commonly confessed by us to the Anabaptists, as our Commentators declare; That in the Apostles times, the Baptised were dipped over Head in Water; though we have thought it lawful to dis-use the manner of dipping, and to use less Water. In his Third Argument against Mr. Blake.  
All which Arguments, from the Genuine Sense of the Word Nature of the Ordinance, usage of the Ancients, were excellently Inculcated by the Learned Dr. Tillotson, in a Sermon Preached at the Lecture in Michael's Cornhill, London. April 15, 1673. From Rom. 6. 4. Therefore we are Buried with Him by Baptism into Death, etc. Proving from thence that Dipping or Plunging was the proper Ceremony and Rite in the Ordinance. And how naturally Arguments did arise from that Sign in Baptism, to enforce Holiness and Mortification, the Thing Signified thereby.  
Therefore to alter this Rite from Dipping to Sprinkling, spoils quite the Symbol, and makes it another thing. And you may as well take a Wafer Cake, or a whole Loaf to represent Christ's broken Body, as sprinkling a little Water to represent or figure out, his and our Death, Burial, and Resurrection by. And how cometh it to pass that many are so exactly curious, about that other Ordinance of the Supper, so as to make the gesture of Kneeling a ground of Separation; and yet to be so Negligent and Inconsiderate in this? And if it be Evil in Papists not to break Bread, nor to Eat, but to lift up, show, and Swallow down whole the Host; when Christ did break Bread, and bade eat it; than it necessarily follows that it is as Evil when He bids Baptise, not to do it, but to Rantize; and instead of Baptising into the Name of Christ, Dead and Risen, to Water him that hath no Understanding thereof: So that when the Minister saith, I Baptise thee, to an Infant, and doth no more, he speaketh that which is not true, and deceives those that take it at his Word for Christian Baptism.  
So that thus than we have distinctly and plainly proved you to be defective both in respect of the Internal, and External Constituent parts of this great Ordinance; that is both in Matter and Form; both which are Essentially requisite to the true Constitution or Being of it: by which it is manifest, that Infant's Baptism is a mere Nullity, and that which Christ will not own. And if it be said, that the right Words of Baptism were used, it being done in the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. We Answer, that so there was also in Baptising of Bells, and Churches; which yet in your own Judgement is so far from making it a right Ordinance, the true Subject being wanting, that it is no less than a great Profanation thereof, and a miserable taking the Name of God in vain. And therefore certainly Jesus Christ one Day will discover that he takes it not kindly at the Hands of his Professed Friends, that of their own Heads, and without his Warrant, upon a Presumptuous Supposition of unwritten Indulgence, having taken it upon them to alter the Subject, as well as the manner of the Administration of an Ordinance so Sacred and Venerable as Baptism is.  
As for the Cavils of unseemliness, and hazarding of Health to the weak, in the way of our present Practice; as they are the Fruits of Carnal Wisdom and Unbelief; so it is no other than to reproach the Wisdom of Christ that so Ordained it; telling us (however the World may call it undecent) yet that thus it becometh us, as it did himself, to fulfil all Righteousness. And as they that have or shall see the Decency of the Practice, will find Cause sufficiently to Vindicate it from the Reproach of Unseemliness, and be able to convince Gainsayers of their Unchristian Slauders in that Respect: So as for the hazarding of Health to the Weak; the constant, and known Experience of Thousands, doth amply refute it as a groundless Suggestion.   

THE THIRD PART.  
Containing some Animadversions on Mr. Sidenham 's Treatise of Baptism; wherein that of Infants is further Disproved. Together with some further Reflections on Mr. Allen 's forementioned Discourse to the same Purpose. Whereunto is Annexed an Answer at large, unto Mr. Baxter 's chief Argument for the Church-membership of Infants, from the Nature of the Covenant made with Israel, in the Land of Moab, Deut. 29. where Children are Represented as Fellow-Covenanters with their Parents; which (saith he) was a Covenant of Grace, or Gospel Covenant; And therefore neither it, nor the Church-membership of Infants which was built thereon, Repealed.  

SECT. I.  
WE shall begin with Mr. Sidenham's Treatise. And First, Whereas Mr. Sidenham pretending to Answer that Argument of ours. That there is no express Command, nor any positive Example in all the New Testament, concerning the Baptism of Infants. For the Refutation thereof, He tells us, That this Argument is built on this false Principle; That no direct Consequences from Scripture are Mandatory, and so obliging and of Divine Authority. Whereas we affirm no such thing, but only say; That in all Positive or Instituted Worship, such as Baptism is, which hath no other Rule nor Reason, than the mere will of the Lawgiver, there must be either an express Command, or an express Example to enforce it. In all other Respects we justly allow such proper Consequences as are deducible from the Scriptures, for the enforcing of Duty, or for the Comfort of God's People: For therefore is Preaching, Expounding, and Searching the Scripture appointed unto us. But as it would have been a Sin for Abraham, upon bare Consequences only, and without an express Warrant, to have Circumcised his Children: So it would be no less to us, without the same Divine Warrant, in respect of Baptism. And therefore Mr. Sidenham doth not well to say; That we may as well argue, That because Abraham was Circumcised when 99 Years old; Therefore old Persons are to be Circumcised, and none else: As because grown Persons. were Baptised, therefore not Infants. Whereas he knew, Abraham had an express Command, as for the Circumcision of himself, so for his Infants also: Which is that which we justly affirm to be wanting under the Gospel, in respect of Baptism.   

SECT. II.  
§ 1. BUT then Mr. Sidenham doth also tell us; That it is to be considered, that there is nothing in all the New Testament against the Baptising of Infants; no hint from any express Word dropped from Christ, or his Apostles, nor any Phrase, which doth forbid such an Act. p. 1. And this Argument, both he and others do lay very much stress upon. But then Mr. Sidenham should have considered; That it is the Opinion of divers able and godly Divines: That what is not commanded in the Worship of God, is forbidden: And that every Affirmative command of Christ, includes a Negative. For (saith Tertullian) This is a certain Rule; if it be said 'tis lawful, because the Scripture doth not forbid it; It may equally be Retorted; It is therefore not lawful, because the Scripture doth not command it. And herein therefore consisted the Sin of Nadab and Abihu, Leu. 10. who were destroyed for offering strange Fire, which God had not Commanded. They might have said, Lord 'tis true, Thou hast not commanded this strange Fire: But as thou hast not Commanded it; so neither hast thou Forbidden it. And by the same Reason might Abraham have Circumcised his Children on the seventh day, as well as on the eighth; because God had not forbidden it. For though God had commanded it to be done on the eighth day; yet he had not where expressly forbidden the seventh. But since the eighth day was expressly appointed, and not the seventh, though the seventh was not where expressly forbidden; therefore Abraham was bound to the former, and not to the latter; and it would have been his Sin to have varied from the Rule prescribed him. In like manner we say; The Baptism of Believers is expressly commanded; That of Infants is not commanded; and therefore though it be not forbidden, yet since 'tis not commanded, it would be our Sin to practise it. And so in the Passeover: Whereas God commanded a Lamb, a Male of the first year to be eaten; they might as well have made use of an Ewe, or a Ram of the second or third Year, because not forbidden; no express Word of God had forbidden it. So when David and the People of Israel had made a new Cart for the Carriage of the Ark, which was to have been born on the Priest's Shoulders only; and when God smote Vzzah for holding the Ark, they might as well have Pleaded, that neither of these was expressly forbidden: But yet nevertheless, For this Cause the Lord made a Breach upon them, for that they did not seek him after the due order that he had expressly appointed, 1 Chron. 15. 13.  
§ 2. We find not where in all the Scriptures; That ever any express Word dropped from Christ or his Apostles, to the Prohibiting or Forbidding of Crucifixes, Beads, Altars, Praying to Saints, Pictures in Churches, Pilgrimages. Which things are still in use among Papists; but disowned by Protestants, because not commanded, though not expressly forbidden. The like may be said concerning Bowing at the Name of Jesus; the Cross in Baptism; Surplices in Preaching; Kneeling at the Sacrament; set Forms of Prayer. In respect of which it is no proper Argument; that therefore these things are lawful to be used in the Divine Service, because not forbidden; For as they are not forbidden, so neither are they commanded: Which is the very Argument made use of by the Generality of Dissenters, for their Justification, in Opposition to Prelatical Encroachments. And therefore thou art Inexcusable O Man! For wherein thou Judgest another, thou Condemnest thyself, Rom. 2. 1. There is no express Word of God against the Communicating of Infants in the Lord's Supper; And yet you yourselves do not therefore count it lawful to admit them to that Ordinance, without an express Word to that purpose. And lastly, Bells are not expressly forbidden to be Baptised; and yet we do not reckon that a sufficient Argument for such a Practice. And whereas it is Objected as to this; That Bells are not Subjectum Capax: A fit or capable Subject for such an Ordinance, we would then ask, wherein lies their Incapacity? Cannot a Minister sprinkle a little Water upon a Bell, and use the Words of the Institution in as solemn a manner as he does when he Baptises a Child? Or are they incapable for want of an Institution? We say the same of Infants. And if you say; they are not capable of the uses and ends of Baptism, as Men are; We Answer, If God had pleased, He could have made them by an Institution, capable of some sacred Usefulness; yea, capable of Relative Holiness, as well as Aaron's Bell: Or the Bells mentioned, Zech. 14. 20. upon which it was written; Holiness to the Lord. But it is well known, there are those in the World, who think themselves as wise as others, that judge Bells capable Subjects of Baptism, and have done so divers Ages.  
§ 3. Thus you see what Absurdities follow this Position, That those things are lawful in God's Worship, which are not forbidden by any express Word, dropped from Christ or his Apostles. But surely God is more jealous of his Honour, and tender of his Worship, than to leave it to Our Pleasure. And that God hath in all Ages testified his dislike, yea, Abhorrence of Will-Worship, and that for this very Reason, because he hath not Commanded it, is too evident to be denied. For this cause God threatens Judgements upon his People of Old. Ezek. 43. 8. They have set their Thresholds by my Threshold, and their Posts by my Post; wherefore I have Consumed them in mine Anger. Wherein we cannot but observe, that God discovers his severe displeasure against them, not for neglecting any part of his Worship that he had Commanded them: But for their Presumption in adding something thereto, which he had not Commanded them.  
§ 4. And indeed Will-Worship must needs be a great Sin, when the same Person who is to perform the Obedience, shall dare to appoint the Laws; Implying a peremptory Purpose of no further Observance, than may consist with the Allowance of his own Judgement: Whereas true Obedience must be grounded on the Majesty of that Power that Commands; not on the Judgement of the Subject, or Benefit of the Precept proposed. Divine Laws, such as are the Positive Institutions concerning God's Worship, require Obedience not so much from the Quality of the things commanded, as from the Authority of him that commands them. We are all Servants of God; and Servants are but living Instruments, whose Property is to be governed by the Will of those in whose Pessession they are. Will-Worship and Superstition, well they may flatter God; they cannot please him. He that requires us to deny ourselves in his Service, doth therein teach us, that his Commands stand rather in fear than in need of us; In fear of our Boldness, lest we abuse them; not in need of our Judgement to Polish or Alter them. The Conquest of an Enemy without the Command of the General, cost a Roman Gentleman his Life, though his own Father were the Judge. So the over-wise Industry of the Architect, in bringing not the same, but as he thought, a fit piece of Timber than he was commanded to the Roman Consul, was rewarded with nothing but a Bundle of Rods. So jealous and displeased are even men themselves, to have their Laws undervalved by the private Judgements of those who rather Interpret than Obey them. Much more Impious than will it be for us, to mix Humane Inventions, and Appointments of our own, with the Institutions of God, and to Impose them as Divine Duties, with a necessity of Obedience; whilst by that means, we take Christ's Divine Prerogative out of his Hands, and make ourselves joint Authors of his Ordinances, or rather the Destroyer's of them: For to practise an Ordinance otherwise than Christ hath Instituted, is not to honour Christ's Appointments; but an Idol of our own making. Now this the Apostles durst not do. They tell us, that they declared the Counsel of God, but nothing else. And Paul tells the Corinthians, he delivered nothing unto them, but what he had received from the Lord, 1 Cor. 11. 23. And sure he did not receive Infants Baptism from the Lord: For he never declares it to them.  
§ 5. This therefore should be a Boundary to all Christ's Ministers, that they deliver nothing to the People, but what they have received from the Lord. That Faith that was once delivered to the Saints, must be Preached and contended for, but nothing else. And if Christ's Ministers have not received Infant's Baptism from the Lord; and if they cannot prove that it was once delivered to the Saints, it is not to be Preached. As for all humane Mixtures in God's Worship, they are useful only for these two purposes, either to slacken and abate something that is Excessive, or to supply something that is Deficient. And so all Heterogeneous Mixtures do plainly intimate, either a Viciousness to be Corrected, or a Defect to be Supplied. Now it were a great Impiety to charge either of these upon the pure and perfect Word of God; and by Consequence to use Deceit, by Adulterating of it, either by such Glosses, as diminish and take away the force of it; or by the Addition of Humane Traditions, as may argue any defect. So that to stamp any thing of a Humane Original, with a Divine Character, and obtrude it upon the Consciences of Men; to take any dead Child of ours, as the Harlot did, and lay it in the Bosom of the Scripture, and Father it upon God; to build any Structure of ours in the Road to Heaven, and to stop up the Way; is one of the greatest Presumptions that the Pride of Man can aspire unto. To Erect a Throne in the Consciences of his Fellow Creatures, and to counterfeit the great Seal of Heaven, for the countenancing of his Forgeries, is a Sin most severely provided against by God, with special Prohibition and Threaten. See Deut. 12. 32. What thing soever I Command you, observe to do it; Thou shalt not add thereunto, nor diminish from it. Deut. 18. 20. The Prophet that shall speak a Word in my Name that I have not Commanded, even that Prophet shall die. Prov. 30. 6. Add not unto his Words, lest he Reprove thee, and thou be found a Liar.  
§ 6. And yet further to demonstrate, That Will Worship is a Sin of no small Magnitude, consider the following Particulars.  
First. It clearly proceeds as the Fruit of Pride. Men Love to have something of their own in God's Worship. They are not content with what the Infinite Wise God commands them; but will presumptuously be adding something of their own thereto. The Second Commandment shows that Man is prone to be meddling and making something in Worship, till he mars all. Israel provoked God with their Inventions. Psal. 106. 29.  
Secondly. Will Worship is a Sin greatly displeasing to God: For God is not pleased with any thing in Worship which is not his own: Nay the contrary is that which he hath signified to be greatly provoking to him. In this Respect, it is not the Work of men's Hands, nor their Heads that can be at all Acceptable unto God. That which pleases God must come from God. what he Appoints he Approves, and nothing else.  
Thirdly. Will Worship, and Mixtures of men's Inventions with Gods Pure Ordinances, are the great Canons that batter Cities, and the Gunpowder that blows them up. Those bring the Lord of Hosts to War against them. It was the Calves that wounded Israel, and laid their City's waste. H●sea 10. 5. The Inhabitants of Samaria shall fear because of the Calves of Bethaven. 'Tis highly probable, Jeroboam might plead that he kept still to the Articles of Faith, and Fundamentals of Religion, worshipping with Reverence the God of his Fathers: Making Alterations in things merely Ceremonial, whereof no Express Law forbidding; and being variable as time, place, and person gave occasion. But however, he might mince the Matter, as others do in like Circumstances; yet God being a Jealous God, would not admit such Innovation, and Varying from his pure Worship, but Rejects it. And in particular, he is Rebuked, For Offering upon the Altar which he had made in Bethel the 15th. day of the 8th. month; even in the Month which he had devised of his own Heart. 1 Kings 12. 33. So Isa. 24. 5, 6. Because they have transgressed the Laws, and changed the Ordinance, therefore hath the Curse devoured the Earth, and they that dwell therein are desolate; therefore the Inhabitants of the Earth are burned and few Men left.  
Fourthly. Will Worship Grieves God. Ezek. 6. 9 I am broken with their Whorish Heart. Their Superstitious and Corrupt Mixtures did not simply displease God; but Oppressed, Afflicted, and Broke his Heart. Great Injuries enter deep, and eat up the Spirits of any they are done unto. And what greater wrong can be done unto God, than to Invent and Impose that he never commanded in the Matters of his Worship? Yea it draws away the Heart of Men from God, and therefore they are said to go a Whoring from God by their Inventons.  
Fifthly. Will Worship is a Work of Darkness, Ezek. 8. 12. See what the Ancients of the House of Israel are doing in the dark.  
Sixthly. Will Worship is that which God will not Honour with his presence. Neither Christ nor the Angels will be present at it. Teach them (saith Christ) to Observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you, and lo I am with you always. If we step out of Christ's way, and go a whoring after our own Devices; neither can we groundedly expect the blessing of Christ's Preserce.  
Seventhly, and Lastly. Will Worship, such as Infant's Baptism is, having no Institution in the Word of God; is not only Evil in its self, but stands aggravated with this Circumstance, that it makes void the Commandment of God: For Will Worship doth usually oppose, or justle out some part of God's true Worship; as Infant's Baptism doth that of Believers. And so Christ told the Pharisees, upon another like Occasion; That they made void the Commandments of God by their Tradition.   

SECT. III.  
§ 1. WHereas Mr. Sidenham affirms; that the Covenant made with Abraham, Gen. 17. 7, 8, 9 was a pure Gospel Covenant, to which the Seal of Circumcision was annexed. From hence he draws this Inference. That if that Covenant were a pure Gospel Covenant, reaching Gentile Believers, and their Children, as well as Abraham and his; then we cannot be denied the External Sign and Seal of the same Covenant: For (saith he) though the Outward Signs may be changed; yet there is no Change of the Privileges, if the Covenant Remain entire. p. 9, 10.  
§ 2. We Answer; First, There is no Evidence in all the New Testament of any Seal which God intended should be annexed unto the Gospel Covenant, but that of the Holy Spirit only. Much less are we left at Liberty to put what Mark, Sign, or Cognizance, we please, upon our Infant Seed; under the Notion of an Ordinance of Christ, or as a Gospel Seal, without his Special Direction and Appointment.  
§ 3. Secondly. It cannot be denied, but that Circumcision which was at first the Sign of the Covenant made with Abraham, and which was afterward annexed to the Covenant made at Sinai, is now Abolished. And it is as plain, that the Covenant, both the one and the other, which Circumcision was Annexed unto; was a Bondage Covenant: For so the Apostle assures us Gal. 4. 24. So likewise Gal. 5. 1, 2, 3. Stand fast therefore in the Liberty. wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the Yoke of Bondage. Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be Circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing: For I testify again to every Man that is Circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole Law. Now Circumcision being Abolished, and the Covenants also, whereunto it was Annexed, Heb. 8. 7. 13. there can be no just Inference drawn from the manner of God's dealing with them, to conclude that thus it must be now; it being an undue Supposition to conceive that the Proposition between Abraham and his Fleshly Seed, in the time when Circumcision was in date, should be the same to Abraham in the Spirit, which is Christ, and the Carnal Seed of every Believer, in that Season, when Circumcision is out of date.  
Thirdly. Though it is Evident, that the Church of the Jews and Gentiles, in Respect of the Inward and Spititual part of either, are both the same, without any Variation, as is also the Covenant of Grace, on which both are founded; yet it doth not therefore follow, that there is no Variation or Change in Respect of External Administrations: It being Evident, that the External Privileges the Jews once boasted of are now Repealed; their former Pretensions to Church-Ordinances upon the Account of their Birth-Priviledge, being now broken down. Else, why doth John the Baptist tell them as he doth. Mat. 3. 8, 9 Think not to say within yourselves, we have Abraham to our Father. They had Abraham to their Father, as much now as before: But now it was too late for them to use that Plea any longer: And there was good Reason why. For now (saith he) the Axe is laid at the Root of the Trees: Every Tree therefore that bringeth not forth good Fruit must be hewn down. Now the Axe is laid, etc. It seems then that the Axe was not laid at the Root of the Trees till now: But now the Axe must do its Work of that Kind; and so must the Gospel Fan also, at an other-guess Rate than formerly they had Experienced; inasmuch, as Jesus Christ was now Resolved throughly to purge his Floor, and to gather the Wheat, only into his Garner the Church. So that from hence it plainly appears, that though the Church for the inward Substance of it, is still the same that ever it was; yet as the Signs are changed, so there is as manifest a Change, in Respect of the External Privileges, belonging to the one and the other of them.   

SECT. iv  
§ 1. MR. Sidenham doth indeed tell us; That the forementioned Scripture, Mat. 3. 7, 8, 9 Concerns only the Adult, or Men at Age; the Scribes and Pharisees, who were degenerated from Abraham 's Faith, a Generation of Vipers: And therefore rejected by John when they Desired to be Baptised of him. So that (saith he) John did not Refuse them because Abraham was their Father; or upon that Account that Abraham's Seed had no Right to the Promise; But only as pretending Abraham to be their Father, when they walked contrary to the Principles of Abraham's Faith.  
§ 2. For the clearing of which, there are 3 Questions to be demanded.  
First. Why doth Mr. Sidenham say, that John did not Refuse them, because Abraham was their Father? Who ever affirmed, that John refused them, because Abraham was their Father? But as John did not Refuse them on that Score; so it is as evident, that neither would he now Receive them on that bottom. It cannot be denied, but that at the command of God, this was the ground of their Admission before, because Abraham was their Father; and this they still insisted on: But now (saith he) Think not to say within yourselves, we have Abraham to our Father, etc. whereby he plainly lets them know, that that Plea would no longer avail them on that Account.  
Secondly, Why doth Mr. Sidenham say, that John did not refuse them, upon that Account that Abraham's Seed had no right to the Promise? We know of none that so affirm: But this we say; That as their Interest in the Promise, was not the Adequate, formal, or proper Reason of the Circumcising of them; (for Ishmael and others were to be Circumcised, to whom none of the Promises in Abraham's Covenant did belong: as is plain from Gen. 17. 21, 23. whereby 'tis evident, that the true Reason why any were Circumcised, was the Command, not Interest in the Promise) The like we say in respect of Baptism.  
Thirdly, Why doth Mr. Sidenham say, That John refused them, because they only pretended Abraham to be their Father? For were they not Abraham's Natural Offspring now, as much as ever? And was not that the ground of their Admission formerly? We do not say, they were Abraham's Offspring in a Spiritual sense, so as to walk in the steps of their Father Ahraham: For that was not the Ground of their Admission formerly; but the ground of their Admission then, was merely by virtue of the Command of God, as they were Abraham's Natural Seed. The Question between us therefore, is only this; Whether because Abraham's Natural Offspring, barely as such, were by the Express Command of God, admitted to Circumcision; Therefore without the like Command; so must ours to Baptism?  
§ 3. 'Tis true Mr. Sidenham tells us; That John rejected the Scribes and Pharisees from Baptism: Because they only pretended Abraham to be their Father; when they walked contrary to the steps of Abraham 's Faith. But then why were not such as these rejected before? For certain it is, none were rejected from Circumcision, how vile, or profane soever. There was then no Faith nor Repentance, nor Fruits meet for Repentance, at all required of any to be admitted into the Jewish Church; whether they were Children, or Men at Age; It was enough in that respect, barely to be of Abraham's Seed, or Family; though only as Servants born in his House, or Strangers bought with Money; without any other Consideration. But now not so. Now saith John, You must bring forth Fruits meet for Repentance, if you expect to be Baptised with the Baptism of Repentance. For to this purpose he bespeaks them. Verse 10. And now also, (saith he) is the Axe laid unto the Root of the Trees; therefore every Tree that bringeth not forth good Fruit, is hewn down. Plainly intimating, that their Birth Privilege was now to be pulled up by the Roots; And God would no longer take it as he had in Times past; since now nothing short of their Actual Faithfulness in the Paths of Righteousness would serve the turn. A clear Argument that the External Administration of the Covenant, or the Grounds of Admission to the Privilege of External Church-Membership, are now quite altered, to what they were in Abraham's Time.  
§ 4. And indeed, for this very Reason is it, that the Natural Posterity of Abraham, are to this day rejected and Excluded from any Participation of Gospel-Church Ordinanee; as it is apparent they have been for many Generations; whereby 'tis evident, that the Birth-Priviledge, they formerly so much insisted on, and gloried in, is now at an end, and the Date thereof expired. And certain it is, that not only are those at Age rejected, but their Children also upon the same Ground; viz. for want of that Actual Faith and Fruitfulness, which the Gospel now requires. For otherwise it cannot be denied, but that both Parents and Children also, have as fair a Title to Abraham their Father, as any of their Progenitors ever had: But we see this Birth Privilege of theirs, though it stood them instead, as to their Admission into the Legal Church, their Unbelief and unfruitfulness notwithstanding; yet it avails them not under this more pure and Refined Administration of the Gospel: But both Parents and Children also, are now broken off, and have no right upon the former Terms only, of standing any longer as Members of the Visible Church.  
§. 5. And clear it is, that even you yourselves would be apt enough to reject an Infant begotten of Jewish Parents from Christian Baptism, until capable of making an Actual Profession of the Christian Faith. And for the same reason you ought as well to refuse those born of Christian Parents, till capable of making the same Profession: Because in respect of Parentage or Natural Descent, the Jewish Infants have as much to plead as ours, and it may be more; since they are descended from Believing Abraham; who is called the Father of the Faithful, or the Father of all them that Believe: Which is more than any besides can pretend unto.   

SECT. V  
§. 1. AS for Mr. Sidenham's Argument for Infant's Baptism from Mat. 19 13. 14. We deny not, but do believe that Jesus Christ hath a most compassionate regard to Children and little Infants; and it is our duty therefore to bring them to him, by Prayer and Supplication for them. But yet notwithstanding this, we dare not bring them to such a Gospel Ordinance as Baptism is, unless Christ had expressly Appointed, and called them to it; or signified his Pleasure that this Way they should have come unto him. Mr. Sidenham tells indeed, That the Reason why the Disciples forbade and rebuked those that brought those Children unto Christ. could not be out of any Cruelty to Infants, or that they had no Bowels for them, or Affections to them. But (saith he) It must be from some such Principle which those of a contrary Judgement take up; That they were not capable, and were first to be Taught; That only grown Men, and Professors of Faith, were fit for Ordinances: And therefore they rebuked or chod them, and forbade them to do so any more: As if they had said; What have we to do with Children as to outward Ordinances? They are not capable; they cannot Profess their Faith; and we must have Persons able to hold Forth Christ's Gospel, which must be the visible Subjects of Christ's Kingdom.  
§ 2. But then Mr. Sidenham contradicts himself, and spoils all again afterward; when he tells us, That whereas Christ took up those Infants in his Arms, and laid his Hands upon them; it cannot be understood, but in one of these 3 Senses; either First, in order to the Cure of Diseases by a Miraculous Power. Secondly, for Consecration of any to any Divine Work and Service; or Thirdly, for Confirmation after Baptism. And to this purpose (saith he) may we apply Christ's Act to these Infants, to confirm the Promise solemnly after Baptism. For (saith he) It was most generally used after Baptism; and presupposeth baptism to Precede. And (saith he) Let any that differ from us, show any where in the Gospel, when Christ laid his Hands upon any Person, in this latter Sense, Unbaptised. Wherein he doth expressly take it for granted, or at least he doth strongly suppose, that these Infants had been already Baptised; and that this Act of Christ, was for their Confirmation after Baptism. Now if those Infants had been already Baptised, it must have been Administered to them, either by Christ himself, or his Disciples; Not by Christ himself, who as Mr. Sidenham grants, Baptised no●e. And if they had been already Baptised by the Disciples, (which must be by virtue of some Special Order, or Commission from Christ) Then how doth this agree with what Mr. Sidenham had said before? When he tells us, p. 91. That the reason why the Disciples forbade and rebuked those that brought these Children unto Christ, must needs be from some such Principle which those of a contrary Judgement take up; that they were not capable, and were first to be Taught; that only grown Men, and Professors of Faith were fit for Ordinances. For if they had been already Baptised upon Christ's special Order to that purpose to them; (which must be supposed if they had been Baptised at all) there had been then no room for such Scruples as these; Neither is it any way likely, that they would have at all Rebuked those that brought them; but rather have encouraged them so to do, and have been helpful themselves to have Introduced them into Christ's Presence, in order to the obtaining his Benediction on them, after the Administration of so Solemn an Ordinance.  
§. 3. So that this doth clearly demonstrate to us, That at least, these little Children were not then Baptised; nor indeed can this Scripture be intended at all as a Rule unto us to that purpose: where nothing of Baptism is at all mentioned, or can at all rationally be Supposed to have been Practised, either by Christ or his Disciples upon this Occasion. That they had not been Baptised by Christ himself, is evident from the very Letter of the Text; He Himself Baptising not: And that they had not been Baptised by the Disciples is also as plain: for otherwise they had not expressed the unwillingness they did that such should be brought unto Christ for their Confirmation after Baptism; which as we see Mr. Sidenham doth so ungroundedly suppose had been already Administered unto them. Let us then bring our Infants to Christ in the way that himself hath appointed: But let us not of our own Heads Administer such an Ordinance as Baptism to them, without his special Warrant; lest we incur the guilt of Will Worship; and lest he say unto us at leaò, as he did unto the Jews upon another Account; Who hath required these things at your Hands?  
But whereas Mr. Sidenham tells us, p. 99 That as for grown visible Professors, they are but probable Members themselves; and yet must we with scorn, poor probable Disciples ourselves, deny a little Water to Infants.  
§. 4. To this we Answer; We do not with scorn deny a little Water to Infants, or with scorn reject them from Christian Baptism; but it is the mere Conscience of our Duty and Allegiance to Christ, that makes us refrain without his special Warrant so to do; as being afraid of Profaning so Sacred an Institution as Baptism is, by misapplying it to a wrong Subject. And whereas Mr. Sidenham calls grown, visible Professors, but probable Members; We acknowledge that it is at best but a Judgement of Probability or Charity, that we can at all pretend unto in our admission of any such to Baptism: But than it cannot be denied, but that we are upon the surer ground when according to Christ's Rule we admit only grown visible Professors thereto, who besides that Birth Privilege which you so much insist upon (which they may equally pretend unto as well as I●fa●ts) are capable of making also a verbal Profession of their Love to Christ, with an answerable Conversation; So that it cannot be denied but that we have a greater ground of hope that unto such belongeth the Kingdom of God, who have this double Advantage, than we can have in respect of Infants, who have only a pretended Birth Privilege to be insisting on; and concerning whom there is no Word of God that gives the least Warrant for their admission to Baptism upon that Account: For however some of them may belong to the Election of Grace; and though our Saviour doth assure us, that of such is the Kingdom of God; yet this is no sufficient ground to Administer Baptism to them, till capable of making an answerable Profession, as the Gospel directs. And therefore we do not refuse to Baptise them from a Principle of Scorn, as Mr. Sidenham suggesteth, but because we dare not take the Holy and Dreadful Name of God in vain, as it useth to be by those who presume to sprinkle Water upon the Face of an Infant, in the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, without his special Direction or Appointment, in that respect. For as we have seen that the present Scripture doth not prove it; So neither doth any other that we can meet with, give any Warrant or Countenance at all unto such a Practice.   

SECT. VI  
§. 1. MR. Sidenham Arguing from the Institution. Mat. 28. 19 tells us, p. 128, 129, 130. That if that place be the Prime Institution of Baptising (from which place, we Exclude Infants, where Christ useth such universal and Comprehensive Expressions) We shall desire (saith he) but to deal with them on their ground, and the same Text will Serve to prove our Positions, more demonstratively than theirs. And this Text (saith he) shows that Christ gave Commission to the Apostles and Ministers to Preach and Baptise, but in what order to do it; or what should be required, or the qualification of the Subject, as absolutely Necessary, is not at all discovered in this Scripture. They must look for another Text to Exclude Infants, besides this; Eel give up their Confidence. Either (saith he) this place is the full and Exact Rule, or Institution of Baptising or it is not: If they say it is; than it would describe the Persons and the manner; The matter and the form of Baptising, and that in the usual Phrase with other Scriptures: But here is only a General Commission to two great Acts, viz. To Preach, Teach and Baptise. And we may say in the same place; That whoever are outwardly Taught, or do but hear the Gospel (though they walk never so contrary) must be Baptised: For the Commission is, Teach and Baptise. Nothing of the Parties Entertainment of it is mentioned in this 28 Mat. nor of the qualification of the Subject, with any distinguishing Character. If they say, This doth not hold forth all the Institutions in every particular (as they must grant) than we may compare other Scriptures with this, to make out the full Institution; as these 〈◊〉 Infants are mentioned so much Gracious Considerations, as hath been formerly expressed.  
§. To this we Reply; That notwithstanding all the Confidence which Mr. Sidenham here expresseth; both the Qualification of the Subjects of Baptism, as also the manner or form of Baptising, are sufficiently set forth unto us in the present Institution: For;  
First, If we inquire after the Subject; It is plain by this Commission that none are to be Baptised, but such as are Taught, so as to be Discipled into the true Faith and Profession of Christianity. Go Teach all Nations, Baptising them, etc. Infants being uncapable of being thus Taught, or Disciped; they are therefore Excluded: But all others that so hear the Gospel, as to understand it, Believe it, and be Discipled by it, are according to this Commission to be Baptised. But whereas Mr. Sidenham tells us, That whosoever are outwardly Taught, or do but hear the Gospel (though they walk never so contrary) must be Baptised, inasmuch as in the Commission. Mat. 28. nothing of the Parties entertainment of it is there mentioned. With what shadow of Truth could Mr. Sidenham utter such a Sentence? When he could not but know; that as according to that very Institution, Mat. 28. Such as are Discipled by the Preaching of the Gospel are there appointed to be Baptised. Go Teach all Nations, etc. That is, as yourselves have acknowledged, Disciple all Nations, Baptising them. So in that parallel place. Mark. 16. 16. (which is but a rehearsal of the same Commission by another of the Holy Pen Men) our Saviour there tells us; He that Believeth and is Baptised shall be Saved. Plainly showing, that those that are to be Baptised must be such, as so hear the Gospel, as to give a Believing entertainment to it. He had said before, Go Preach the Gospel to every Greature, And then it immediately follows, He that Believeth and is Baptised shall be Saved. And if here be not a plain notice given of the qualification of such as are to be admitted to Baptism; Let such Judge whose Eyes are open.  
Secondly; if we inquire after the manner or form of Baptising, the very Word itself is plainly significant of Christ's Mind and Meaning therein. Go Teach all Nations, Baptising them; that is, let them be dipped or plunged under Water; which is the native Sense and signification of the Greek Word, which we Translate Baptise, as hath been already proved. So that whatever Mr. Sidenham tells us; the Commission which Christ gave to his Apostles concerning Baptism doth afford sufficient Direction, both in respect of the qualification of the Subject, as also in reference to the manner of the Administration thereof.  
§. 3. As for the rest of the Arguments made use of by Mr. Sidenham for the support of Infant's Baptism, from the Nature of the Covenant made with Abraham, from Acts 2. 39 From Col. 2. 11, 12. From the Analogy between Circumcision and Infant's Baptism; From the Baptising, of the several Households mentioned in the New Testament: As also concerning the Signification and Use of the Word, Baptism. Enough hath been already said in the first and second Parts of this Discourse for the Refutation of them, which needs not here to be repeated. Only there are two Arguments in Mr. Allen's Treatise before mentioned, which were then omitted; but must now be Answered.   

SECT. VII.  
§. 1. THE first hath Reference to those several Titles of a Holy and peculiar People, which are frequently in the Scripture given to the whole Body of the Jewish Nation, Church and People; from whence he infers, that there is no such difference as we affirm there is, between the Old and the New Testament Churches. For (saith he) If those terms are frequently given in the Epistles to Church Members now, the same Epithets are frequently given to the Members of the Jewish Church. And therefore there is no such Difference as is Imagined in the Constitution of either of them, they being both alike Spiritual.  
§. 2. To this we Answer; First, If there be no difference between the Old and New Testament Churches, in respect of the Constitution of either of them; but that there was the same Purity, Holiness, and Spirituality, in the one, as in the other; Then what needed, or wherein consisted that Reformation, which the Apostle tells us was to take place in the Gospel day. Heb. 9 8, 9, 10. The Holy Ghost this signifying, that the way into the Holiest of all was not yet made manifest, while as the first Tabernacle was yet standing; which was a Figure for the time then present: In which were offered both Gifts and Sacrifices that could not make him that did the Service perfect; as pertaining to the Conscience; which stood only in Meats and Drinks, and divers Washings, and Carnal Ordinances, Imposed on them until the time of Reformation. Plainly Intimating that there were many things faulty among them, and many things defective also, which were to be Reform, Rectified, and Supplied, when the Daylight of the Gospel was to break upon them. And upon this account, not only doth the Spirit of God find fault with the Covenant itself which they were then under, which therefore was now to be done away, and a new One to take place. Heb. 8. 7, 8, 13. But for this Reason also was the Seed to be changed. The Carnal Seed being rejected, and only the Spiritual Seed of Abraham admitted as Members of the Gopsel Church. A plain notice of which Change is given by John the Baptist, the Harbinger of the Gospel Dispensation. Mat. 3. 7, 8, 9, 10. Think not (saith he) to say within yourselves, we have Abraham to our Father; For I say unto you, that GOD is able even of these Stones to raise up Children unto Abraham. And now also the Axe is laid unto the Root of the Trees; therefore every Tree that bringeth not forth good Fruit, is hewn down. Plainly requiring a personal and actual Fruitfulness in all the Members of this new Church state; which is exclusive not only of all those that are such as the Pharisees and Sadduces were, whom he was now speaking to, who were a Generation of Vipers, and were actually debauched in their Conversations; but of all such also, as were either neglective, or are uncapable (as is the Case of Infants) of actual Fruitfulness in the Paths of Righteousness.  
§. 3. So that when you tell us that the Legal and Gospel Church are alike Spiritual: We say not; For it is plain there was no such Inquisition concerning the good or bad qualities, the Fruitfulness, or Unfruitfulness of the Members of the former Church, in 〈◊〉 to Admission thereinto. It was enough barely to be of Abraham's Seed or Family to be so esteemed: But now saith John, the Axe is laid unto the Root of the Trees; And they must all be hewn down under the Gospel, that have nothing else to pretend unto but that of a Godly Parentage; which plainly excludes Infants, as well as all other unfruitful Branches from the Gospel Church. And to this same purpose is it that he doth further assure them: ver. 12. That Jesus Christ was now resolved with the Gospel Fan to Purge thoroghly the Floor of the Gospel Church; and to gather the Wheat into His Garner. Under the Law, and before also, even in Abrahmam's time, the Chaff and the Wheat remained together unsevered; but now the Fan must go to Work. We read of no such Fanning Work in the former Church state. And to what purpose is it else that Christ told the Woman of Samaria, as he doth. Jo. 4. 23. The Hour cometh, and now is, when the true Worshippers shall Worship the Father in Spirit and in Truth: For the Father seeketh such to Worship Him? Which plainly showeth that God expecteth now greater Purity, Exactness, and Spirituality, in such as were to approach His Presence in the Celebration of Gospel Worship. And indeed of this the whole fifth of Mat. is a sufficient and convincing Proof, giving clear evidence concerning the refinedness and spirituality of the Gospel Administration above and beyond that of the Law. For then (saith our Saviour) it was thus and thus; but I am come to tell you a New Doctrine, and do call you up to greater Purity and Strictness.  
§ 4. Secondly, We Answer, That that Holiness which was ascribed unto the whole Body of the Jewish Nation, was a Typical, Ceremonial Holiness; and was no other than was ascribed to the whole Land, City, Temple, Altar, and divers other things, and is therefore now Abolished For if all things under the Law were but a Figure and Shadow of good things to come, than such was the Holiness of the Jewish Nation and People also. Now this the Apostle in the 9th and 10th Chapters to the Hebrews, proves at large, showing that all things under the Law; all the Privileges of the Old Covenànt, with all the Perquisites, Dependencies, and Appurtenances thereunto belonging; are called by such Names, as make them evidently appear to be Typical. As First, they are called a Figure. Heb. 9 9 Which was a Figure for the time then present. So verse 24. For Christ is not Entered into the Holy Place made with Hands, which are the Figures of the true. Secondly, They are called a Pattern. Heb. 9 23. It was necessary that the Pattern of things in the Heavens, etc. Thirdly, They are called a Shadow. Heb. 10. 1. For the Law having a Shadow of good things to come, and not the very Image of the things, etc. Now the Holiness of the Jewish Nation being an Appurtenance belonging to the Law, or the Old Covenant. It was but a Figure, Pattern, or Shadow of all good things to come, and was therefore Typical, and is now Abolished. And if we will know what the Holiness of the Jewish Nation did serve, to Typify or Represent unto us; It is evident, that as it Typified the Holiness of Christ himself; So of all Abraham's Spiritual Seed, who are made Holy by Believing in Christ.  
§ 5. The Time of Reformation therefore, spoken of in the forementioned Scripture. Heb. 9 8, 9, 10. being come; wherein those Imperfect Gifts and Sacrifices, with all those Carnal Ordinances which were for a Season Imposed on the Jewish Nation, were to be done away; and the Gospel-Church taking place in the Room thereof: It cannot rationally be supposed, but the one doth far exceed the other, at least, in Purity and Inward Glory: For by how much Christ hath now obtained a more excellent Ministry than that of Moses; and by how much also he is the Mediator of a better Covenant, Which is Established upon better Promises; as the Apostle affirms. Heb. 8. 6. By so much of necessity must the gospel Church exceed in lustre, beauty, Refinedness and Spirituality, the former Administration.   

SECT. VIII.  
THE Second Argument in Mr. Allen's Book, remaining to be Answered, is this; That all Persons, and so little Children, that were of the Legal Church, must needs, in one Respect or other, have been Persons of a Religious, or Spiritual Consideration. And this considered (saith he) I know not upon what better to place the Visible Church-Membership of Infants; or to Attribute it to, than God's Electing▪ and Calling them to his People, and their Parents Dedicating and Devoting them to God, and his Service. And the Scripture useth to reckon little Children, as having begun to do this or that, when they are but placed in Circumstances, that will bring them to it Actually in the Issue. And thus the Children of the Kohathites, of a Month Old, were numbered with their Fathers, as with them keeping the charge of the Sanctuary, when they were but in a way of being trained up to it. And for the same Reason, little Children were said to enter into Covenant with God when their Parents did so. Deut. 29. 11, 12  
§ 2. To this we Answer; First, By granting that it was in a Religious Consideration, that Children were then Admitted Members of the Legal Church: But yet it doth not therefore follow, that they are to be admitted Members of the Gospel-Church; for the Reasons before rendered: The Terms of Admission into that, being far more strict and Spiritual, than were those under the Law.  
Secondly, Whereas he tells us, That the Reason of their Admission into the Legal Church; was God's Electing, and Calling them to that Privilege. This we also grant: But then we also say, that though the Call and Election of God, in Reference to the Inward Substance of the Covenant of Grace, or to an Invisible Membership in the Invisible Church, is Invariable; It doth not follow, that the Gifts and Callings of God in Reference to External Membership, are therefore also Invariable or Irrevokable; (as is afterward by Mr. Allen Asserted; and unto which we have already in the Second Part of this Discourse given a sufficient Answer.) For we find by undeniable Evidence; that those External Gifts and Privileges that the Natural Posterity of Abraham were once Invested with, are now Rescinded, Repealed, and Repent of; and it cannot be affirmed, that in any Religious Capacity whatsoever, they are now at all owned by God, as his Church and People, as once they were, neither Parents nor Children: But for the most part remain broken off, and Unchurched to this Day. And if you say, That they and their Children being broken off, We and our Children are Ingraffed in their Room; This is that which remains to be proved; and indeed the contrary is manifest, as hath been already with abundant Evidence Demonstrated, in the foregoing Parts of this Discourse; since the Axe of the Gospel is now laid unto the Root of the Trees; and every Tree that bringeth not forth good Fruit, is hewn down, in respect of any further Church Privilege, which before was Indulged unto them: which clearly cuts off the pretence of Children unto any such Privilege under the Gospel, as well as all other unfruitful Branches.  
Thirdly, Whereas he tells us of their Parents Dedicating and Devoting them to God, and his Service; And that the Children of the Roathites of a Month Old, were numbered with their Fathers, as keeping the charge of the Sanctuary: And that for the same Reason, little Children were said to enter into Covenant with God, when their Parents did so. Deut. 29. 11, 12. To this we Answer; That it is indeed a very Pious and Commendable thing, for Parents to Dedicate and Devote their Children to God, and his Service; and to this Purpose, to train them up, as soon as they are capable in the Nurture and Admonition of the Lord. But it doth not therefore follow, that they can justly be Reputed Church-Members now, till Converted, and wrought upon by the Preaching of the Gospel unto them, whatever they were under the Law, as hath been before demonstrated.  
§ 3. And though the Kohathites of a Month Old were numbered with their Fathers, as keeping the charge of the Sanctuary; Evident it is, that this was the proper Work of the Kohathites, by God's special Direction in their several Generations; and as they became to grow up to the Competency of Years, an Actual discharge of that Duty was required of them; This being an External Service, which by God's special Direction, was peculiarly Incumbent on all that were of that Lineage: But what signifies this, to prove the Church-Membership of Infants under the Gospel?  
§ 4. And as little signifies that which follows, when he tells us, That for the same Reason, little Children were said to enter into Covenant with God, when their Parents did so, Deut. 29. 11, 12. For though 'tis true, thus it was under the Law; yet this proves not the Point in dispute: For as we have already said; That Covenant which God made with his People when he took them by the Hand to lead them out of the Land of Egypt, because of the Faultiness of it, is now Abolished. That Covenant, saith God, they broke, they continued not it, and I regarded them not. So that though Infants were Visible Members of the Legal Church; yet that was by a Positive Law, and that which is now Abolished. Show us the like now, or you say nothing.   

SECT. IX.  
MR. Baxter indeed tells us in his Book, called, Plain Scripture Proof of Infant's Church-Membership and Baptism, p. 57, 58. That the Covenant mentioned in the forecited Text, Deut. 29. 10, 11, 12. Where Children are Represented as Fellow-Covenanters with their Parents, was a Covenant of Grace, or a Gospel-Covenant; and that therefore, neither it, nor the Church-Membership of Infants, (which, saith he, was built thereon, or inseparably Conjunct) is repealed. For thus runs his Argument. [My 12th Argument (saith he) is from the forementioned Text, in Deut. 29. 10, 11, 12. where all the Jews with all their little ones, were entered into Covenant with God: From whence I argue thus; if the Covenant which those Infants who were then Church-Members, were entered into with God, was a Covenant of Grace (or a Gospel-Covenant,) than it is not Repealed, (and consequently their Churches▪ Membership is not Repealed, as being built on the Covenant, or inseparably Conjunct.) But the said Covenant which the Infants who were then Church-Members did pass into, was a Covenant of Grace, (as distinct from the Law which is Repealed.) Where by the way, it may be observed, that though Mr. Baxter affirms the Covenant mentioned Deut. 29. to be a Covenant of Grace, or a Gospel-Covenant, yet he doth here seem plainly to grant, that the Law, or Sinai Covenant, was no other than a Covenant of Works, and accordingly now Repealed. Wherein Mr. Baxter is undoubtedly in the right; though he therein directly c●●t●adicteth Mr. Roberts his Notion, who affirms the Law or Sinai Covenant itself, to be a Covenant of Faith in Christ Jesus The unsoundness whereof, we shall have Occasion to discover in the following parts of this Discourse. Therefore neither it, nor their Church-Membership is Repealed.]  
So that if we can substantially prove, that the Covenant mentioned Deut. 29. 10, 11, 12. was not a Covenant of Grace, nor a Gospel- 〈◊〉; but a legal Covenant, and that which is now Repealed; from hence it will unavoidably follow, and that according to Mr. Baxter's own Concession, that the Church-Membership of Infants (which as himself affirms, was built thereon, or inseparably Conjunct) is also Repealed with it.  
§ 3. Now that the Covenant there mentioned (though there was Grace in it, as there was in all the Covenants that God ever made with Men) is not a Covenant of Grace, properly so called, whereof Christ is the Mediator; nor a Gospel, but a Legal Covenant; is Evident; forasmuch as it is no other than a Repetition, or Renewal of the Covenant made with that People in Horeb, or at Mount Sinai; when God took them by the Hand to lead them out of Egypt; which was first mentioned, Exod. 19 and that in the very Words and Terms as it is there Expressed: That Covenant being now again solemnly Repeated, and afresh Transacted between God and them, in Deut. 29. as is manifest by comparing Exod. 19 4, 5. with Deut. 29. from the 1st to the 13th Verse. As also, the 24th and 25th verses of that Chapter. And accordingly, whereas in the first verse of this 29th of Deut. We are there told, These are the Words of the Covenant, which the Lord commanded Moses to make with the Children of Israel, in the Land of Moab, beside the Covenant which he made with them in Horeb. Mr. Pool in his Annotations upon this Text, paraphraseth the words thus: These are the Terms or Conditions, upon which God hath made, that is, renewed Covenant with you. The Covenant (saith he) was but one in Substance, but various in the time and manner of its Administration: And indeed as it is Evident that it is the same Covenant for Substance, that was first made with them in Horeb: So it is as Evident from the words themselves in this forecited text. Deut- 29. 1. That it was not a Covenant of Grace; properly so called; but a Covenant of Works, or a Legal Covenant, which God renewed with the Israelites, in the Land of Moab; since Moses was the Mediator of it; In which respect, we are there expressly told, that these are the words of the Covenant which the Lord commanded Moses to make with the Children of Israel beside the Covenant he made with them in Horeb. Whereas the Covenant of Grace, properly so called, hath no other Mediator than Christ himself. 1 Tim. 2, 5. Who is therefore said to have Obtained a more Excellent Ministry, viz. than that of Moses; by how much also he is the Mediator of a better Covenant, which is established upon better Promises. Heb. 8. 6. Besides, we are expressly told. Jo. 1. 17. That the Law was given by Moses; but Grace and Truth came by Jesus Christ. From whence; it plainly follows, that the Covenant insisted on, was not a Covenant of Grace, properly so called, not only for as much as Moses was the Mediator of it; But also forasmuch as the grace and truth which came by Jesus Christ, is here so plainly Contradistinguished, or opposed thereunto.  
§ 4. But that this Covenant, which by the Mediation of Moses was thus Solemnly renewed and afresh transacted between God and them, in the land of Moab; was plainly a Covenant of Works, or a Legal Covenant; will be yet further undeniable, by comparing Exod. 1●, 5. with Deut. 29. 9 and both with Leu. 18. and Rom. 10. 5. For as in Exod. 19 (Where that Covenant is first mentioned which God made with Israel, by the Mediation of Moses, in Horeb, or at Mount Sinai; which the Apostle speaks of Heb. 8. when God took them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt) He there tells them ver. 5. Now therefore if you will obey my voice indeed, and keep my Covenant, than ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me, above all People: for all the Earth is mine. So in like manner, upon the same terms, and by the hand of the same Mediator, is the same Covenant afterward renewed with them. Deut. 29. 9 Keep therefore (saith God there unto them) the words of this Covenant, and do them, that you may prosper in all that you do. Now that both these were but two several Repetitions of the same Covenant of Works, the Apostle plainly shows. Rom. 10. 4. 5. Christ (saith he there) is the end of the Law for Righteousness to every one that believeth: For Moses describeth the Righteousness of the Law, that the man which doth these things shall live by them, which he citeth from Leu. 18. 5. Where the Lord tells them, you shall therefore keep my Statutes and Judgements, which if a man do he shall live in them. The same with Exod 19 5. and Deut. 29. 9 And the same Apostle also assures us. Gal. 3. 10. that as many as are of the Works of the Law, are under the Curse; for it is written (saith he) Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things that are in the Book of the Law, to do them.  
§ 5. Now it having been thus proved that the Covenants Mentioned in both these forenamed Scriptures, were made by the hands of the same Mediator Moses; And that they were both also of one and the same tenor, requiring perfect Obedience as the Condition of Obtaining the Promised Mercy; And forasmuch as St. Paul doth so plainly assure us, that this was no other than a Covenant of Works, and that which he Contradistinguisheth or opposeth to the Righteousness of Faith, or the Gospel Covenant, which he afterward speaks of ver. 6, 7, 8, 9 of the same 10th to the Romans. From hence it plainly follows, That the formentioned Covenants, both that in Deut. 29. as well as that in Exod. 19 (which were but two several Repetitions of the same Covenant of Works;) are now Repealed, and done away in Christ: For so he doth plainly assure us. Heb. 8. 8, 9, 13. where he tells us; That if that first Covenant had been faultless, than no place should have been sought for the second: For finding Fault with them, he saith, Behold the days come saith the Lord, when I will make a New Covenant with the House of Israel, and the House of Judah; not according to the Covenant that I made with their Fathers, in the Day when I took them by the Hand, to lead them out of the Land of Egypt, because they continued not in my Covenant, and I regarded them not. And verse 13: In that he saith, a New Covenant he hath made the first Old. Now that which decayeth (saith he) and waxeth old is ready to vanish away. From whence it is plain that the old Covenant he there speaks of, which God made with his People when he took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt, mentioned Exod. 19 5. and Deut 29. 9 for the faultyness thereof is now abolished: For there is verily (saith he) Heb. 7. 18. a disannulling of the Commandment going before, for the Weakness and unprofitableness thereof. Upon which Account a New Covenant was to take place, which was to be Established upon better Promises.  
§ 6. And therefore though 'tis true, in Deut. 30. 6. (which Mr. Baxter urgeth, and allegeth to prove, that the Covenant mentioned Chapter 29. is a Gospel-Covenant) The Lord than promiseth that he will Circumcise their Heart, and the Heart of their Seed, to love the Lord their God with all their Heart, and with all their Soul, that they might live. Which are plainly Gospel Promises, yet it is evident, that that is a distinct Covenant from that mentioned Chapter 29. the one being Conditional, the other Absolute: And it is as evident, that the Promises therein contained, were not to be fulfilled, till after the Lord had turned their threatened Captivity, for their Breach of the Covenant he now made with them; and till after he had returned and gathered them from all the Nations, and from the outmost Parts of Heaven, whether they should be scattered; and from whence the Lord there promiseth to gather, and to fetch them, as it is plainly Expressed in the 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5th Verses of that Chapter, compared with the 24th and 25th Verses of the 29th Chapter, which was never yet fulfilled.  
§ 7. But saith Mr. Baxter [Did God Promise Spiritual Grace to the Jews after the Captivity and not before? Was not the Promise made to them that then were? Were not they Captivated oft in the time of the Judges, and so might at least be made good then? If God would do as much for them before they forsook him, and broke the Covenant by Rebellion, as he would do afterward when they Repent; then he would Circumcise their Hearts before as well as after: But the former is true, therefore the latter. Besides, some Divines say that the Promise. Deut. 30. 6. is Conditional: And if it be on Condition of Obedience, than it was made to more than the Elect; and if it were not performed to any but the Elect; no wonder, when it was a Conditional Promise, and the rest performed not the Condition, which God will Cause the Elect to perform.]  
§8. To this we Reply; That as it is evident that the Promises mentioned Deut. 30. 6. are Absolute, and therefore Essentially different from those mentioned ch. 29. which were Conditional; so they are as clearly to be understood in Reference to a time to come; and cannot without palpable streining be applied unto the time then present; nor indeed unto any time since, unto this very day. For thus run the Words, Deut. 30. 1. And it shall come to pass, when all these things are come upon thee, the Blessing and the Curse, which I have set before thee, and thou shalt call them to mind among all the Nations whither the Lord thy God hath driven thee? ver. 2. And shalt return unto the Lord thy God, and shalt obey his voice according to all that I command thee this day, thou and thy Children, with all thine Heart, and with all thy Soul. ver. 3. That then the Lord thy God will turn thy Captivity, and have Compassion upon thee, and will return and gather thee from all the Nations whether the Lord thy God hath scattered thee, ver. 4. If any of thine be driven out unto the outmost parts of Heaven; from thence will the Lord thy God gather thee, and from thence will he fetch thee. ver. 5. And the Lord thy God will bring thee into the Land which thy Fathers possessed, and thou shalt possess it, and he will do thee good, and multiply thee above thy Fathers. ver. 6. And the Lord thy God will Circumcise thine 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. ver. 7. And the Lord thy God will put all these Curses upon thine Enemies, and on them that hate thee. ver 8. And thou shalt return, and obey the voice of the Lord, and do all his Commandments which I command thee this day. ver. 9 And the Lord thy God will make thee plenteous in every work of thine Hand, in the fruit of thy Body, and in the fruit of thy Cattle, and in the fruit of thy Land for good: For the Lord will again rejoice over thee for good, as he rejoiced over thy Fathers. ver. 10. Because thou shalt obey the voice of the Lord thy God in keeping his Commandments, and his Ordinances, which are written in the Book of this Law, when thou shalt return unto the Lord thy God, with all thine Heart, and with all thy Soul. For thus run the Words of this 10th. verse. according to the Old Translation, though they are rendered otherwise in the New.  
§ 9 Wherein, First, we cannot but observe the Absoluteness of these Gospel Promises; since that which was the very Condition of the Le●●l Covenant; Do this and live; And if ye be willing and obedient ye shall cut the good of the Land, is here made a main branch of the promised Blessing. ver. 6. The Lord thy God will Circumcise thine Heart, and the Heart of thy Seed, to Love the Lord thy God, with all thine Heart, and with all thy Soul, that thou mayst Live. And therefore when Moses tells them. ver. 1, 2. That when all these things were come upon them, the Blessing and the Curse which he had already set before them, and they should call them to Mind among all the Nations, whither the Lord their God had driven them; and they should return unto the Lord and obey his voice, with all their Heart, and with all their Soul, that then the Lord would return their Captivity. We are by no means to understand these Words as the Condition, upon the Account of which their Captivity should be returned: For then indeed it ha●● been all one with the Covenant of Works mentioned, Exod. 19 5. Deut. 29. 9 or that mentioned Gen. 2. 16, 17. And had been failable, as that was: But these Words are plainly spoken by way of Prediction, rather, of what should be; that at the same time when they should thus obey God's voice, their Captivity should be returned: But how? Is it left to an uncertainty. If ye will obey my voice then shall your Captivity be returned? No; for God undertakes even this also for them, to work up their Hearts to an answerable frame of Obedience, suitable to the Mercy to be bestowed on them. And therefore to prevent their Jealousy concerning any further forfeiture of the promised Blessing on their part, he is pleased to give them a full Assurance thereof by an absolute Promise. ver. 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 withal thy Soul, that thou mayest Live. And so also, ver. 8. Thou shalt return, and obey the voice of the Lord, and do all his Commandments which I command thee this day.  
§ 10. Mr. Baxter indeed suggesteth, that the Promises mentioned ver. 6. are Conditional, and therefore made to more than to the Elect. And if (saith he) they were not performed to more than the Elect, no wonder ●hen they were Conditional: But that they are Absolute and not Conditional is plain; since no Condition can be Assigned of performing those Promises, but that of the good Pleasure of God's own Will; it being only brought forth as the Sovereign Effect of his own Purpose and Grace▪ and of that alone: For to say that God promiseth to Circumcise their Hearts, on Condition of their Obedience, is to put the Effect before the Cause: For therefore God promiseth that they shall be Obedient, because he will Circumcise their Heart. (Neither indeed is there any true Gospel Obedience, but what flows from that Principle:) And what Condition can there be of that, but that of the good pleasure of God's own Goodness and Grace? Let the Heart once be Circumcised, so as that God's People be made a willing People in the day of his Power, and then their Obedience naturally and necessarily follows; till that be done, nothing is done; when that is done, all is done. And this is that which God here promiseth, viz. To Circumcise their Heart, and the Heart of their Seed. to Love and Serve the Lord their God, with all their Heart, and with all their Soul. Which therefore must needs be Absolute, since no Condition can be assigned, whereby God should be obliged to the performance thereof, but that of his own Purpose and Grace. Which being Obvious in the Words.  
§ 11. We must in the next place take notice of the Time appointed for the fulfilling of these Gospel Promises unto them. And that was not the time then present, as Mr. Baxter would have it: For (saith Moses, Deut 29. 4.) The Lord hath not given you an Heart to perceive and Eyes to see, and Ears to hear, unto this day. Nor in the time of the Judges, or the Prophets that followed after; nor indeed any time that is as yet past: But as Moses here tells them; when all these things should have come upon them, the Blessing and the Curse which he had before spoken of; which must of necessity refer to the latter times, or the last Age of the World, when the Lord should turn their Captivity; return and gather them from all the Nations whether they should be scattered. And so it is plainly expressed, Deut. 4. 30. When thou art in Tribulation; and all these things are come upon thee, even in the latter days, etc. For it is plain that Moses aims not at this or that particular Captivity, either in the time of the Judges, before or after, among the Philistines, Egyptians, or Babylonians; since that had been of little Advantage to deliver them from one Captivity, to let them fall into another, and there let them stick for ever: But the Words of the Promise are of a most Comprehensive Latitude, viz. If they be driven among all the Nations. ver. 1. Or any of them be driven to the outmost parts of Heaven. ver. 4. The Lord will gather them from all Nations. ver. 3. And will fetch them from the outmost parts of Heaven. ver. 4. And it is plain, that as the Promise is of a great Latitude; so of a great Length also. For this gathering them is promised after the Babylonian Captivity. Jer. 29 1. Jer. 31. 10. Nay after Christ was come in the Flesh, it is delivered as a Prophecy. Jo. 11. 51. That Christ should gather together into one the Children of God that were scattered abroad; as a thing to be fulfiled in after times.  
§ 12. And in this Respect therefore is it that the Prophet Jer. Ch. 31. 31, 32, 33. Reciting the same Gospel Covenant spoken of in the forementioned 30 Deut. Expressly Represents it as a thing future, or as yet then to come, as it had been before so represented, Deut. 30. Behold the day●s come, (saith the Lord) that I will make a New Covenant 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 Egypt (which my Covenant they broke, although I was an Husband unto them.) 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 I will remember their Sins no more. Where we have the same Promises for Substance with those mentioned Deut. 30. 6. And to the same purpose the Apostle also Represents it as a thing future, even after the Resurrection and Ascension of Christ. Rom. 11. 25, 26, 27. I would not Brethren that ye should be Ignorant of this Mystery, that Blindness in part is happened unto Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles be come in, and so all Israel shall be saved. As it is written; there shall come out of Zion the Deliverer, and shall turn away Ungodliness from Jacob. For this is my Covenant unto them, when I shall take away their Sins; wherein, as we may observe that the Covenant he here speaks of, is of the same Nature with the Promises mentioned Deut. 30. 6. as also with those before mentioned, Jer. 31. So we cannot but take notice both there and here, of the Futurity of their Accomplishment; It being not to be fulfilled until the Fullness of the Gentiles be come in. And so all Israel shall be saved.  
§ 13. And 'tis in vain to say that these Promises have already had their Partial and Gradual Accomplishment: For therein God promiseth not only to Circumcise their Heart, but the Heart of their Seed also, to Love the Lord their God with all their Heart, and with all their Soul. Which as it must of necessity comprehend the whole Body of that Nation, Young and Old, of all Sorts, Ages, and Degrees, from the least unto the greatest, none exempted: So it doth as plainly express a time and state of Perfection; which not particular Person, much less a whole Generation of God's People, in this World; they and their Offspring also, could ever yet truly or justly pretend unto. To insist therefore upon a Partial or Gradual Accomplishment of those Glorious Promises; and thence to conclude, that they might be made good or fulfilled in Moses his time; or as Mr. Baxter saith, in the time of the Judges, or the Prophets that followed after; would be no other than to darken Counsel by Words without Knowledge. For as Moses doth expressly assure us that those Glorious Promises were not fulfilled in his time, Deut. 29. 4. The Lord (saith he) hath not given you an Heart to perceive, and Eyes to see, and Ears to hear unto this day; and as the Prophet Jer. is so far from owning any Accomplishment of them in his time, that he doth plainly acquaint us, that the Covenant was not so much as struck up, or as yet Actually made betwixt God and them: But as he tells us; Behold the days come, saith the Lord, that I will do it; So the Apostle Paul is as far from owning any Accomplishment of them in his Time: For until this day (saith he) remaineth the same vail untaken away, 2 Cor. 3.  
§ 14. So that as it is clear, that the Mercies promised, Deut. 30. 6. were not fulfilled in Moses', nor in Jeremy's, nor in the Apostle's Time; So there is no Experience or History that gives us any account that they were ever since fulfilled. And therefore neither indeed can we groundedly expect the Accomplishment of them till the second coming of the Deliverer, before spoken of, when that Prediction of the Apostle Rom. 11. 26. shall be fulfilled. And so all Israel shall be saved. And no wonder, for this will be no other than the time of the New Heavens, and the New Earth, mentioned Isa. 65. 17, 18. For Behold I create new Heavens, and a New Earth, and the former shall not be remembered: But be you glad and rejoice for ever in that which I Create; for behold I create Jerusalem a Rejoicing, and her People a Joy; And the voice of weeping shall be no more heard in her, nor the voice of crying. And ver. 23. they shall not Labour in vain, nor bring forth for Trouble; for they are the Seed of the blessed of the Lord, and their Offspring with them. With many other glorious Promises there Recorded, which are no way Applicable to the present state of things in the Heavens and Earth that now are. And indeed the whole 60th. chap. of Isaiah is taken up with Promises of this kind: And among the rest, we are told. ver. 21. Thy People also shall be all Righteous, they shall inherit the Land for ever, the Branch of my Planting, that I may be glorified. So Chap. 61. 9 Their Seed also shall be known among the Gentiles, and their Offspring among the People. All that see them shall acknowledge them that they are the Seed which the Lord hath blessed. All of them most plainly Promises that were never yet fulfilled, and therefore remain as yet to be Accomplished.  
§ 15. And indeed hitherto are to be Referred the several Passages that lie dispersed up and down the Scriptures, concerning the Blessedness of the Seed of the Righteous: For though no doubt, God hath a Gracious Respect unto many that are the Natural Descendants of Believers now; and we may probably hope that the Grace of Election is for the most part continued in their Race; yet as God hath made no such Covenant with us, That he will be a God unto us, and to all our Natural Off spring, during the present Administration of things, in the Heavens and the Earth that now are. So whatever Blessedness of that kind, God hath designed for his People, we have no Scripture ground to expect the Accomplishment thereof, nor the Jews neither, till the time of the New Heavens, and the New Earth before spoken off; wherein (as Peter tells us) Righteousness shall dwell. For then indeed, the People or Subjects of that state shall be all Righteous, the Branch of God's planting that he may be glorified, both they and their Offspring also. And therefore then, and not till then may we expect the fulfilling of those Gospel Promises before mentioned, concerning the Circumcising of the Heart, both of them and their Seed also, to Love the Lord their God, with all their Heart, and with all their Soul: Which bespeaks no other than a time and state of Perfection; when they shall have no need any more to Teach every Man his Neighbour, nor every Man his Brother (as now we must, and therefore not to be understood of the present state of things) Saying, Know the Lord; for they shall all know him from the least unto the greatest of them.  
§. 16. From all which, it clearly appears, that the Promises mentioned, Deut. 30. 6. are of a vastly different Nature, from what they have been generally imagined to be. And indeed are so far from being a part of the Legal Covenant at Mount Sinai; or of that Covenant which the Israelites with their little ones, were entered into, Deut. 29. That they remain as yet to be fulfilled. They might be Fulfilled, saith Mr. Baxter in the time of the Judges. But why then were they so oft Captivated in the time of the Judges, as well as afterward by the Philistives, Ammonites, & c? And why were the Ten Tribes after carried away Captive by Salmanazer, King of Assyria, So as that they have never since been heard of in the World, that we can understand? And why were the two Tribes afterward also carried away Captive by the Babylonians, and since Dispersed by the Roman and Turkish Powers; and so still remain in a State of Dispersion; as also in a State of Impenitency and Opposition to the Gospel unto this day? A few indeed were Converted by John the Baptist, and Christ, in the day of his first Appearance: But the Generality of the Jews were in Blindness after that, in Paul's time, Rom. 11. and still so rémain. And what was the Conversion of a few to the Fulfilling of the All of these Promises to the All of the Jews. But as sure as God is True, and his Word most Faithful, there must be a time, when the forementioned Promises shall be Accomplished: When as the Fullness of the Gentiles shall come in, and be brought under the Obedience of Christ: So the Jews also must be Called, and the Fullness of them; by that Deliverer whom God hath promised shall yet come out of Zion, to turn away Ungodliness from Jacob. For this is my Covenant unto them, saith God, when I shall take away their Sins.  
§. 17. And therefore, though Mr. Baxter saith true, when he tells us, p. 58. That Deut. 3●. is a Gospel Covenant; since the Apostle, Rom. 10. 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 shows it in Express Words: (For saith he) when the Apostle had showed, that the Righteousness of the Law lieth in Perfect Obedience. He that doth these things, shall live by them. He than showeth the Difference thus. But the Righteousness which is of Faith, speaketh on this wise: Say not in thine Heart, who shall Ascend up to Heaven, to bring down Christ from Above, etc. But what saith it? The Word is nigh thee; even in thy Mouth, and in thy Heart; that is, the Word of Faith which we Preach. Now these words of Faith (saith he) the Apoststle Citeth out of this very Covenant, Deut. 30. 11, 12, 13, 14. But than it doth not therefore follow, that the Covenant mentioned, Deut. 30. and that, Chap. 29. is one and the same Covenant. Mr. Baxter indeed takes it for granted that they are one and the same: And therefore to prove that that mentioned in the 29th. Chapter is a Covenant of Grace, or a Gopel Covenant; he Allegeth these words in the 6th. ver. of the 30th. Chapter, for the Confirmation thereof; and hereon Bottoms his Argument; [That because the Jews with their little Ones, were entered into Covenant with God, in the 29th. Chapter, and consequently were all Church-members; and forasmuch as the Covenant which the Infants who were then Church-members did pass into, was a Covenant of Grace, or a Gospel Covenant, (as distinct from the Law, which is Repealed;) therefore neither it, nor their Church-membership is Repealed.  
§ 18. It cannot be denied but this is a Principal Argument which Mr. Baxter urgeth for the support of his New Doctrine of the Church membership of Infants, and consequently their Baptism under the Gospel: But how unjustly Urged, and how little it signifies to the Proof of what he intends it for, may by this time be easily Discerned; since by what hath been said, it plainly appears, that the forementioned Scriptures in Deuteronomy, which he Bottoms it on, are by him greatly Abused and misrepresented, contrary to the plain Scope of the Spirit of God in them: The Covenant mentioned in the 29th. Chapter, and that in the 30th. being not one and the same, as he would have it, but two Distinct and Essentially differrent Covenants The one being a Covenant of Works as hath been plainly proved, from Rom. 10. 5. which had Moses for the Mediator of it, Deut. 29. 1. For the Faultiness whereof it is now Abolished, Heb. 8. 13. The other, a Covenant of Grace, Rom. 10. 6, 7, 8. Deut. 30. 11, 12, 13, 14. which hath Christ alone for the Mediator of it, Heb. 8. 6, 7, 8, 9 And shall therefore never be Abolished, Psal. 89. 34, 35, 36. The one being plainly of a Legal Stamp; the other Evangelical. The one Conditional; the other Absolute. The one having its Existence but for a time, upon an Occasional Temporary Principle; the other suited to answer a Principle, Existing from Everlasting, to Everlasting. The one being appointed only for the time then present, till the Incarnation of Christ; the other respecting a time that is as yet to come. From all which it plainly follows, that the Covenant spoken of Deut. 30. 6. is Essentinlly different from that which the Jews with their Little Ones, were then entered into Chap. 29. as being Established upon better Promises. So that there can be no just Inferrence drawn; that because Infants were Fellow Covenanters with their Parents under the Legal Administration, that thus it is now under the Gospel: For since it is Evident that the Law or Covenant itself is changed; (as the Apostle Expressly affirms it is, Heb. 7. 12.) It doth as plainly follow, that the Seed is changed: The Gospel Covenant that Believers are now under, requiring other manner of Subjects than the Legal did; as hath been already proved in the foregoing parts of this Discourse.  
§. 19 'Tis true. in the time of the New Heavens and the New Earth, before spoken of, God hath promised not only to Circumcise the Heart of his People, but of their Seed also, to love the Lord their God with all their Heart, and with all their Soul. That they shall teach no more every Man his Neighbour, and every Man his Brother, saying, know the Lord: For they shall all know him, from the least of them, to the greatest of them. That they shall be all Righteous, they and their Offspring, also the Branch of God's Planting, that he may be Glorified. But that will be such a time and state of Perfection, as we cannot now pretend unto. And therefore as the State and Condition of God's People now, is vastly different from what it was with them under the Law; so it is no less vastly different from that State of Blessedness, which both they and their Offspring also shall be Advanced unto, at the time before mentioned. So that what ever Privilege the Offspring of God's People shall then be Invested with; It hath been already proved, that God hath now appointed, that such only as are Capable of making a Profession of Faith and Repentance, are to be accounted as Visible Members of the Gospel Church, according to the present Frame and Constitution thereof.  
§. 20. To conclude the present Point: Since it hath been now so plainly proved; That the Covenant which the Infants who were then Church-members, did pass into, was not a Covenant of Grace, properly so called, whereof Christ is Mediator; nor a Gospel, but a Legal Covenant, or a Covenant of Works, and that which is now Repealed. From hence it unavoidably follows, (and that according to Mr. Baxter's own Grant) that the Church-membership of Infants▪ which was built upon it, or, as he saith, Inseparably Conjunct, is also Repealed with it. And since the main Pillar for the support of this new Doctrine, of the Church-membership of Infants under the Gospel, fails as it doth, it of necessity follows, that all the other Arguments which Mr. Baxter hath mustered up to the same purpose, to the number of no less than 26. and those again Multiplied and subdivided into a great many more, are all of them wholly Insignificant also: Since no other consideration whatsoever can sufficiently demonstrate the continuance of it under the Gospel, unless it could have been proved, that in its 〈◊〉 Institution, it had a Gospel Covenant for the Foundation the● But the Contrary having been so plainly proved, it follows with an equal necessity, (and that according to Mr. Baxter's own Concession) that there is no shadow of pretence left to assert the Church-membership of Infants under the Gospel Administration that now is. And if the Arguments for their Church-membership do all of them fail, as we cannot but see they do: From hence it also plainly follows, that the Practice of Infant's Baptism, which is Built thereon, must of necessity fall to the Ground, as having no Scripture Foundation left it for the Support thereof. And consequently it is as Evident, that Mr. Baxter's Book, called, Plain Scripture Proof of Infants Church-membership and Baptism; carries with it nothing else but an empty Title. Vox & praeterea nihil.   

SECT. X.  
FRom what hath been already said, it appears, that Mr. Baxter and others, have much to Answer for, that 〈◊〉 are guilty of such gross Misapplications of the word of Truth, for the upholding of Infant's Baptism, (besides the unrighteous charges of Murder and Adultery, which he and they have so strongly Laboured to fasten upon those of a contrary Practice from themselves in respect of Baptism) as is Evident in reference to the foregoing Argument; and as hath been already also manifested, in respect of his and their Corrupt Glosses upon Acts 15. 10. concerning the Discipleship of Infants. Now therefore, why tempt ye God to put a Yoke upon the Neck of the Disciples; which neither we nor our Fathers were able to bear? As if Infants were intended by the Disciples there mentioned; when not only in that Chapter, but in the whole New Testament besides, those only are meant by Disciples, who being taught, professed the Doctrine Preached by such a one; As John's Disciples, Christ's Disciples; the Disciples of the Pharises, and the Disciples of the Perverters. And accordingly Baptism was Administered unto such as were made the Disciples of Christ by Instruction, and unto none other pursuant of the Commission, Mat. 28. 19, 20. as hath been sufficiently opened and Explained in the foregoing parts of this Discourse. And no less Blameworthy is he and they, in respect of their Corrupt Interpretations of those Scriptures, Luke 9 47, 48. Mat. 18. 5. ●nd Mark 9 41. which speak of the Receiving little Children ●● Christ's Name, etc. As if all those Scriptures were intended of Young Sucking Infants; whereas, they are plainly spoken of such little Children only, as were capable of Believing in Christ; which tender Sucking Infants, after an ordinary rate, are utterly uncapable of. And therefore when Mat. 18. 2. we are told that Jesus called a little Child, and set him in the midst of them; and tells them, ver. 5. Who so shall Receive one such little Child in my Name, Receiveth me. It is Expressly Added ver. 6. Who so shall offend one of these little ones that believeth in me, etc. Whereby we may easily perceive what kind of little Children Christ would have us Receive in his Name, or under the Notion of his Disciples; not Infants, that are uncapable of Faith, or of Discipleship by Instruction, without which it is impossible (after an ordinary rate) to be a Disciple, according to the true and proper acceptation of the Word. But such little Children as did actually Believe in Christ. And who can deny but that such are Christ's Disciples, Church-members, and the proper Subjects of Baptism? And the very same Expression with that in Mat. 18. 6. we meet with, Mark 9 42. Whosoever shall offend one of these little ones that Believe in me, etc. Upon the very same occasion, ver. 37. the like Abuse hath been put upon those Words 1. Cor. 7. 14. Else were your Children unclean, but now are they Holy. As hath been already also Manifested in the foregoing parts of this Discourse; which needs not here to be repeated.  
§. 2. As for Mr. Baxter's Argument for the Church-membership of Infants under the Gospel, from Rev. 11. 15. where we are told, that upon the Sounding of the Seventh Angel, there were great Voices in Heaven, saying the Kingdoms of this World are become the Kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ. Which (saith he) Includes Infants as well as others that were to be the Members of Christ's Church, or Kingdom. To this we shall only give this brief Reply; That this Scripture hath a plain reference to the time of the New Heavens, and the New Earth, which we have before spoken of; wherein all the Kingdoms of the World shall become the Kingdoms of our Lord and of his Christ; and all the Dominions of the Earth shall actually Serve and Obey him: For then indeed God hath promised, that his People shall be all Righteous, they and their Offspring also, the Branch of his Planting, that he may be Glorified, Isa. 60. 21. which cannot be applied unto the present Administration of things in the Heavens and Earth that now are; wherein we cannot say, that one of a Hundred, much less that the whole Race of Believers are subject unto the Sceptre of Christ, and consequently far from the true Gospel Characters of Church-membership in the Gospel Church.  
§ 3. As for Mr Allen's other Instance concerning the Covenant of the Rechabites; wherein the Infants as well as those of Age were Included: It is altogether as Insignificant in our present Case, as the former concerning the Kohathites; or his other Instance concerning those little Children who were said to enter into Covenant with God when their Parents did so, Deut 29. 11, 12, which hath been already Discussed. For doth it follow that be-because the Children of the Rechahites were Engaged in a severe Ceremonial Covenant, together with their Parents, that therefore the Children of Believers are comprehended with themselves in the Covenant of Grace? This would be indeed to make Christianity to be Hereditary: But certain it is, that Grace doth not now run in a Blood, what ever it shall do; neither is the Grace of God now Tied or Entailed unto any Lineage of Men whtsoever. Though if it could be proved that all the Children of Believers were really and absolutely Included in the same Covenant of Grace with their Parents; yet it follows not therefore that Baptism belongs unto them, till capable of making an Actual Profession of their Faith in Christ, as hath been already proved. For it cannot justly be denied but that the Administration of Ordinances depends merely upon the Law of Institution, and hath varied in several Ages. From Adam to Abraham there was no Ordinance to be Administered to Infants. In Abraham's time indeed Circumcision was Instituted; which belongs peculiarly to the old Testament Administration, and was part of Moses his Law, which is now Abolished, and done away. This was the first Ordinance that was Administered to Infants, and not to all Infants, but only to Male Infants, living in Abraham's Family, if they did Live to the Eighth day; otherwise they had no Right to it; though many of them doubtless in the Covenant of Grace, and so Saved: For want of an Institution the like may be said of Infants now; many of whom are in the Covenant of Grace, and so Saved by virtue of the Free-Promise; yet not to be Baptised, if they do not live to the time of Repenting, and Believing, the only time appointed for Baptism. For none ever had a Right to the Administrations of the Covenant, any otherwise than by virtue of a Positive Law. Now if the Natural Branches the Seed of Abraham, had no Privilege to be Circumcised, though in Covenant with their Father, but by virtue of a Divine Law, Expressly requiring the same; neither can we expect that our Infants should have any Right to Baptism, without the same Divine Warrant.    

THE FOURTH PART.  
Wherein the Baptism of Infants is further Disproved: By way of Answer to the Arguments made use of by Dr. Burthogge and others, for the Support of that Practice. Wherein the Covenant made with Israel at Mount Sinai, Exod. 20. As also the Covenant of Circumcision made with Abraham, Gen. 17. 7, 8, 9 (Whereon so much Stress is laid for the Support of Infant's Baptism) are plainly proved to be no other than two several Editions of the Covenant of Works. And consequently that no just Argument can thence be deduced for the Justification of that Practice.  
Together with a clear and distinct Explanation of the true Nature and Difference betwixt the Two Covenants, that of Works, and that of Grace.  

SECT. I.  
WE should here have put a Period to the present Discourse, but that there remains yet something further of great Importance, which requires a Solemn Discussion, and Determination, according to the Light that shall be afforded unto us from the Holy Scriptures: And that is; Whereas Dr. Burthogge in his late Printed Discourse upon the Subject of Infant's Baptism; Asserts (as many others have done before him) that the Covenant made with Abraham and his Seed, Gen. 17. 7, 8, 9 is the Covenant of Grace; or that Original Grant and Great Charter, by which Believing Gentiles always did and do claim Heaven and Earth, and all the Promises they have Title to. From whence he infers, that they are to keep God's Covenant in the Gospel Sign of it, that is Baptism; and that both by wearing of it themselves, and also by putting it on all theirs; as Abraham was commanded to do, in respect of Circumcision. And forasmuch as the Mistakes which the Generality of the World hath for some season Laboured under, in reference to the true Nature of the Covenant made with Abraham, in the forecited Text, have been the very Ground and Foundation of most of the Arguments, which have of late (at least) been insisted on in order to the Justification of Infant's Baptism: We shall therefore the more Solemnly apply ourselves toward a Substantial Discovery, or Detection threof; additional unto what hath been already offered in that respect, in the foregoing parts of this Discourse. And if it can be Substantially proved that the Covenant made with Abraham, Gen. 17. 7, 8, 9 was not a Covenant of Grace, nor a Gospel, but a Legal Covenant, or a Covenant of Works; and consequently that the Gentiles are not concerned therein: From hence it will unavoidably follow, that all the Arguments thence deduced, for the support of the  Practice, howsoever they may be form, or framed, do of themselves fall to the Ground.  
§ 2. In the first place then; though we do acknowledge, that God did indeed make a Covenant of Grace with Believing Abraham: Which is the Great Charter, by which Believing Gentiles always did, and do claim both Heaven and Earth, and all the Promises they have Title to; yet that the Covenant of Circumcision, (for so it is called by Stephen, Acts. 7. 8.) which God made with Abraham, Gen. 17. 7. 8, 9, 10. (though there was Grace in it, as there was in all the Covenants that God ever made with Men, as hath been before noted) is not a Covenant of Grace properly so called; nor a Gospel Covenant, whereof Christ is the Mediator: And consequently that the Gentiles are not concerned therein, is thus proved.  
If that Covenant was as much a Covenant of Works, as the Covenant of Mount Sinai, mentioned Exod. 19 4, 5. and Edod. 20. and the Covenant mentioned Deut. 29. 9, 10, 11. Nay, as much as the Covenant made with Adam before his Fall, Gen. 2. 16. 17. where God tells him; Of the Tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not Eat: For in the day that thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely Die. All which Were but several Editions of the same Covenant of Works; than it is not a Gospel Covenant, nor a Covenant of Grace, properly so called; whereof Christ is the Mediator.  
But it was as much a Covenant of Works as either of the Co-Covenants before mentioned were; therefore it is not a Covenant of Grace, nor a Gospel Covenant, properly so called, whereof Christ alone is Mediator.  
§. 3. That the Covenant last mentioned, Gen. 2. 16, 17. was a Covenant of Works: We suppose none will (or can at least Rationally) deny: Forasmuch as Life was Implicitly promised unto our First Parent upon his Obedience, and Death was Explicitly threatened, or denounced upon him, in case of his Disobedience. And upon these terms he was to Stand or Fall; which was plainly and undeniably a Covenant of Works, whereof Christ was not the Mediator. That the Covenant mentioned Exod. 19 4, 5. and Ch. 20. which God made with the Israelites at Mount Sinai, was of the same Stamp; the Scriptures are every where full in the Proof thereof. And as clear it is, that the Covenant mentioned Deut. 29. 9, 10, 11. is but a Repetition of that made Exod. 19 etc. As hath been already proved. In respect of both which, it is Evident; that as Blessings were therein pronounced, and promised to the Obedient, upon Condition of their Obedience: So a Curse was pronounced upon the Disobedient. And thus Paul tells us, Rom. 10. 5. Moses describeth the Righteousness of the Law; that the Man which doth these things shall live by them. Which is a plain description of a Covenant of Works; which he Citeth from Leu.. 18. 5. You shall therefore keep my Statutes and Judgements; which if a Man do, he shall live in them. And accordingly the Apostle doth also tell us, Gal. 3. 10. That as many as are of the Works of the Law, are under the Curse: For it is Written, (saith he, (Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things that are contained in the Book of the Law, to do them. And so likewise ver. 11, 12. That no man is Justified by the Law in the fight of God, is evident; for the Just shall Live by Faith. And the Law is not of Faith, but the Man that doth them. shall live in them. Those therefore that tell us that the Law is a Covenant of Faith, do plainly contradict the Apostle, who Expressly tells us, that the Law is not of Faith; but the man that doth them, shall live in them. And therefore plainly and undeniably a Covenant of Works. Thus it was with Adam in Paradise, when God gave him the Command before mentioned, Gen, 2. 16. and denounced the Sentence of Death upon him, in case of Disobedience: upon the Account of which, it is generally Acknowledged, that he was then under a Covenant of Works. It is Evident therefore, that the Covenant mentioned Exod. 19 and Chap. 20. and that mentioned Deut. 29. were but two several Repetitions of the same Covenant of Works made with our First Parent; and are frequently therefore in the Scripture Represented unto us under the Denomination of the First, or Old Covenant, Heb. 8. 7. 13. Ch. 9 15. 18. there being therein a clear and a plain Manifestation of the Law written in the Heart of Man at the First.  
§. 4. Now, that the Covenant of Circumcision made with Abraham and his Seed, Gen. 17. 7, 8, 9, 10. is of the same stamp or tenor with the three  Covenants, in Gen. Exod. and Deut. is also as Evident: For though 'tis true, God there promiseth to be a God to Abraham, and to his Seed; yet still it was upon Condition of Obedience, with an answerable threatening in case of Disobedience: As it was with Adam before the Fall. In the day that thou Eatest thereof, thou shalt surely Diego And as it was with them in the Wilderness; Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are Written in the Book of the Law to do them. So here ver. 9 Thou shalt keep my Covenant therefore, thou and thy Seed after thee, in their Generations. ver. 10. 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 ver. 14. The Uncircumcised Manchild, whose Flesh of his Foreskin is not Circumcised, that Soul shall be cut off from his People: He hath broken my Covenant. The same terms with the former. Besides, it is Evident that Circumcision indispensibly Obliged all that were under it to a Perfect and Universal Obedience to the whole Revealed Will and Law of God, Gal. 5. 3. For I testify to every man that is Circumcised, that he is a Debtor to do the whole Law. If it was so in Paul's time, it was so in Moses' time: And then it cannot be justly denied, but it was so in abraham's also, according to what of the Law, Mind, or Will of God, was then Revealed unto them. So that in this Covenant which God made with Abraham, Gen. 17. 7, 8, 9, 10. 14. As Blessings are pronounced upon the Obedient upon Condition of their Obedience; so as great a Curse is pronounced upon the Disobedient. And as we have already said is therefore of the same tenor with the Three  Covenants, in Genesis, Exodus, and Deuteronomy. For did God tell our First Parent in the Garden of Eden, concerning the Forbidden Fruit. In the day that thou Eatest thereof thou shalt surely Die? (and so in the rest) we have the like Threatening here. He that is Uncircumcised, that Soul shall be Cut off from his People: He hath broken my Covenant. And if that, were a Covenant of Works, why not this?  
§ ●. And therefore though 'tis true God promised to Establish his Covenant betwixt himself and Abraham, and his Seed after him in their Generations▪ for an Everlasting Covenant, to be a God unto him, and to his Seed after him, ver. 7, etc. Yet still it was provided they kept his Covenant, and fulfilled the Condition thereof on their parts, ver. 9 10. Else they were to be Cut off. And indeed the same Promises, for the Substance of them, were made unto the same People at Mount Sinai; and upon the same Condition, Exod. 19 4. 5. You have seen (saith God there) what I did unto the Egyptians, and how I bear you on eagle's Wings, and brought you unto myself. Now therefore, if ye will Obey my Voice indeed, and keep my Covenant. than ye shall be a peculiar Treasure unto me, above all People, for all the Earth is mine. ve. 6. And ye shall be unto me a Kingdom of Priests, and an Holy Nation. And if this was a Covenant of Works, as the Apostle doth plainly Affirm it is, Rom. 10. 5. from Leu. 18. 5. Why not that made with Abraham also, since the terms are the same, as well as the Promises are the same? The like account the Scripture gives us of the Covenant mentioned Deut. 29. You have seen (saith Moses there) ver. 2, 3. all that the Lord did before your Eyes in the Land of Egypt, unto Pharaoh, and all his Servants; the great Temptations which thine Eyes have seen, and those great Miracles, ver. 4. Yet the Lord hath not given you an Heart to perceive, and Eyes to see, and Ears to hear, unto this day. ver. 5. 6. And I have led you forty years in the Wilderness; your clothes are not waxed old upon you,— That ye might know, that I am the Lord your God, ver. 9 Keep therefore the words of this Covenant, and do them, that ye may prosper in all that ye do. The same Language with that Exod, 19 5. and Leu. 18. 5. compared with Rom. 10. 5. So that we cannot but plainly see, that all those  Covenants, are of one and the same Nature; what the one is, the others are the same. And therefore if the Covenant made with our First Parent before the Fall, and that made with Israel, at Mount Sinai, were neither of them a Covenant of Grace, nor a Gospel Covenant; whereof Christ is the alone and only Mediator: For the same Reason, neither was that mentioned Deut. 29. nor that Gen. 17. 7, 8, 9 as being all of the same tenor, and the Promises in them all of a like Nature.  
§ 6. The whole entire Nature, (saith Dr. Owen) of the Covenant of Works, consisted in this; That upon our Personal Obedience, according unto the Law and Rule of it, we should be Accepted with God, and Rewarded with him. Herein the Essence of it did consist. And what ever Covenant proceedeth on these terms, or hath the Nature of them in it; however it may be varied with Additions or Alterations, is the same Covenant stiil, and not another. As in the Renovation of the Promise, wherein the Essence of the Covenant of Grace was contained, God did oft times make other Additions unto it, as unto Abraham and David; yet was it still the same Covenant, for the Substance of it, and not another: So whatever Variations may be made in, or Additions unto the Dispensation of the First Covenant, so long as this Rule is retained, Do this and Live; it is still the same Covenant for the Substance and Essence of it. Dr. Owen in his late Discourse Entitled, The Doctrine of Justification, by Imputed Righteousness. p. 397.   

SECT. II.  
BUt forasmuch as Mr. Roberts, Mr. Sedgwick and many other Divines who have Written upon the Covenants, do affirm, that the Covenant at Mount Sinai was a Covenant of Faith; or, which is all one, a Covenant of Grace: At least that it was Subserviently the Covenant of Grace: Or a Covenant of Grace for the Substance of it, though propounded in a more dark way, and in a manner fitting for the State of that People, and that present time and Condition of the Church. And for as much as it will unavoidably follow that if that was a Covenant of Grace: So also was that made with Abraham, Gen. 17. 7, 8, 9 We shall therefore the more Intently apply ourselves toward the Discovery of their great Mistakes in this Respect; it being of so vast an Importance to the Church of God, to be set at rights herein; on which (as all will grant) So much of the Superstructure of the Christian Faith and Practice depends. For this purpose therefore (Additional unto what hath been already said (we shall only premise two Arguments, proving that the Covenant at Mount Sinai mentioned, Exod. 19 and Exod 20. was not other than a Covenant of Works. And then proceed to Answer those Scripture Objections which are usually urged by way of Opposition hereunto.  
§. 2. In the first place then; that the Covenant at Mount Sinai before mentioned was no other than a Covenant of Works: We thus prove.  
First, that Covenant that is not of Faith, cannot be a Covenant of Faith, but of Works: But the Apostle doth Expressly affirm, that the Law is not of Faith, Gal. 3. 11, 12. Which is most plainly to be understood of Mount Sinai Covenant; therefore that Covenant cannot be a Covenant of Faith, but of Works.  
Secondly, that Covenant which is now Repealed, could not be a Covenant of Grace, but of Works. But the Apostle doth plainly Affirm, that the Covenant which God made with his People at Mount Sinai, when he took them by the Hand to lead them out of the Land of Egypt for the faultiness thereof, is now Repealed, Heb. 7. 18. Chap. 8. 7. 13. 2. Cor. 3. 7. 11. Col. 2. 14. Therefore it could not be a Covenant of Grace, but of Works. The Covenant of Grace being every way Immutable and perfect, and therefore unrepealable, and Eternal, 2. Sam. 23. 5. Isa. 55. 3. Heb. 7. 21, 22, 24, 25. Heb. 13. 20. And the Gifts and Callings thereof without Repentance, Rom. 11. 27. 29. And if Mount Sinai Covenant, was no other than a Covenant of Works, and accordingly now Repealed: It cannt be denied but that the Covenant Gen. 17. 7, 8, 9 Was of the same Nature, and therefore also now Repealed, Act. 15. 10. 24. Col. 2. 14.  
§. 3. If any shall Object that it is unlikely that the Covenant of Works should be Renewed after Man's fall, and after the Covenant of Grace had actually taken place, as it did, in the first promise Concerning the Woman's Seed, that was to bruise the Serpents Head. We answer that how absurd so ever it may seem to us, it is plain matter of fact that so it was; and we ought not to Impeach Infinite Wisdom, that so appointed it. And if we will know the reason why the Covenant of Works should be thus Renewed after the Fall; the Scripture Expressly tells us: That the Law was added because of Transgressions, till the Seed should come to whom the Promise was made, Gal. 3. 19 The Apostle had before told us, ver. 17. That the Covenant that was Confirmed before of God in Christ, the Law which was 430. Years after, could not Disannul that it should make the Promise of none Effect, wherefore then (saith he, ver. 19) Serveth the Law? To which himself gives this Resolution: That it was added because of Transgressions, till the Seed should come to whom the Promise was made. And elsewhere the same Apostle Informs us: That the Law entered that the Offence might abound, Rom. 5. 20. Or as he Expresseth it, Chap. 7. 13. That Sin by the Commandment might become exceeding Sinful. It being Evident that the Law was appointed as a Schoolmaster to Christ, Gal. 3. 24. For so it was to the Jews; that is, to show them the Nature of Sin, and the Holiness and Righteousness of God; to convince them of their Sin and Misery without Christ, and their necessity therefore of a Saviour, Rom. 7. 7, 12. 13. And for this purpose it still serves to all Men in an unregenerate State Rom. 3. 19 But though the Law doth indeed show us our Necessity of Christ, and our Misery without him; yet it doth not bring us to Christ (as our Translation hath it) for that is the Work of the Covenant of Faith only, Rom. 10. 6, 7, 8, 9 And that as it stands opposed unto the Legal Covenant, ver. 5, 6, etc.  
§ 4. There is a double Enquiry made by the Apostle (saith Dr. Owen, on Gal. 3.) with respect unto the Law, or the Covenant of Sinai. [1.] Unto what end in General it served? [2] Whether it were not contrary to the Promise of God? Unto both these the Apostle answereth from the Nature, Office, and Work of that Covenant. For there were two things in it; First a Revival and Representation of the first Covenant of Works with its Sanction and Curse. Secondly, A Direction of the Church unto the Accomplishment of the Promise From these two doth the Apostle frame his Answer unto the double Enquiry laid down. And unto the first Enquiry, Unto what ●nd it served? He Answers, It was added because of Transgressions. The Promise being given, there seems to have been no need of it: Why then was it added to it at that Season? It was added because of Transgressions. The fullness of time was not yet come wherein the Promise was to be Fulfilled, Accomplished, and Established, as the only Covenant wherein the Church was to Walk with God, or the Seed was not yet come; as the Apostle here speaks to whom the Promise was made. In the mean time, some Order must be taken about Sin and Transgression, that all the Order of things appointed of God, were not Overflowed by them. And this was done two ways by the Law. [1.] By Reviving the Commands of the Covenant of Works, with the Sanction of Death, it put an Awe on the minds of Men, and set Bounds unto their Lusts, that they should not dare to run forth into that Excess which they were Naturally inclined unto. It was therefore added because of Transgressions, that in the Declaration of God's Severity against them some Bounds might be fixed unto them: For the knowledge of Sin is by the Law. [2.] To shut up unbelievers, and such as would not seek for Righteousness, Life, and Salvation by the Promise, under the Power of the Covenant of Works, and Curse attending it. It concluded, or shut up all under Sin, saith the Apostle, ver. 20. This was the end of the Law for this end was it Added, as it gave a Reviveal unto the Covenant of Works. Dr. Owen's Exposition on the, Hebrews. 3 d. Vol. p. 231.  
§. 5. It is true, that Scripture, Gal. 3. 24. where the Apostle tells us that the Law was our Schoolmaster to Christ, that we might be Justified by Faith, is strongly urged by some, to prove that the Law must needs be therefore a Covenant of Faith. But it is Evident, that the School mastership of the Law, and the Covenant of Faith are two quite different things; as appears by the Words before and after. ver. 23. Before Faith came saith he, we were kept under the Law, shut up unto the Faith which should afterward be Revealed. ver. 24. Wherefore the Law was our Schoolmaster to Christ, that we might be justified by Faith. ver. 25. But after that Faith is come, we are no longer under a Schoolmaster. So that the Schol mastership of the Law is one thing, and the Covenant of Faith another: For when the one cometh, the other ceaseth. When the one takes place the other vanisheth. The Law therefore could not be a Covenant of Faith, it being here so plainly Opposed or Contra distinguished thereunto. Accordingly the Apostle elsewhere assures us, that the Law Written and Engraven in Stones was a Ministration of Death and Condemnation, 2. Cor. 3. 6. 7. 9 And consequently gave no hopes of Relief to the Miserable Sinner as the Covenant of Faith doth. It convinced him indeed of the dreadful Nature of Sin; and of the Infinite Purity and Holiness of God's Nature and Being, against whom it had Sinned; but it left no Room for Repentance. For Cursed is every one (saith the Law) that Continueth not in all things which are Written in the Book of the Law to do them. Therefore it is called the Handwriting of Ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us; which Christ took out of the way, nailing it to his Cross, Col. 2. 14. So that the Law could not possibly be a Covenant of Faith: It being constantly represented to us in the Scripture, as being of a vastly different Nature therefrom, and that in the very Essence or Substance thereof. The one being a Ministration of Death and Condemnation, the other a Ministration of Life and Peace.   

SECT. III.  
WE are told indeed by Mr. Obadiah Segdwick, in his Discourse upon the Covenant of Grace, p. 175. That the Covenant made with the People of Israel at Mount Sinai, was at least subserviently the Covenant of Grace; a Covenant of Grace for the Substance of it though propounded in a more dark way, and in a manner, fitting for the State of that People, and that present time and condition of the Church.  
§. 2. But this is but an Evasion, and serves for no other purpose than to darken the Truth: For the thing is plain, that the Law was as much a Covenant of Works, as that made with our First Parent. The Jewish Legal Covenant (saith Dr. Annesly in his Sermon upon the Covenant of Grace; Morning Exercise, p. 122) Neither admitted of Faith in the Redeemer, nor Repentance of Sin: For Pardon of sin and Curse for Sin are Inconsistent, Gal. 3. 10. As many as are of the Works of the Law are under the Curse: For it is Written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are Written in the Book of the Law to do them. As many as depend upon the Works of the Law for Justification, are under the Curse. And the Law (saith he) discovered no other way of Justification, but by Works. Mr. Cooper also in the same Morning Exercise, p. 117. tells us, That Moses his Law is opposed to the Covenant of Grace, as another Covenant, upon this very distinguishing account of Obedience and Faith, Works and Grace; as you may see (saith he) at large among other Places, Heb. 8. 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, etc.  
§. 3. The Law therefore was not so much as Subserviently a Covenant of Faith, much less for the Substance of it so; for it is quite another thing, and is constantly so represented unto us in the Scriptures. The Apostle saith indeed, The Law was our Schoolmaster to Christ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He doth not say to bring us to Christ, as our Translation hath it: (For as we have already said, that is the Work of the Covenant of Faith only) And therefore that Notion, that the Law was Subserviently a Covenant of Faith hath no Foundation: Those Words [to bring us] being unduly added to the Original Text, and are accordingly put in a Different Character in our Translation thereof. But, (saith the Apostle in the words immediately following) After that Faith is come, we are no longer under a Schoolmaster. But how can that be if the Law was a Covenant of Faith? Must the Covenant of Faith cease; at least in this World? Must the Covenant of Faith Vanish, be Blotted out; taken out of the way, and done away, as the Apostle speaks of the Law? Or was the Covenant of Faith against us, and contrary to us, as he speaks of the Handwriting of Ordinances, that is now Blotted out. And indeed therefore, neither could the Law be so much as Subserviently a Covenant of Faith: For if it had, the Apostle would never have described it as hath been now declared.  
§. 4. And 'tis in vain to say, That the Law was a Covenant of Faith, though propunded in a more dark way, and in a manner, fitting for the State of that People, and that present Time and Condition of the Church, (as Mr. Sedgwick speaks.) For the Apostle Expressly affirms, that the Law is not of Faith: (It is not of Faith Absolutely, not Comparatively) but the man that doth them, shall live in them, Gal. 3. 12. The Law therefore was no other than a Covenant of Works, since not only the Apostle doth here assure us, that it is not of Faith, but also the same Rule, Do this and Live, is that still retained therein as at first. And it is therefore different from the Covenant of Faith; not barely in respect of the Degrees or clearness of the Revelation of Gospel-Grace, (as is commonly Suggested:) For the Law, as hath been already proved, discovers none at all, but leaves the guilty Sinner wholly Remediless, without the least glimpse of Light or Comfort. The Law therefore differs from the Covenant of Faith Specifically, in respect of the whole Nature or Essence of it. In which respect the Law could never be appointed as a Schoolmaster to bring us to Christ. Well it may convince us of our Necessity of him; but bring us to him it cannot.  
§ 5. So that then these are the Reasons which the Holy Spirit himself Suggesteth, why the Law was added? Or why the Covenant of Works was Revived after Man's Fall, and even after the Proclaiming of the first Promise concerning the Woman's Seed, Gen, 3. 15. which was renewed to Abraham, Gen. 22. 18. It was added, (saith the Apostle) because of Transgressions, till the Seed should come to whom the Promise was made. And it entered that the Offence might abound. It being appointed as a Schoolmaster to Christ, to convince the Jews of their necessity of a Saviour. And since it cannot be denied, but that all the Sons and Daughters of Adam must of Necessity be under one or another of the two Covenants; either that of Works, or that of Grace; And since all Men by Nature are Children of Wrath, Eph. 2, 3. And since it would be utterly absurd to affirm, that such are under a Covenant of Grace till-Converted: It of necessity follows, that unto such the Covenant of Works is still in force, and under it they are till wrought upon by the Grace of the Gospel; the Law abating nothing, but still exacting the utmost Farthing. Neither from the Impossibility of Man's yielding that perfect Obedience which that Covenant requires; can we justly conclude that therefore it is not still in Force: For God hath not forfeited or lost his Right of Dominion, though we have lost our Strength or Capacity of Obedience. So that it is evident, that the Law given upon Mount Sinai to the People of the Wilderness; or the Law written in Stones, (which was a plain and clear Manifestation of the Law written in the Heart of Man at the first) was no other than a Covenant of Works. Thus it was to the Jews, and thus it still continues in its full Power, Force and Virtue to all Men in an Unregenerate State. For what things soever the Law saith, it saith to them that are under the Law, that every Month may be stopped, and all the World may become Guilty before God, Rom. 3. 19   

SECT. iv  
NEither was the Law by the Jews only Interpreted as a Covenant of Works, but as it is evident by Moses himself, and by Paul also▪ We are told indeed by Mr. Sedgwick in his  Discourse upon the Covenants, p. 173. That we must distinguish between the intention of God in giving the Law, and the Abuse or Perverting of the Law. We grant (saith he) that many of the Jews did set up a Legal Righteousness for their Justifications, and rested upon the Works of the Law, as if Life came by them; against which Paul doth notably Argue in his Epistles to the Romans and Galatians.) But this, saith he, was not the intention of God in the Sanction of Law. They could never find a justifying Righteousness by the Law, or Works of the Law, under the Notion of a Covenant of Works; nor did God ever propound it for that end.  
§ 2. For Answer hereunto we say; That since, by Mr. Sedgwicks' own confession, the Jews could never find a Justifying Righteousness by the Law, or by the Works of it. From hence it inevitably follows, that it could not be a Covenant of Faith. Sure it is that the Covenant of Faith Justifies all that are under it: For being Justified by Faith, we have Peace with God, etc. Rom. 5. 1. That Covenant therefore that could never Justify any that were under it, could never be a Covenant of Faith: But the Scripture is Express, that by the deeds of the Law there shall no Flesh be Justified in God's sight, Rom. 3. 20. Therefore that Covenant could never be a Covenant of Faith. And yet again, that Covenant under which though many were Justified; yet none were ever Justified by it, or by virtue of it, could never be a Covenant of Faith: But such was the nature of the Law, that though many were Justified under it, yet none were ever Justified by it, or by virtue of it, Rom. 3. 20. Therefore that Covenant could never be a Covenant of Faith. And if the Law was not a Covenant of Faith, then, ●t must of necessity follow, that it could be no other than a Covenant of Works. And indeed so it was appointed and declared by God himself, Leu. 18. 5. Ye shall therefore keep my Statutes and Judgements; which if a man do, he shall live in them. And this the Spirit of God by the Apostle Paul takes special notice of, Rom. 10. 5. For Moses (saith he) describeth the Righteousness which is of the Law, That the man that doth these things shall live by them. And what can be a more plain Description of a Covenant of Works, and that of God's own Designation and Appointment? And that not in the way of a Partial imperfect Obedience: But as it is Written; Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the Book of the Law to do them, Gal. 3. 10. which the Apostle quotes from Deut. 27. 26. Cursed be be that Confirmeth not all the words of this Law to do them. And all the People shall say Amen.  
§. 3. So that the Jews were right enough in their Notion concerning the Law, in reference to the true Nature thereof, that it was indeed a Covenant of Works, (For Paul doth plainly acknowledge it to be such, and God himself by the Mouth of his Servant Moses as plainly expresseth it so to be, in the very first Sanction of it) though they were out in respect of its proper use and intention; which was not that any should attain unto Life and Righteousness thereby: but as we have before observed, to show them the Nature of Sin, and the Holiness and Righteousness of God; to convince them of their Sin and Misery without Christ, and their necessity therefore of a Saviour; which they being ignorant of and still going about to Establish their own Righteousness, which was of the Law; and refusing to submit themselves unto the Righteousness of God, (which was now Manifested without the Law, as it had been before Witnessed by the Law and the Prophets) They Stumbled at that Stumbling-stone, and were accordingly Broken and Snared and Taken, Rom, 9 31, 32, 33. Chap. 10. 3. And this was the true ground of the Dispute between the Apostle and them.  
§ 4. But all this notwithstanding; it is evident that the Law was a Covenant of Works still. And it is also as evident, that it was Appointed and Established by God as a distinct Covenant from the Promise of Grace, and essentially different therefrom, under which the Natural Posterity of Abraham were for a Season to be Subjected, until the time appointed of the Father, Gal. 4. 1, 2, etc. as the Fruit of infinite Wisdom, who thought fit to impose this Burden upon them, notwithstanding, or rather Additional unto those Discoveries of Grace: (For the Law is said to have been Added unto the Promise) that had been otherwise Revealed unto them, and whereby they were Saved. So that the forementioned Objection notwithstanding it still remains Firm and Unshaken, that the Law was no other than a Covenant of Works: So it was designed and appointed by God himself; and constantly in the Scripture is it Represented to us under that Character.   

SECT. V  
BUt whereas the Apostle tells us, that the Law is not against the Promises, Gal. 3. 21. Mr. Sedgwick will needs hence conclude, that the Law was not a Covenant of Works: For (saith he) The Law is not against the Promises; nor doth Faith make void the Law. Both these can very well agree together; but so they could not if the Law had been given as a Covenant of Works: For now the Law would be Expressly against the Promises, and Faith will certainly make void the Law. The Promises of God are contrary to a Covenant of Works, and Faith is Destructive to a Covenant of Works. If therefore the Promises and Faith, and the Law can consist, than the Law cannot be set up as a Covenant of Works.  
§. 2. To this we Reply; First, That it ought to be duly Observed, that the Law and the Promise having divers ends, it doth not therefore follow that there is an Inconsistency between them: For although there is nothing that can be clearer than this, That the Law was set up and appointed by God, as a Covenant of Works to the Jews, to convince them of Sin, and the necessity of a Saviour; yet did God never intent it as a Means to give Life and Righteousness: nor was it able so to do. The end of the Primise was to give Life, Righteousness, Justification and Salvation; all by Christ; to whom, and concerning whom it was made. But this was not the end for which the Covenant of Works was Revived, in the Covenant of Sinai. For although in its self it requires a perfect Righteousness, and gives a promise of Life thereon, He that doth these things, shall live in them; yet it could give neither Righteousness nor Life to any in a State of Sin, Rom. 8. 3. Chap. 10. 4. Wherefore the Promise and the Law having divers ends, they are not contrary to one another. Nay, rather the Law even as it is a Covenant of Works, instead of being against the Promise, it tends to the Establishment of it, by declaring the Impossibility of obtaining Reconciliation and Peace with God, any other way, but by the Promise: For representing the Commands of the Covenant of Works, requiring perfect Sinless Obedience, under the Penalty of the Curse; it convinced Men, that this was no way for Sinners to seek for Life and Salvation by. And herewith it so urged the Consciences of Men, that they could have no Rest nor Peace in themselves, but what the Promise would afford them; whereunto therefore they saw a necessity of betaking themselves. So that though we affirm the Law to be no other than a Covenant of Works, as the Apostle himself doth; yet it doth not therefore follow that it is against the Promise, it having so Blessed a Subserviency toward the Establishment thereof.  
§. 3. Secondly, though the Apostle doth indeed tell us, Gal. 3. 21. That the Law is not against the Promises. The following Words do sufficiently clear his Meaning to be of quite another Nature than Mr. Sedgwick in his forementioned Discourse, apprehends it to be. Mr. Sedgwick indeed will by no-means allow that the Law was set up as a Covenant of Works; and than it must of necessity follow, that it is a Covenant of Faith. But the Apostle seems to be of another mind: For having told us, ver. 18. That if the Inheritance be of the Law, it is no more of Promise: But God gave it to Abraham by Promise. And having answered the Question, or Objection, ver. 19 Wherefore then serveth the Law? To which himself gives this Resolution, That it was added because of Transgressions, till the Seed should come to whom the Promise was made. He brings in this further Objection, ver. 21. against what he had before Asserted, viz. That if the Inheritance be of the Law, it is no more of Promise, etc. Is the Law then against the Promises? God forbidden, (saith he.) For if there had been a Law given which could have given Life, verily Righteousness should have been by the Law: But the Scripture hath concluded all under Sin, that the Promise by Faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe. In the first place than it is Evident and Undeniable, that Abraham's Inheritance was not derived unto him through the Law: For, (saith our Apostle) If the Inheritance be of the Law, it is no more of Promise; but God gave it to Abraham by Promise. So that it clearly appears by the scope of the Apostle's Argument, that the Law could not be a Covenant of Faith: For if it had, it would have been honoured as an Instrument for the conveyance of Abraham's Inheritance: But, saith he, God gave it to Abraham by Promise, not by the Law; therefore the Law could not be a Covenant of Faith. But is the Law then against the Promises? God forbidden, (saith he.) For if there had been a Law given, which could have given Life, verily Righteousness should have been by the Law; but the Scripture hath concluded all under Sin, that the Promise of Faith by Jesus Christ might be given to them that Believe. So that the Law could not be a Covenant of Faith, since the Apostle doth here so plainly distinguish between them; setting forth the Weakness of the one, and the Strength and Perfection of the other. The Law (saith he) Can not give Life; but the Covenant of Faith doth. The Law indeed would, but could not: It promiseth Life, but it could not perform it through the Weakness of the Flesh. (So there is no Repugnancy in the Law against the Promises) but what the Law could not do, the Covenant of Faith performeth: For it not only promiseth Life, but accomplisheth what it hath promised, and sets the Soul in Safety.  
§ 4. According to the plain and clear Scope of the Apostle's Reasoning, therefore; the Law is so far from being a Covenant of Faith, that it is quite another thing. For if it had been a Covenant of Faith, it would have given Life, as the Covenant of Faith doth: But it could not give Life, therefore it could be no other than a Covenant of Works. But is the Law then against the Promises? God forbidden, saith Paul; and so say we. For supposing the Law to be, as it is indeed, a pure Covenant of Works; yet through the Satisfaction of Christ, there is no Repugnancy, or Hostile Contrariety betwixt the Law and the Promises, or between the Law and Faith, which hath respect to the Promises. There is only a difference of Deficiency, in respect of that Strength that there is in the one, to what there was in the other. The one being Weak through the Flesh; the other Strong and Powerful, and goes throughstitch with its Work. But what the Law could not do through our Weakness, that Christ hath performed, by fulfilling its Commands, and submitting to its Curse, on our behalf; whereby God's Justice is satisfied, and Everlasting Righteousness obtained, for the Salvation of Sinners. And indeed herein consisteth the Covenant of Faith; here is the Object of it, and in this path is the very Law and Justice of God itself most highly Glorified. Shall we say then, that because the Law is a Covenant of Works, that it is therefore against the Promises? God forbidden. For who shall lay any thing to the Charge of God's Elect, so as to hinder the accomplishment of the Promises upon them? The Law itself doth not, cannot Impeach them, since it is God that Justifieth. Or, Who shall Condemn them? The Law itself cannot; since it is Christ that Died. It is true, the Law saith, That the man that doth these things, shall Live by them. And indeed herein the very Essence of the Covenant of Works consisteth. But the Covenant of Faith leads us to what Christ hath done and performed for us; which the Covenant of Works doth not. But though the Law leads us not to Christ; yet Christ being made under it, and giving it its due honour on our behalf; hence it follows, that the Law itself that was before our Enemy, stands up as our Friend: Even that Law that was before against us, which was Contrary to us, and which was in itself no other than the Ministration of Death and Condemnation; even that Law stands up as our Friend, through the Mediation of Christ, whom God therefore hath set forth to be a Propitiation through Faith in his Blood to declare his Righteousness that he might be Just, and the Justifier of him that Believeth in Jesus, Rom. 3. 24, 25, 26. So that the Law (through the Satisfaction of Christ; though it be, as it is indeed a Covenant of Works; yet) is not against the Promises; there is no Real Repugnancy, or Contrariety between them, whatever there seems to be: Which made the Apostle Propound the Question as he doth.  
§ 5. Besides, the same Apostle that tells us, The Law is not against the Promises, doth also expressly Assure us, That the Law is not of Faith, but the Man that doth them shall live by them, Gal. 3. 12. So that though it is true, the Law is not against the Promises, Since Mercy and Truth, Righteousness and Peace are met together in Christ; yet it is as true, that the Law is not of Faith. And if the Law is not of Faith; then neither can it be a Covenant of Faith, but of Works; as the same Apostle doth plainly affirm it is, Rom. 3. 27, 28. And therefore neither could it give Life: For if it could, Righteousness should have been by it: But (saith he) The Scripture hath concluded all under Sin, that the Promise by Faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that Believe. The Law therefore was not a Covenant of Faith: For if it had, it would have given Life, and so Righteousness should have been by the Law: But it could not give Life, and so Righteousness was not by the Law, therefore it was not a Covenant of Faith. The like Inference may be clearly drawn from Rom. 10. 5, 6, etc. Moses (saith the Apostle) Describeth the Righteousness of the Law, that the Man which doth these things shall live by them. But the Righteousness which is of Faith, (or Gospel Covenant) speaketh on this wise, etc. If thou Believest, thou shalt be Saved. Wherein we cannot but observe, that the Apostle maketh a plain difference betwixt the Righteousness of the Law, and the Righteousness of Faith. The one, saith he, speaketh after this sort; the other speaketh after quite another rate, From whence also it plainly follows, that the Law could not be a Covenant of Faith; since the Righteousness of the one is here so plainly Opposed to the Righteousness of the other; which yet it would not be, had the Law been a Covenant of Faith; nay, though it had been so only more Darkly, and not with that clearness of Demonstration as the Gospel Reveals it; had it been so Subserviently only; much more if it had been such for the Substance of it, as it Affirmed. For it cannot be imagined, that if it had been a Covenant of Grace, or a Covenant of Faith Subserviently, much more if it had been such for the Substance of it; that ever it would have been set in point blank Opposition to it, as quite another thing, as it is. When the Apostle tells us therefore, that the Righteousness which is of the Law saith, Do this, and Live; but the Righteousness of Faith speaketh in quite another Dialect: It is plain there is a difference between them toto Genere; or in the whole Kind, or Substance thereof, and not barely in the several Degrees of Manifestation; as is suggested: For as the Apostle Reasoneth concerning Election, Rom. 11. 6. So it is here. If it be of Works, than it is no more Grace; otherwise Work is no more Work. And if by Grace, than it is no more of Works; otherwise Grace is no more Grace. Either therefore the Law was a Covenant of Grace, or it was a Covenant of Works: If it was a Covenant of Grace, then according to the scope of the Apostle's Reasoning, it was not a Covenant of Works; or it is no more of Works; that is, it is not of Works at all: And consequently Moses doth not describe the Righteousness which is of the Law as he doth, that the Man that doth these things, shall live by them. But if this be absurd, and it be evident that it is, as it is indeed, a Covenant of Works: For the same Reason therefore neither can it in any Sense, be a Covenant of Gospel-Grace; otherwise (as the Apostle speaks) Work is no more Work. For these two, Grace and Works, or Faith and Works, are constantly in the Scripture opposed the one unto the other, in point of our Justification before God's Presence, (which is our present case) and admit of no Mixture.  
§. 6. So that though the Law (even as it is a Covenant of Works) is not against the Promises; that is, there is no Repugnancy between them; there being a sweet Harmony and Conjunction of all the Blessed Attributes of God in Christ in the way of the Salvation of Sinners; yet the Law is constantly in the Scripture represented in a way of Contradistinction to the Promises; and so it is in the words foregoing, as hath been already observed, ver. 18. If (saith the Apostle) the Inheritance be of the Law, it is no more of Promise; but God gave it to Abraham by Promise. And (which is yet clearer) the same Apostle doth also assure us, Rom. 4. 14. That if they which are of the Law be heirs, Faith is made void, and the Promise made of none Effect. Therefore the Law could not possibly be a Covenant of Faith, but of Works.   

SECT. VI  
ANd whereas the Apostle doth also tell us, Rom. 3. 31. That we do not make Void the Law through Faith, but Establish it. This also is true, and no way Contradicteth, but is Consistent enough with what hath been Asserted, viz. That the Law is no other than a Covenant of Works: Forasmuch as Christ our surety hath fulfilled it for us, given it its due Honour, and satisfied its Penalty on our behalf. So that we are so far from making void the Law, through Faith; that it is rather thereby Established; as having received greater Honour by the obedience and Sufferings of Christ, than ever could have been given it by us.  
§. 2. And yet further, (which is also Objected to the same purpole as before) whereas the Apostle doth also tell us, Rom. 10. 4. That Christ is the end of the Law for Righteousness to every one that believeth. The Sense is Evident: Forasmuch as what the Law could not do, in that it was weak through the Flesh; God sending his own Son in the likeness of Sinful Flesh, and for Sin (or by a Sacrifice for Sin) Condemned Sin in the Flesh, that the Righteousness of the Law might be fulfiled in us (that is in the Person of our surety for us) Rom. 8, 3, 4. And thus Christ is the end of the Law for Righteousness to every one that believeth, by fulfilling its Commands, and answering its Penalty on our behalf. But doth it therefore follow that the Law is a Covenant of Faith? It is Evident that Christ Submitted to it as a Covenant of Works. And if it was so to Christ, it was so to us, and would have been so, and the Curse thereof had accordingly lighted on us, had not Christ Interposed for our Relief. But, (saith the Apostle) when the Fullness of time was come, God sent forth his Son made of a Woman, made under the Law, to Redeem them that were under the Law, that we might receive the Adoption of Sons, Gal. 4. 4, 5. From whence it clearly appears, that the Law was not a Covenant of Faith: For if it had, what necessity was there for Christ to have Redeemed us from under it? Can we imagine that Christ ever shed his Blood to Redeem us from being under a Covenant of Faith, or from being under a Gospel Covenant? The Law was therefore no other than a Covenant of Works, from which Christ hath now Redeemed us, by his Blood and Sufferings for us. The Law indeed shows us our Sin and Misery without Christ, but Relieves us not, Rom. 7. 7, 8, 9, 10. which the Covenant of Faith doth, Rom. 10. 6, 7, 8, 9 Nay the Law, instead of Relieving or Curing us, it brings us under the Curse, which the Covenant of Faith delivers us from, Gal. 3. 8, 9, 10. But though we are delivered from the Law as a Covenant of Life, Do this, and live; yet it is also as true, that All true Believers are still under the Law to Christ, as a Rule of Life, 1 Cor. 9 21.   

SECT. VII.  
MR. Sedgwick doth indeed also tell us in his forementioned Discourse upon the Covenants, p. 174. That that Covenant which God made with Moses, and under which Moses stood, was no Covenant of Works: But Moses and the People of Israel were both under the same Covenant. Exod. 34. 27. I have made a Covenant with thee and with Israel. If any doubt under what Covenant Moses stood, (whether of Works or Grace) let him peruse Heb. 11. 26. What a Description he shall there find of Moses. He shall there find him to be a Choice and Eminent Believer in Christ; Esteeming the Reproach of Christ greater Riches than the Treasures in Egypt, and having respect to the Recompense of Reward, etc. Now, certainly such a Choice Believer in Christ, was not under a Covenant of Works. And p. 175, 176. speaking of the immediate Introduction unto the giving of the Law, Exod. 20. 2. I am the Lord thy God, which have brought thee out of the Land of Egypt. Why (saith he) there is the very Covenant of Grace. Here is God as our God; (And Blessed are the People who have the Lord to be their God.) And here is Jesus Christ the Mediator of the Covenant implied; for in Christ doth God become our God. And there is our Redemption from Sin and Satan▪ intimated, by their Deliverance out of Egypt. And presently there is the Worship of God Instituted and Appointed, which if Acceptable to God▪ must be performed with Faith: For without Faith it is impossible to please God. And (saith he) upon the Breaking of the Tables of the Covenant, before they were Written again, there is such a Preface made by God, as can no way fit any Covenant but that of Grace, as you may see in Exod. 34. 7. The Lord, the Lord, Gracious and Merciful, Long-suffering and abundant in goodness and truth, keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving Iniquities, Transgressions and Sin.  
§ 2. To this we Reply, that it is indeed most certain and undeniable, that both Moses and all the Elect among that People of Old, were under the same Covenant of Grace with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and all the rest of the Holy Patriarches before; and by that they were Saved; and without it there had been no Salvation for them. And accordingly we are told, Exod. 33. That upon Moses his earnest request unto God, that he might see his Glory; and that he would afford unto him his Gracious Presence, for the more comfortable Conduct of that great and mighty People through that vast and howling Wilderness: The Lord is pleased ver. 17. to Promise, that he would do this thing that Moses had spoken: For (saith he) thou hast found grace in my sight, and I know thee by name, And he said, I will make all my goodness pass before thee, and I will proclaim the name of the Lord before thee, and will be gracious to whom I will be gracious; and will show Mercy to whom I will show Mercy. And accordingly, Chap. 34. 5, 6, 7. The Lord descended in the Cloud, and stood with him there, and proclaimed the name of the Lord. And the Lord passed by before him, and Proclaimed, 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. Which was absolutely and undeniably a Covenant of Grace, which God then made and confirmed unto Moses by Name, and unto all that were Elected among that People; (for it was not to all, since God expressly tells Moses, that he would be gracious to whom he would be gracious, and would show mercy to whom he would show mercy.) And accordingly this was that that God's People then lived upon, and were saved by: For if there had been no other Covenant made with them than that that was contained in the two Tables of Stone, it had been utterly impossible that either Moses or any of the rest could ever have been Saved. And this Gospel Cordial seems to have been purposely afforded unto Moses and the rest of the Faithful with him, for the Relief of their sinking Spirits under the dread and terror of that Fiery Burning Law, Deut. 33, 2. The Lord came from Sinai, and risen up from Seir unto them; he shined forth from Mount Paran; and he came with ten thousands of Saints: From his right-hand went a Fier●e Law, that had been before proclaimed by the Mouth of God himself, and had been also written with God's own Finger; and was now about to be renewed, upon the breaking of the first Tables of Stone. Which discovery of God's Infinite Holiness, Justice and Righteousness, proclaimed with so much Majesty and Glory, attended with such Thunderings, Blackness, Darkness and Tempest, was so dreadful and terrible, that Moses himself exceedingly fears, and quakes at the Sight and Hearing thereof: And is accordingly taken Notice of and represented by the Apostle as a Discriminating, or Distinguishing Character between that and the Gospel Covenant, Heb. 12. 18. etc. You are not come (saith he) to the Mount that might be touched, and that Burned with Fire, nor unto Blackness, and Darkness, and Tempest, and the sound of a Trumpet, and the voice of Words; which Voice they that heard, entreated that the Word should not be spoken to them any more. And so terrible was the Sight, that Moses himself said, I exceedingly fear and quake. But ye are come unto Mount Zion, to the City of the Living God, to the Heavenly Jerusalem, to God the Judge of all; to Jesus the Mediator of the New Covenant, etc. From whence it is evident that there is an Essential difference between these two, the Law and the Gospel; so as that what the one is, the other is not; the Law is not the Gospel, nor the Gospel the Law. You are not come (saith he) unto the Legal, but unto the Gospel Covenant. The Legal Covenant discovered nothing but Blackness, and Darkness and Tempest, and a voice of Words that could not be endured: For according to the Apostles own present Description or Character thereof, it made no discovery of the least glimpse of Gospel Grace at all. The Legal Covenant therefore could not be a Covenant of Grace, or a Covenant of Faith, that made no discovery of any such thing, but rather the contrary; so as that it makes Moses himself exceedingly Quake and Tremble.  
§. 3. However, it is certain that both Moses, and all the Elect among that People of Old, were under the Covenant of Grace, as we have already said, and by that were saved: And accordingly we are told, that they did all (that is, all the Elect among them) Eat the same spiritual Meat, and did all Drink the same spiritual Drink: For they Drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them, and that Rock was Christ. 1 Cor. 10. 3. 4. And it is as Evident that it was no other than Christ himself that was the Angel of God's presence, that was to go before them and Conduct them in the way they were to go. But yet all this notwithstanding, it is plain that the Law was a Covenant of Works still; and it is also as Evident that it was a distinct Covenant, and Essentially different from the Covenant of Grace: And was accordingly made with Moses, and the whole Body of the Congregation, and not with Moses and those that were Elected among them only; as the Covenant of Grace was. And therefore Exod. 19 5, 6. (Saith God, there to the whole Body of the Congregation of Israel, at the foot of Mount Sinai. Now therefore if ye will Obey my voice indeed, and keep my Covenant, than ye shall be a Peculiar Treasure unto me above all People: for all the Earth is mine: And ye shall be to me a Kingdom of Priests, and a Holy Nation. These are the Words that thou shalt speak unto the Children of Israel. Mark it: These are the words that thou shalt speak unto the Children of Israel, that is, unto the whole Body of that People, without Exception of any, as being of Universal Concernment unto them all. And these are the Words, that is, these are the Terms on which thou shalt propound these my Promises to them, viz. If you will Obey my Voice indeed, and keep my Covenant with all your Heart, and with all your Soul; so as not in the least to vary, or step aside from what I have now Commanded you; then I will do thus and thus, unto, and for you, and I will give you a Convincing Discovery, that I am indeed the Lord your God, which have brought you out of the Land of Egypt. For upon these and no other terms do I now enter into Covenant with you. And Cursed shall he be that Confirmeth not all the words of this Law to do them: The promises I now make you, are full and Glorious enough: But these are the Terms on which you must Expect if ever you come to the Fruition of them. This is the Substance of the Preface, and after Explication, that God himself makes, unto, and concerning the Covenant which he now made with Moses, and with Israel, even with the whole Body of that People; which was by the Finger of God himself Written and Engraven in Stones: And is accordingly mentioned at large, Exod. 20. In the several ten Branches, Commandments, or main Heads thereof.  
§ 4. In the next place, if we Inquire into the Nature of this Covenant: What sort of Covenant it was? Whether a Covenant of Grace, or a Covenant of Works: As it is Evident that it could be no other than a Covenant of Works; since we see it required perfect Obedience as the condition of obtaning the mercies therein promised; wherein the very Essence of that Covenant Consisted: So in order to a further discovery of the true nature of the Covenant in question, We must compare some passages in Exod. 34. with 2 Cor. 3. and Col. 2. 14. In Exod. 34. 1. The Lord said unto Moses, hue the two Tables of Stone like unto the first: And I will Write upon these Tables the words that were in the first Tables, ver. 4. And he hewed two Tables of Stone like unto the first: And Moses went up unto the Mount Sinai, as the Lord Commanded him, and took in his hand the two Tables of Stone. ver. 28. And he was there with the Lord 40 days and 40 nights; and he Wrote upon the Tables, the words of the Covenant, the ten Commandments. And it came to pass, when Moses came down from Mount Sinai (with the two Tables of Testimony in Moses' hand, when he came down from the Mount) that Moses Witted not that the Skin of his Face shone, while he talked with him. And when Aaron and all the Children of Israel saw Moses, behold the Skin of his Face shone; and they were afraid to come nigh him. If we will know therefore the true Nature of the Covenant, we shall find that the Spirit of God by the Apostle, doth give us a clear determination thereof in the , 2. Cor. 3. 5, 6. Our Sufficiency (saith he) is of God, who hath also made us able Ministers of the New Testament; not of the Letter, but of the Spirit; (that is, not of the Law, but of the Gospel) For the Letter Killeth, but the Spirit giveth Life. But (saith he, ver. 7.) If the Ministration of Death Written and Engraven in Stones was Glorious, so that the Children of Israel could not steadfastly behold the Face of Moses for the Glory of his Countenance, which Glory was to be done away; how shall not the Ministration of the Spirit be rather Glorious. So again, ver. 9 If the Ministration of Condemnation be Glory, much more doth the Ministration of Righteousness exceed in Glory. Wherein we cannot but observe, that the Apostle doth evidently Reflect upon the fore mentioned Passage in Exod. 34▪ 28, 29, etc. Where we are told, that Moses Received from God the two Tables of Stone, wherein the words of the Covenant, even the Ten Commandments, were Written and Engraven by the Finger of God himself; and this Expressly under the Denomination of the Covenant, which God then made with Israel, Deut. 4. 13. Which made Moses his Face to shine, so that Aaron and all the Children of Israel were afraid to come nigh him. 'Tis clear then, that this is the Covenant that Paul hear speaks of. And what Character or Description doth he give thereof? Why (saith he) The Law Written and Engraven in Stones, (how Glorious soever it was in itself) was of a Killing Nature; it was the Ministration of Death and Condemnation; and that which was to be done away. To which same purpose, the same Apostle also tells us, Col. 2. 14. That Christ hath Blotted out the Handwriting of Ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and hath took it out of the way, nailing it to his Cross. Where the Apostle speaks plainly of the same thing and to the same purpose, as he doth to the Corinthians; for there he speaks of the Law Written in Stones, which (saith he) was a Ministration of Death and Condemnation. And hereof the Handwriting of Ordinances that was against us, and contrary to us, (as the Law must needs be, if it was indeed no other than a Ministration of Death and Condemnation, as the Apostle describes it.) But is the Covenant of Faith of this Nature? Or was the Covenant of Grace a Ministration of Death and Condemnation, as the Apostle Affirms the Law written in Stones to be? Was the Covenant of Grace against us, Contrary to us, and therefore now Blotted out, done away, taken out of the way, and Nailed to the Cross of Christ, as the Apostle speaks of the Handwriting of Ordinances, or the Law written in Stones? These are Solecisms too strong for Digestion. It can never be imagined. And yet all this must needs follow, if the Law was a Covenant of Grace, as is Affirmed. 'Tis true, there was a Covenant of Grace that ran Current therewith, (as hath been before declared) whereby Moses and all the Elect among that People, were delivered from the Curse of that Fiery Burning Law, that was thus given them. But shall we therefore call the Ministration of Death, a Ministration of Grace? Or the ministration of Condemnation, a Ministration of Life and Righteousness, which the Apostle doth so plainly set in Opposition thereunto? Or shall we say, that that which was against us, and contrary to us, was a Covenant of Grace, or for the Substance of it such? The Apostle (as we have already seen) tells us the quite contrary. And so he doth Rom. 7. 9, 10. When the Commandment came (saith he) Sin Revived, and I Died: And the Commandment which was Ordained to Life, I found to be unto Death. And how then can it be justly Affirmed, that the Law was a Covenant of Gospel-Grace, or that it was such for the Substance thereof, when the Apostle found it by Experience to be a Ministration of Death.  
§. 5. Indeed the World Groans under the Burden of such Subtle Sophistical Distinctions, whereby the Truths of the Gospel have been so long Obscured, as they have been, and are, in respect of the present Point; a Point of such vast Consequence and Concernment to the Church of God. For what can be of greater Moment than the Two Covenants; the Truth's concerning which, are as the two Master Veins that branch themselves forth, and lie dispersed up and down, throughout the whole Body of the Scriptures? If therefore it shall be found that we have been all this while Mistaken in our Notion about the Covenants, what they are, and which they be; or that we have given the Appellation of the Covenant of Grace, to a Covenant of Works; and hereon have built up an Answerable Superstructure of Faith and Practice; how great will such a Miscarriage prove to be at last? Indeed, there is no part of the Christian Faith or Practice, but must one way or other have been Influenced and Corrupted thereby. Accordingly hence hath sprung that Jumbling or Confounding of Law and Gospel together, which the Spirit of God doth so Distinguishingly represent unto us in the Word of Truth; and which the Apostle doth so severely Rebuke the Teachers among the Galatians, concerning. I Marvel (saith he, Gal. 1. 6, 7.) that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the Grace of Christ, unto another Gospel, which is, not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would Pervert the Gospel of Christ. They would Pervert it, that is, they would change it, Overthrow it, and turn it upside down; by mingling Law and Gospel together; pretend unto the Gospel, and yet seek for Righteousness, as it were by the Works of the Law. But certainly, as we are not to Separate or put asunder what God hath Conjoined; so neither are we to mingle what God hath Separated, and doth plainly Distinguish. The Law is not the Gospel; nor is the Gospel the Law. These two are distinct, and must be kept so; as having their Distinct Services, and in their proper Places. To call therefore the Covenant of Works a Covenant of Faith; or the Legal Covenant delivered on Mount Sinai, a Covenant of Grace; is no other than to Blend or Confound Law and Gospel together, as if they were the same thing, and no distinstion at all to be made betwixt them, only in respect of the different Degrees, or clearness of the Revelation of Gospel Grace.  
§. 6. But whatever we may Imagine, the Apostle doth most plainly distinguish betwixt Law and Gospel, and that in Respect of the whole Entire Nature, Essence, or Subsistance of either. Tell me (saith he, Gal. 4. 21. etc.) You that desire to be under the Law, do ye not hear the Law? Know you not that Abraham had two Sons, the one by a Bondwoman, the other by Free; the one Born after the Flesh, the other by Promise? And know you not that this was plainly Typical of the two Covenants, the Legal and the Gospel? And that these two must needs be therefore Essentially Different, as much as Bondage is from Liberty: Or a Birth after the Flesh, from that by promise? Tell me (saith he) You that desire to be under the Law, do ye not hear the Law? Doth not the Old Testament itself speak this Language to you? But whom doth the Apostle mean when he speaks of them that desire to be under the Law? 'Tis strange that after, the Gospel took place, any should desire to be under the Law; or that any should be desirous of returning to that old and former Yoke of Bondage, they had so long been Labouring under, and were now delivered from: To be under the Law is not to be under Grace: For these two are directly opposite. Rom. 6. 14. Sin shall not have Dominion over you for ye are not under the Law, but under Grace. But yet nevertheless, it seems such there were, even in the Apostle's time, who were desirous to be under the Law: And 'tis as plain that such there are now. But who are they? Why they are plainly those that Affirm that the Law is a Covenant of Faith, or a Covenant of Grace. Those must needs be of the Number of them that desire to be under the Law. And how can it be otherwise? For aught we not to submit ourselves to a Covenant of Faith, and Subject ourselves under the Power and Dominion of Gospel Grace? If therefore we affirm that the Law is a Covenant of Faith, or a Covenant of Grace, we cannot be true to our own Principles, if we do not desire to be under it, and under the Power and Dominion of it; and that not barely as a Rule of Life (which we all grant) but as a Covenant of Life, or as a Covenant of Faith and Grace, as it is affirmed to be. But if we are desirous to be under the Law, (let our Notion thereof be what it will; that it is a Covenant of Works, or a Covenant of Grace) This is the direct and ready way for Christ to become of no Effect unto us. For (saith the Apostle, Gal. 5, 4.) Whosoever of you are Justified by the Law, ye are fallen from Grace. And Consequently, instead of being not under the Law, but under Grace, (as the same Apostle speaks of the believing Romans.) We are rather under the Law, and not under Grace. For these two are there (as well as in many other places besides) plainly distinguished as quite Opposite the one unto the other: So that if we are under the one, we are not under the other. If we are under Grace, we are not under the Law; And if we are under the Law, we are not under Grace.  
§. 7. But, tell me (saith Paul in the forementioned, Gal. 4 21: etc.) You that desire to be under the Law; Do you not hear the Law? For it is Written, that Abraham had two Sons, the one by a Bondmaid, the other by a Freewoman. But he who was of the Bondwoman, was born after the Flesh: But he of the Freewoman, by Promise. Which things are an Allegory: For these are the two Covenants; the one from 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 i● in Bondage with her Children. But Jerusalem which is above, is free, which is the Mother of us all. For it is Written, Rejoice thou barren that bearest not, etc. Now we Brethren (saith he) as Isaac was, are the Children of the Promise. Wherein the Apostle doth make a plain Difference between the two Covenants, the Legal and the Gospel, in the very Radical Nature, or Essence of either; Not in point of the Degrees of the Manifestation of Gospel Grace (as is by many Divines suggested) For the Law Written in Stones discovers none at all. The Covenant from Mount Sinai (saith our Apostle.) gendereth to Bondage: For this Agar is Mount Sinai in Arabia, and is in Bondage with her Children. So that Mount Sinai Covenant is no other than a Bondage Covenant; it gendereth to Bondage; this is the natural scope, and tendency of it; and accordingly all her Children are in Bondage. And therefore, unless we shall say that the Covenant of Faith gendereth to Bondage; Or that the Covenant of Grace is a Bondage Covenant; And that all those that are under it, or are the Children of it, are in Bondage; we can by no means allow that Mount Sinai Covenant was ever designed by God as a Covenant of Faith, or as a Covenant of Grace, as by many Divines it is Confidently Affirmed to be. And therefore also, All those that desire to be under it (which cannot be avoided by those that affirm it to be a Covenant of Faith) must of necessity (according to the Apostles Reckoning) be desirous of Returning to that old Bondage which Christ hath delivered us from; and which the Apostle doth so earnestly Exhort us to avoid, Gal. 5. 1. Stand fast therefore in the Liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not Entangled again with the Yoke of Bondage.  
§. 8. But though Mount Sinai Covenant (which answered to Jerusalem that then was) is a Bondage Covenant; The Gospel Covenant (saith the Apostle, which answereth to Jerusalem that is above) is free, which is the Mother of us all. The Gospel Covenant therefore being a free. Covenant▪ It must not, it ought not to be Blended, or Mixed with that from Mount Sinai, as if the one were the other, and no difference at all to be made betwixt them; only in Respect of the different Degrees of the Discovery of Gospel Grace. No (saith the Apostle) 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. So then Brethren, we are not Children of the Bondwoman, but of the Free. In the 30. and 31. Verses of the forementioned 4th to the Galatians. And this we must be; And thus we must do (as the Apostle here adviseth us) unless we shall mingle Law and Gospel together; Bondage and Liberty; Works and Grace; Death and Life; And a ministration of Condemnation with that of Righteousness and Peace: Which would be no other, than (as much as in us lies) to overthrow the whole Gospel, and to obscure, darken and confound those truths that are of highest Importance; And which ought therefore to be carefully and distinctly handled by us, according to the different Services they are designed and appointed for.   

SECT. VIII.  
BUT then, we are yet further told by Mr. Sedgwick in his forementioned Discourse, pag. 174. That that Covenant which was Confirmed by Blood and Sprinkling (which Typified the Blood of Christ, Gonfirming and Ratifying the Covenant) was no Covenant of Works. But the Covenant which God made then with the Israelites was Confirmed by Blood, Exod. 24. 7. Moses took the Book of the Covenant, and read it in the Audience of the People. And they said; All that the Lord hath said we will do and be Obedient, Vers. 8. And Moses took the Blood and Sprinkled it on the People; And said; Behold the Blood of the Covenant which the Lord hath made with you concerning all these words. Now this very place is quoted by the Apostle, Heb. 9 19 He Sprinkled both the Book and the People, Vers. 20. Saying, This is the Blood of the Testament, which God hath Enjoined you. And expressly Interprets it, and applies it to the Blood of Christ, Vers. 14. and Vers. 23. And therefore that Covenant with that People was not a Covenant of Works; which never was, nor shall be Confirmed by the Blood of Christ.  
§. 2. To which we Reply, First, That it is Evident, that the Covenant, the Blood whereof Moses Sprinkled on the People, in the forementioned, Exod. 24. 7, 8. Can not possibly be the Law Written in Stones; which will appear in a diligent Examination of the words before and after Vers. 3, 4. Moses came and told the People all the words of the Lord, and all the Judgements. And all the People Answered with one Voice, and said; All the words which the Lord, hath spoken we will do. And Moses Wrote all the words of the Lord and risen up early in the Morning and builded an Altar, etc. Vers. 5. And be sent Young Men of the Children of Israel, which offered burnt offerings, and Sacrificed Peace offerings of Oxen unto the Lord, Vers. 6. And Moses took half of the Blood, and put it in Basins; And half of the Blood be Sprinkled on the Altar, Vers. 7. And he took the Book of the Covenant, and read in the Audience of the People. And they said; All that the Lord hath said we will do, and be Obedient, Vers. 8. And Moses took the Blood, and Sprinkled it on the People, and said, behold the Blood of the Covenant which the Lord hath made with you concerning all these words. Now that the Book of the Covenant here spoken of, the Blood whereof was thus Sprinkled on the People; could not be the Law Written in Stones; appears most evidently from the following words, Vers. 9 Then went up Moses and Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, and Seventy of the Elders of Israel; And they saw the God of Israel, etc. Vers. 12. And the Lord said unto Moses; Come up to me into the Mount, and be there; And I will give thee Tables of Stone, and a Law and Commandments; which I have Written, that thou mayst teach them. Wherein first we cannot but observe; That whereas the words of the Covenant, the Blood whereof was Sprinkled on the People, Vers. 8. are expressly said, Vers. 4. to be Written by Moses; So on the other hand, the Law Written in Stones is here expressly said to be Written by God himself. And Secondly, It is also as evident that Moses had not as yet so much as received the Law Written in Stones from God, till after he had Sprinkled the Blood of the forementioned Covenant (wherein the Statutes and Judgements were contained) upon the People. So that the Law Written in Stones therefore could not possibly be the Covenant the Blood whereof was so sprinkled; but was indeed another Covenant, and delivered at a distinct Season, and in a distinct Method; the one uttered and declared by ●he Mouth of God himself, in the Audience of all the People; the other delivered unto them by the Mouth and Ministration of Moses only. The one Written with Gods own Finger in the two Tables of Stone; the other Written in a Book by the Hand of Moses▪ which is accordingly here called the Book of the Covenant, by way of distinction from the Tables of Stone. From whence by the way it clearly appears; That that Covenant, which as Moses elsewhere assures us, God himself with his own Immediate Mouth and Voice declared unto Israel; and that in the Audience of all the People, Deut. 4. 10, 11, 12, 13. was in this as well as in other respects, as much a Covenant of Works as that made with our first Parent: For if the Covenant made with Adam had no Mediator; so neither had this. 'Tis plain indeed that God made use of the Ministration of Moses in the delivery of the Ceremonial Covenant; but not so in the Promulgation of this: For this was both Written and declared Immediately by the Hand and Mouth of God himself.  
§. 3. But to return; Whereas Mr. Sedgwick tells us; That that Covenant with that People, which was Confirmed by Blood and Sprinkling (which Typified the Blood of Christ Confirming and Ratifying the Covenant) was not a Covenant of Works, which never was nor shall be Confirmed by the Blood of Christ; and makes no distinction thereon, between the Ceremonial Covenant, that was Dedicated with Blood, and the Law Written in Stones, that was not so Dedicated; How strangely doth he Confound and Obscure the word and truth of God, which ought to have been cleared, and distinctly to have been declared to those he had Preached or Written unto? For first he seems to take it for granted that there was no other Covenant made with Israel at Sinai, but what was Confirmed, by Blood. And Secondly, That that Covenant which wa● so Confirmed must of necessity have been Confirmed also by the Blood of Christ Typified thereby, and therefore not a Covenant of Works. But both these are no other than ungrounded suppositions that want a Foundation.  
§. 4. For first, It hath been already proved, That the Law Written in Stones had not been so much as received from God, when the Ceremonial Covenant was so Confirmed. And accordingly it was so far from being Confirmed by the Blood of Christ, that we do not read that it was ever Dedicated with any other sort of Blood whatsoever. It is indeed suggested that the Law Written in Stones by Gods own Finger, had been also Written by Moses in the Book of the Covenant wherein the Statutes and Judgements were contained, when the Blood thereof was sprinkled on the People; Since we are told, Exod. 24. 3, 4. That Moses came and told the People all the Words of the Lord, and all the Judgements. And Moses Wrote all the Words of the Lord, and took the Book of the Covenant, and Read in the Audience of the People, and took the Blood and Sprinkled it on the People; saying, Behold the Blood of the Covenant which the Lord hath made with you, concerning all these Words. But if we duly attend unto the Scope of the Spirit of God, in these passages, we shall find it utterly Improbable, that the Ten Commandments that had been Written in Stones with Gods own Finger, were at all contained in the Book of the Covenant, when the Blood thereof was Sprinkled on the People: Forasmuch as God afterwards calls up Moses into the Mount, saying, I will give thee Tables of Stone, and a Law and Commandments which I have Written, that thou mayest teach them, Ver. 12. Which clearly Implies that the Ten Commandments, which was the only matter contained in the two Tables of Stone, had not been Written by Moses in the Book of the Covenant, wherein the Statutes and Judgements were contained, and which he had accordingly Read in the Audience of the People: For than it had been altogether Improper to say, I will give thee Tables of Stone, and a Law and Commandments, that thou mayest teach them. Since, according to this Reckoning, Moses had already done it. When we are told therefore that Moses came and told the People all the Words of the Lord, and all the Judgements, etc. We are plainly to understand it according to Deut. 4. 13. 14. where having Informed us that the Lord himself declared unto them his Covenant which he commanded them to perform, even Ten Commandments, and he Wrote them upon two Tables of Stone: He Expressly adds. The Lord Commanded me (saith he) at that time, to teach you Statutes and Judgements. And accordingly, Exod. 24. 3. Moses came and told the People all the Words of th● Lord, and all the Judgements; That is, all the Statutes, and all ●he Judgements, not the Ten Commandments: For that God himself had already declared unto them, with his own Mouth. So that it is evident that it was the Statutes and Judgements only that Moses had then in Commission, to declare unto the People. And accordingly it is as evident, that it was the Statutes and Judgements only, that were contained in the Book of the Covenant, when the Blood thereof was sprinkled on the People; Though afterwards it is plain, that upon the Receiving of the two Tables of Stone, wherein ●he Ten Commandments were Inserted, he had a fresh Commission to teach them the Ten Commandments also, as appears by Verse 12. And which we find was accordingly performed by him, Deut. 5. in the Several Ten Branches, or Particulars thereof.  
§. 5. It is therefore a great mistake for any to affirm, that the Law written in Stones, was not a Covenant of Works, because confirmed by Blood and Sprinkling; whereas, when it comes to be duly examined, there appears no such matter: but instead of being proved thereby to be a Covenant of Grace, it is the more convincingly proved to be as it is indeed, no other than a Covenant of Works. In which respect Mr. Sedgwick's forementioned Argument may more justly and truly be thus form.  
That Covenant that was not confirmed by the Blood of Christ (which alone can cleanse us from all unrighteousness) no, nor so much as by the Blood of Bulls, or Goats, or Calves, which was plainly typical thereof; could not possibly be a Covenant of Grace, but of Works: But the Law written in Stones, was so far from being confirmed by the Blood of Christ; that it was never (that we read of) confirmed by any other sort of Blood whatsoever. Therefore that Covenant could not possibly be a Covenant of Grace but of Worlds.  
§. 6. Secondly, Whereas the Apostle, Heb. 9 speaking of the Ceremonial Covenant, which was dedicated by Blood and Sprinkling; doth plainly represent it unto us under the denomination of the first Covenant that had a Worldly Sanctuary, vers. 1. Opposing it to Christ, as the Figure to the Substance, vers. 9 Calling the Statutes and Judgements therein contained by the name of Carnal Ordinances; and such as could not make him that did the Service Perfect, as pertaining to the Conscience, vers. 10. Another Building, vers. 11. And the First Testament, as it's Contradistinguished from the New-Testament, and Christ the true and only Sacrifice thereof, vers. 18, 19 Besides what he had told us in the 8th Chap. concerning this same First, or Old-Testament; that it was of a faulty, decaying, vanishing nature, vers. 7, 13. From all this it plainly appears, that even the Ceremonial Covenant itself, could be no other than a Covenant of Works, as well as that written in Stones. And accordingly the Apostle informs us, Gal. 3. 10. That as many as are of the Works of the Law, are under the Curse: For it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the Book of the Law, to do them. Which Book of the Law, here spoken of, must of necessity be the Book of the Covenant, written by Moses himself, wherein the Statutes and Judgements, or the Ceremonial Precepts, were contained. In respect whereof it is evident, that though the Sacrifices, and other things thereunto belonging, pointed at Christ, and the way of Salvation by him; yet such was the severity of the Divine Sanction thereunto annexed; that if those under that Administration had wrought never so hard, and kept themselves in a Path of perfect and Universal Obedience to the multitude of those Ceremonial Precepts all their days, (which was impossible;) yet if at last cast there happened to be never so small a transgression, though in the least Circumstance, the Curse of the Law presently took hold upon them, and that without mercy. For (as James saith) Whosoever shall keep the whole Law, and yet offend in one Point, he is guilty of all: And accordingly the Curse of the Law was pronounced upon every one that continued not in all things therein contained, to do them. This is the true Scope and Tenor even of the Ceremonial Covenant itself, to all under it, that were not relieved by the Grace of the Gospel.  
§. 7. Wherefore, though it is plain, that the Law written in Stones, and the Book wherein the Statutes and Judgements were contained; were two distinct Covenants, and delivered at distinct Seasons, and in a distinct Method; the one with, the other without a Mediator; the one dedicated with Blood and Sprinkling, the other (that we read of) not so dedicated; yet it is as clear from the Premises, that they were both of the same Nature; that is, no other than a Covenant of Works, and accordingly both now Repealed, and that under the Denomination of the First, or Old Covenant, which was of a decaying, vanishing nature, Heb. 8. ult. And accordingly, though the Blood of the Legal Sacrifices, wherewith the Ceremonial Covenant was dedicated, was plainly Typical of the Blood of Christ; yet forasmuch as the Apostle informs us, it could not take away sins, nor make the Comers thereunto perfect, as pertaining to the Conscience; Heb. 9 9 Chap. 10. 1, 4. That Covenant therefore which was dedicated only by the Blood of such Sacrifices, could never be a Covenant of Grace, properly so called (which hath Christ alone for the Mediator thereof, and was confirmed only by his Blood and Sufferings for us) but of Works.  
§. 8. Besides, If the Ceremonial Covenant, which was thus dedicated by Blood and Sprinkling, had been indeed a Covenant of Grace, and confirmed also by the Blood of Christ; why should it be Repealed, as we know it was (as well as the Law written in Stones, which is said to be now done away?) Is it possible that a Covenant of Grace, confirmed by the Blood of Christ, should ever be Repealed? Or why did God appoint the New Covenant to succeed it, which was Really so Confirmed, and which is also opposed thereunto as another Covenant, and of a quite different Nature? Unless we shall say, that there were two Covenants of Grace Confirmed by the Blood of Christ; the one whereof was of a faulty, accaying, vanishing Nature, as the First Covenant is by the Spirit of God himself described; which to affirm, would be perfectly to Contradict the whole Scope of the Scriptures.  
§. 9 The Blood of those Sacrifices therefore, wherewith the Ceremonial Covenant was dedicated, together with the rest of the Types that were then afforded, served only as an Example, Figure, and Shadow of Heavenly things. They were not (as the Apostle speaks) The Heavenly things themselves, Heb. 9 23. For the Law (saith he, Heb. 10. 1, etc.) having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very Image of the things, can never with those Sacrifices which they offered year by year; continually, make the Comers thereunto perfect: For than they should not have ceased to be Offered, because that the Worshippers once purged, should have had no more Conscience of Sins. But in these Sacrifices, there is a remembrance again made of Sins every year: For it is not possible that the Blood of Bulls and of Goats should take away Sins. All those Sacrifices therefore; could never amount to the value of the Blood of Christ. And accordingly, that Covenant, though dedicated by Blood and Sprinkling, was no other than a Covenant of Works, for as much as it was not confirmed by the Blood of Christ: For if it had, it would have made the Comers thereunto Perfect, as pertaining to the Conscience; which it did not.  
§. 10. Besides, the Apostle expressly tells us, That Christ hath obtained a more Excellent Ministry, than that of Moses; by how much also he is the Mediator of a Better Covenant, which was Established upon better Promises, Heb. 8. 6. Which Better Covenant, the Apostle doth plainly oppose unto the First, or Old Covenant, vers. 7, 8, 9, 13. From whence it plainly follows, that Christ was not the Mediator of the First, or Old Covenant, unless we shall say, that he was the Mediator of two Covenants, a Better and a Worse: And consequently it doth as plainly follow, that the First Covenant was no other than a Covenant of Works, since neither was Christ the Mediator of it; nor did he ever shed his Blood for the Confirmation thereof.   

SECT. IX.  
HAving thus far considered Mr. Obadiah Sedgwick's Arguments, wherewith he labours to prove that the Sinai Covenant was not a Covenant of Works, but of Grace: We should next have considered Mr. Francis Roberts his Arguments also to the same purpose, in his large Discourse upon the Covenants; But that the most substantial part of them have been already dispatched in the Answers we have returned to Mr. Sedgwick's Arguments. Only we cannot but take notice of two grand Absurdities which Mr. Roberts, and all others who Assert that the Sinai Covenant was a Covenant of Faith, do, and cannot but unavoidably run into, and fasten upon the Scriptures, on that Hypothesis. The first is this; Whereas Mr. Roberts pretending to Answer several Objections which are urged by way of opposition to his forementioned Doctrine, the Fourth Objection which he mentions, pag. 769. of his forementioned Discourse; runs thus;  
§. 2. Object. 4. The Sinai Covenant is opposed by the Prophet Jeremy, and by the Apostle Paul, to the New Covenant, and is said to be broken by the People of Israel, Jer. 31. 31, 32, etc. Heb. 8. 8, 9, 10. Therefore it is not a Covenant of Faith, which is everlasting and cannot be broken; But a Covenant of works, which is but Temporary and liable to be broken.  
This is indeed a substantial Argument or Objection against, what he Asserts; But how substantially answered may appear by what follows: For thus he returns thereunto.  
These Premises (saith he) will not bear this Conclusion, for first, though the Sinai Covenant made with Israel, when God brought them out of the Land of Egypt, is said to be unlike, or not according to the New Covenant; yet it is not said either by the Prophet or Apostle, to be unlike to the Covenant of Faith.  
§. 3. Reply. But what a strange Evasion is this? And whither will not Men run when left to themselves? For is not the New Covenant a Covenant of Faith? And therefore when the Sinai Covenant is opposed to the New Covenant; is it not plainly opposed to the Covenant of Faith? Or shall we make the New-Covenant, and the Covenant of Faith opposite, and Contradistinct the one from the other, as Mr. Robert's plainly doth; when he saith, that though the Sinai Covenant is opposed to the New Covenant; yet it is not opposed to the Covenant of Faith: As if the New Covenant and the Covenant of Faith, were not one and the same thing? But certainly the New Covenant, to which the Sinai Covenant is opposed, must needs be a Covenant of Faith, or there is no Covenant of Faith mentioned in the Scriptures; And consequently since the Sinai Covenant is both by the Prophet and Apostle, so plainly opposed to the New Covenant, from hence it plainly follows, that it was never designed by God ●s a Covenant of Faith: For else why is it opposed thereunto?  
§. 4. But (saith Mr. Roberts) the Dissmilitude or Difference here Intimated betwixt the Sinai Covenant and the New Covenant; is not in substance or kind: For in both the Lord saith, I will be their God, and they shall be my People; But only in the manner of Administration or Degree: God promising in the New Covenant a greater, fuller, and clearer Measure of Grace unto his People, than under the Sinai Covenant. Whereof he gives Three Instances, in point of Sanctification, Illumination, and Remission. And then Concludes; Thus (saith he) the Sinai Covenant, gradually, not specifically, differs from the New Covenant. They are both Covenants of Faith: But the New Covenant every way more Excellent, Complete, and Perfect.  
§. 5. To this we reply, That as the Dissimilitude or Difference here Intimated betwixt the Sinai Covenant and the New Covenant, i● not in Substance; Since in both the Lord saith, I will be their God, and they shall be my People: So neither in the manner of Administration; that is, If by the manner of Administration, we understand the Measure or Degrees of the Divine Blessedness therein Promised. For what can be a greater, or more Comprehensive Blessedness, than for God to be their God, and they to be his People? For this Comprehends Justification, Sanctification and Illumination, in the height and Perfection of them. And indeed what is not promised where God is promised? And accordingly this is the Blessedness promised in both Covenants. The Difference or Dissimilitude, therefore, betwixt the Sinai Covenant and the New Covenant, upon the Account whereof they are here opposed the one unto the other, must of necessity Consist in the terms of either, and in that alone. For Moses (saith the Apostle Rom. 10. 5.) describeth the Righteousness of the Law, that the Man which doth these things shall live by them. Whereas Life and happiness is promised in the Gospel Covenant in the way of believing only, from Vers. 6. to 12. And indeed nothing short of this can be duly supposed as the ground of such an opposition as here Insisted on: For can it be rationally imagined, that a bare difference in the Extent or Degrees of the Divine Blessedness promised in either, could be a sufficient ground for the Prophet or Apostle to speak as they do, that the New Covenant was not like, or not according to the Sinai Covenant? For if the Substance be the same, there is still a likeness between them, though in Respect of Degrees Circumstantially different. A Child hath the likeness of a Man, though not grown up to a Perfect Stature. But if the Difference or Dissimilitude lie in the terms of either, and those terms Essentially different; Then, though the Promises are the same for the Substance of them, and the Degrees of the Mercy promised also; yet it may be justly and properly said, that the one is not like, or not according to the other: For as Covenants, they are Essentially different, because the terms are so. And accordingly it is evident, both from the forementioned Rom. 10. 5, 6, etc. as also from Jer. 31. and Heb. 8. Where the Sinai Covenant, is opposed to the New Covenant, that whereas the Promises of the Sinai Covenant run all upon condition of Universal and Perfect Obedience to whatsoever the Law requireth; the Promises of the New Covenant are all of them Absolute, and therefore only to be received by Faith: For as therein God promiseth that he will put his Laws in their Mind, and write them in their Hearts: So he doth also freely Promise, that he will be Merciful to their unrighteousness, and their Sins and Iniquities will he remember no more. All which promises of Grace were plainly wanting in the Sinai Covenant: For that required Obedience, as the Condition of Life, but gave no strength to perform it; And not only so, but pronounced a dreadful Curse upon every Transgression and Disobedience, leaving no room for Repentance. So that it is plain that the Sinai Covenant and the New Covenant differ Specifically; the One being a Covenant of Faith, the Other● of Works. And on this Account only are they opposed the one unto the other both by Paul, and Jeremy. In which Respect, though the Promises in both are the same, for Substance; I will be their God, and they shall be my People: As also in respect of the Degrees of the Divine Blessedness promised in either; yet the terms of Enjoyment being Essentially different, hence it plainly follows, that so are the Covenants themselves, that ●●, Essentially, or Specifically different.  
§. 6. Secondly, Whereas 'tis justly urged, That since the Sinai Covenant is said to be broken by the people of Israel, Jer. 31. Heb. 8. Therefore it is not a Covenant of Faith, which is Everlasting and cannot be broken; but a Covenant of Works, which is but temporary and liable to be broken. To this Mr. Roberts returns thus;  
Though (saith he) Israel broke the Sinai Covenant by their Idolatry; yet they broke it not utterly and Irreparably, as Adam broke the Covenant of Works by his first Transgression: For God admitted them to Repentance; upon their Repentance Pardons them; and renews the Sinai Covenant again with them. Therefore this Breach of Covenant doth no way prove the Sinai Covenant to be a Covenant of Works, not of Faith; Temporary, not Everlasting.  
§. 7. Reply. But why should any part of the truth of God be concealed, which was so necessary here to have been discovered? For though the Sinai Covenant was renewed in the Second Tables, after the first were broken, upon the Idolatry of the Israelites about the Golden Calf, Exod. 34. Yet it clearly appears, and we cannot be Ignorant, that afterward it was utterly broken, and they Rejected, as they are to this Day. Else why doth God say, which my Covenant they broke, they continued not in it, and I regarded them not, Jer. 31. 32. Heb. 8. 9 which plainly looks further than the first Breach: For it is clear that after the first Breach they were regarded by God, since upon Moses his Intercession they were admitted to Repentance; and it is evident that upon their Repentance the Lord Pardons them, and Renews the Sinai Covenant again with them. But it is as Evident, that at length having broken it again and again, God plainly tells them that he Regarded them not. So that though 'tis true, the first Breach doth no way prove the Sinai Covenant to be a Covenant of Works, not of Faith; Temporary, not Everlasting; yet the after Breaches do. Else why doth the Apostle tell us as he doth, concerning the same Sinai Covenant, that it is dis-annulled, Heb. 7. 18 For there is verily a dis-annulling of the Commandment going before, for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof. So likewise, Heb. 8. 7. For if that first Covenant had been faultless, there should no place have been sought for the second. And Vers. 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. Though the Sinai Covenant therefore was Renewed after the first Breach thereof; yet the Scriptures do give us a Positive Assurance, that at length it was utterly and irreparably broken; And so broken, that at last it was dis-annulled, made to Expire, and vanish away, which is utterly Inconsistent with the Nature of the Covenant of Faith, according to the whole Scope and Tenor of the Scriptures. So that we see that without a Manifest and Palpable Absurdity, there is no Resisting the force and Evidence of the forementioned Objection. The Conclusion whence Resulting, is therefore highly Rational, and remains firm and unshaken. That since the Sinai Covenant is both by the Prophet and Apostle plainly opposed to the New Covenant, and is said to be broken, and so broken as to Expire and vanish away; Therefore it is not a Covenant of Faith, which is Everlasting and cannot be broken; but a Covenant of Works, that was but Temporary, and liable thereunto.  
As for the unchangeable nature of the Covenant of Faith, at least on God's part, whatever it is on ours; besides a multitude of other Testimonies that might be produced. the 89. Psalm gives us a clear and convincing Evidence thereof, Vers. 30. etc. If his Children forsake my Law, and walk not in my Judgements; if they break my Statutes, and keep not my Commandments; Then will I Visit their Transgression with the Rod, and their Iniquity with Stripes; Nevertheless my Loving kindness will I not utterly take from him, nor suffer my faithfulness to fail; My Covenant will I not break, nor alter the thing that is gone out of my Lips. Once have I Sworn by my Holiness that I will not lie unto David, his Seed shall endure for ever, and his Throne as the Sun before me. It shall be Established for ever as the Moon, and as a faithful Witness in Heaven. The like Assurance we have concerning the Promise made to Abraham. Wherein (saith the Apostle, Heb. 6. 17, 18.) God willing more abundantly to show unto the Heirs of Promise the Immutability of his Counsel, Confirmed it by an Oath, that by two Immutable things in which it was Impossible for God to lie, we might have strong Consolation, etc. So that we see, the Covenant of Faith, or which is all one, the Covenant of Grace, is every way perfect, unchangeable, unrepealable, and Everlasting. Whereas the Sinai Covenant, was of a faulty, decaying, vanishing Nature, and accordingly was at last disannulled; and therefore could not possibly be any other than a Covenant of Works.  
§. 8. The Second Absurdity is this. Whereas Mr. Roberts, pag. 772. of his forementioned Discourse, pretending to Answer the Seventh Objection against his Assertion; the Objection itself as himself states it, runs thus.  
Object. 7. The Condition upon which Life and Happiness is held forth in the Law, or Sinai Covenant, is Perfect Doing: For Moses describeth the Righteousness which is of the Law; that the man which doth these things, shall live by them, Rom. 10. 3. with Leu. 18. 5. Gal. 3. 12. And he denounceth a Curse upon the least failing; Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the Book of the Law, to do them, Deut. 27. 26. Gal. 3. 10. But the Condition upon which Life and Happiness is tendered in the Covenant of Faith, is Believing in Christ, Rom. 10. 6. to 12. Doing, and Believing; Works, and Faith; are two Contrary Conditions of Life: Consequently; the Law, or Sinai Covenant, which requires Doing unto Life, cannot be a Covenant of Faith; but must needs be a Covenant of Works.  
The Answer which Mr. Roberts returns unto this Strong and Substantial Objection; first of all in general runs thus;  
This Objection (saith he) as it is most Obvious to every one, that reads the Epistles of Paul to the Romans, and Galatians; so it is in my judgement, of greatest difficulty to be clearly and satisfactorily Answered. And yet it is of great Consequence and Necessity to be Cleared; because otherwise, the true Nature and Intent of this Sinai Covenant, as a Covenant of Faith in Christ Jesus, will not be fully and sufficiently evidenced. Several Answers are given. I shall propound them, and pitely upon such as afford best satisfaction. And accordingly he proceeds to give an Account of the several Answers given thereunto by Mr. John Ball, and Peter Ma●●yr, by D. Pareus, and Mr. Anthony Burgess; but neither of these fully pleasing him, p. 775. I add therefore (saith he) for the unfolding of this Mystery more clearly, and for Answering of this Objection more fully; First, That the Sinai Covenant was purposely so dispensed, as to tender Life and Happiness upon two Opposite, and Contrary Conditions, viz. Works, and Faith; Perfect Doing, and Believing. This is clear (saith he) by Paul's Epistles without Dispute.— And to deny this which is so clear, will but tend to weaken Paul's Authority, to darken many Scriptures, both of Moses, and Paul, and to strengthen the Objection. And so proceeds to make out this Notion.  
§. 9 Reply. But if ever there was an Absurdity, or plain Contradiction imposed upon the Scriptures; we think we may justly and truly say, that here it is. For though 'tis true, there are those that labour to fasten an absurdity upon such as affirm that God's People of old were under two Contrary Covenants, at one and the same time; yet was it ever known, that the same Fountain did at the same time send forth Bitter Waters and Sweet? Or can it ever be rationally imagined, that the same Sinai Covenant was purposely so dispensed, as to tense life and happiness upon two Opposite and Contrary Conditions? For though 'tis true, two Opposite Covenants may be allowed to be purposely so dispensed, as to tender Life and Happiness upon two Opposite and Contrary Conditions, Works and Faith; yet it is utterly impossible that the same Covenant should be so dispensed. For as the Apostle reasoneth concerning Election, Rom. 11. 6. So it is here; 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. So that we see, according to the Apostles reckoning, it is utterly impossible that two Opposite and Contrary Conditions, should be able to consist together in one and the same Covenant. Either the Sinai Covenant therefore is a Covenant of Grace, or it is a Covenant of Works. If it is a Covenant of Grace, then according to the scope of the Apostles Reasoning, it is no more of Works. And if so, whence is it that Works are so plainly required, as the Condition of obtaining the mercies therein promised, and which the forementioned Objection doth give such a full demonstration concerning; that it shines with a clear and convincing Evidence in the faces of those that assert it, to be a Covenant of Grace? If therefore it be, as indeed it is, a Covenant of Works, and purposely so dispensed, as to tender Life and Happiness upon Condition of Doing (which Mr. Roberts himself grants) How comes it to be a Covenant of Grace, since the Apostle assures us, that if it be of Works, than it is no more Grace; otherwise Work is no more Work? So that we see the Scripture allows of no such Mixture; and shows us, 'tis impossible that the same Covenant should be so dispensed, as to tender Life and Happiness upon two such Opposite and Contrary Conditions, as Faith and Works. And yet this Absurdity, all those must of necessity run into, that affirm the Sinai Covenant, to be a Covenant of Faith: Since it is evident and cannot be denied, but that Life and Happiness are therein frequently and plainly tendered upon Condition of Doing.  
§. 10. But (saith Mr. Roberts) in this Sinai Covenant those Opposite Conditions of Perfect Doing, under pain of Curse and Death; and of Believing in Christ, are very differently Required and Revealed. Believing in Christ is revealed very Sparingly and Obscurely. Perfect Doing, very frequently and plainly (that by the way is well granted.) But (saith he) though these two Conditions of Perfect Doing, and Believing, he thus differently Revealed and Required in the Sinai Covenant; yet Believing in Christ unto Life and Reighteousness, was therein chief and ultimately intended; and Perfect Doing only urged in subordination and tendency to Believing. And that Believing in Christ unto Righteousness, is chief and ultimately intended in the Sinai Covenant, is plain from Moses himself, drawing the Righteousness of Faith from that Covenant, Deut. 30. 11, to 15. Compared with Rom. 10. 6, to 11.  
§. 11. Reply. But if Believing in Christ unto Life and Righteousness, was chief and ultimately intended in the Sinai Covenant; and Perfect Doing, only urged in subordination and tendency to Believing: How comes it to pass that the Apostle doth so directly oppose the Righteousness of that Covenant to the Righteousness of Faith, in the forementioned Rom. 10. 5, 6. For Moses (saith he) describeth the Righteousness which is of the Law, that the man which doth these things, shall live by them. But the Righteousness which is of Faith speaketh on this wise, etc. in a quite different strain and stile. Wherein when he tells us, that the Law saith, Do this and Live: How can it be understood, but that his Meaning is, that this is the Only Righteousness which the Law requireth, in order to Life and Salvation: Or this is that which it ultimately intends, and no other way doth it propound in order thereunto: For otherwise we cannot rationally understand him; especially, since he doth elsewhere assure us, that the Law is not of Faith, Gal. 3. 12. The Objection against which, from Deut. 30. 11, etc. Compared with Rom. 10. 6. etc. (from whence it is inferred, that the Law requireth Faith in Christ, in order to Life and Righteousness, as well as the Gospel) hath been already Answered in the foregoing parts of this Discourse; where it hath been plainly proved, that the 30th of Deuteronomy is taken up with the Description (not of the Covenant at Sinai, but) of that New and Evangelical Covenant, that God intended to Establish with Israel in aftertimes; and is accordingly represented as a quite different Covenant from that at Sinai, as plainly appears by the manner of Paul's allegation thereof, Rom. 10. 6. And that chief, for as much as it required faith in Christ, in order to Life and Righteousness, as the Apostle there interprets it. Whereas the Sinai Covenant (as both Paul and Moses himself describes it) insists on Works only; that the Man which doth these things shall live by them, And to say, that these two opposite Conditions may be Required in one and the same Sinai Covenant; is plainly to Contradict the Apostle, who in his Interpretation thereof, sets the Righteousness of the Law, and the Righteousness of Faith in direct Opposition the one unto the other, as Inconsistent in one and the same Covenant. Moses (saith be) describeth the Righteousness which is of the Law, that the Man which doth these things shall live by them: But the Righteousness which is of Faith speaketh on this wise, etc. If thou shalt believe thou shalt be saved. Whereby he would have us plainly to understand that these are two opposite Covenants; Whereas had it been his meaning, that the Law or Sinai Covenant was purposely so dispensed as to tender Life and Happiness upon two such opposite and contrary Conditions, he would not have said that the Law requireth one thing; and the Righteousness of Faith, another: But that the Law requireth both. And therefore it must of necessity follow▪ that the Apostle speaks of two contrary Covenants, requiring two opposite Conditions; It being indeed Impossible; that one and the same Covenant should be so dispensed.  
§. 12. And here by the way it may be observed, that though Mr. Baxter: (as hath been already noted in the foregoing part of this Discourse) seems plainly to grant, that the Law or Sinai Covenant was no other than a Covenant of Works, requiring perfect Obedience as the Condition of Life, unto which the Righteousness of Faith, or the Gospel Covenant is opposed by the Apostle, Rom. 10. 5, 6. Which Gospel Covenant he supposeth to be insisted on, both in the 29th and 30th Chapters of Deuteronomy, and that from both, the Apostle draws that Description of the Righteousness of Faith he speaketh of, making no difference between the Covenants or Promises mentioned in those two Chapters. Mr. Roberts on the other hand we see; makes the Sinai Covenant, and the Covenant of Faith to be all one For (saith he) that believing in Christ unto Righteousness is chief and ultimately intended in the Sinai Covenant, is plain from Moses himself, drawing the Righteousness of Faith from that Covenant, Deut. 30. 11, to 15. compared with Rom. 10. 6, to 11. So that in th●s Respect, Mr. Roberts, or Mr. Baxter, most of necessity be out of the way, either the one or the other, or both of them. For to say as Mr. Baxter doth, that though the Righteousness of Faith is by the Apostle opposed unto the Law or Sinai Covenant; yet not unto the Covenant mentioned; Deut. 29. reckoning that in the 30th Chapter to be all one with that in the 29th is widely different from the Truth; Since it hath been already plainly proved, that the Covenant mentioned; Deut. 29. is of the same Stamp and Tenor with the Sinai Covenant, and that both are Essentially different from the Covenant of Faith mentioned, Deut. 30. And again, on the other hand, to say as Mr. Roberts doth, that the Sinai Covenant is a Covenant of Faith, and that Moses draws the Righteousness of Faith from that Covenant, would be plainly to contradict Mr. Baxter, and not only so, but would be point blank to contradict the Interpretation given thereof by Paul himself in the forementioned, Rom. 10. 5, 6. where he doth clearly oppose the Righteousness of Faith to the Sinai Covenant.  
§. 13. Indeed the Principal ground of Mr. Robert's his mistake, or that which he seems to lay the greatest stress upon, when he affirms the Sinai Covenant to be a Covenant of Faith, is this; because the Description that Paul gives of the Righteousness of Faith, Rom. 10. 6, etc. is drawn from the Description that Moses gives thereof in the 30th of Deuteronomy, as if because the Law was given by Moses, the Description he there gives of the Righteousness of Faith must needs be understood of the Sinai Covenant; whereas it is Evident that Paul was of another Mind: For he makes the Description that Moses gives there of the Righteousness of Faith, to be quite opposite to the Description that Moses elsewhere gives of the Law or Sinai Covenant. Moses (saith he) describeth the Righteousness of the Law, that the Man which doth these things shall live by them; which he citys from Leu. 18. 5. and Deut. 29. 9 Whereas the Righteousness of Faith, or the Gospel Covenant speaketh after quite another sort; That if thou shalt believe, thou shalt be saved; which he quotes from Deut. 30. From whence, what can be more Evident, than that he brings in Moses describing two Opposite and Essentially different Covenants in respect of the terms of Life propounded in either? Besides, though the Law was given by Moses, whereof he was the alone and only Mediator; yet it is evident, that even Moses himself doth give sufficient notice of another Covenant, that was to take place in after times; and that not only in the forementioned 30th of Deuteronomy, but in the 18th Chapter, which is also noted by the Apostle Peter, Acts 3. 22. Moses truly said unto the Fathers, a Prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your Brethren, like unto me; him shall yea hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you. Moses therefore gives them sufficient notice of another Covenant, and not only so, but of another Prophet also that God would raise up unto them to be the Mediator thereof. And that this other Prophet was to be the Mediator of another Covenant, is plain from what the Author to the Hebrews tells us, Chap. 8. 6. But now (saith he) hath he obtained a more Excellent Ministry (to wit, than that of Moses spoken of in the foregoing Verse) by ●ow much also he is the Mediator of a Better Covenant which was Established upon Better Promises.  
§. 14. So that it is Evident, that the Covenant made with Israel at Mount Sinai, Exod. 19 and 20: which was afterward renewed with them in the Land of Moab, Deut. 29. is another Covenant and Essentially different from the Covenant of Faith, or the Gospel Covenant mentioned Deut. 30. Rom. 10. 6, etc. And that not only since the Terms are Essentially different, but since it hath also another and far different Mediator. Wherefore the forementioned Objection▪ notwithstanding, the Apostles Testimony, remains firm and cannot be Evaded; That the Law is not of Faith. And accordingly whatever Subordination or Tendency the Law hath to drive us to the Covenant of Faith for Relief and Shelter, to be sure the Law itself gives us no Relief: For neither chief nor Ultimately doth it propound Faith as the Condition of Life, but Doing only; and consequently is another Covenant, and Essentially different from the Covenant of Faith to which it drives us. The Law (saith Moses) requireth Doing unto Life. The Gospel (saith Paul) requireth Faith. And these (saith he Gal. 4. 24, 25, 26.) are the two Covenants; the One from Mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem that now is; the Other to Jerusalem that is above; the one gendering to Bondage; the other to Liberty; the one a Ministration of Death, and Condemnation; the other a Ministration of Life and Righteousness, 2 Cor. 3. 7, 8, 9 Now whom shall we believe? Whether Paul, who affirms that these are two Covenants; and who in effect also affirms that these two Covenants are Essentially and Specifically different, in respect of the terms propounded in either; as well as also in respect of the consequent Issues thereof to such as are under them: Or those that affirm that the Sinai Covenant was purposely so dispensed, as to tender Life and Happiness upon two opposite and contrary Conditions?  
§. 15. But we shall Proceed no further in the Confutation of this Un-scriptural Notion. What hath been already said being (if we mistake not) sufficient to overthrow the whole of what Mr. Roberts delivers in his Voluminous Discourse toward the Proof of his grand Position; That the Law was given to Israel at Mount Sinai, as a Covenant of Faith in Christ Jesus. Only it ought to be duly Considered, that it will be of no small Consequence to the Church of God, if it shall be at last found that such Doctrines as these have sadly tended to the Obscuring and Confounding many Gospel Truths. But sufficient hint● of this Nature having been already given, we shall leave it unto the Godly Wise to determine upon the whole of what hath been said in these Respects. Thus far by way of Answer to Mr. sedgwick's and Mr. Robert's his Arguments.   

SECT. X.  
BUT whereas we have Asserted that the Covenant which God made with Israel at Mount Sinai, was as much a Covenant of Works as that made with our first Parent. We are told That the Covenant of Works made with Adam in the state of Innocency, when he was able to have kept it, was never Revived or Renewed after the fall to the same Intent and Purpose it wa● first made with him, that is, to Obtain Life and Righteousness by Personal Obedience to it: For had God Promulged the first Covenant again at Sinai to the same use and Purpose it was first made with Adam; then in Establishing this he had utterly subverted the New Covenant, Gal. 3. 21. Life and Salvation was not then its end; that is, in itself, it neither was, nor could be given after the Fall for such a design and purpose. And therefore though it is Evident, that the Sinai Covenant, Materially Considered, is the same with Adam's Covenant; yet Intentionally it is vastly different.  
§. 2. To this we Reply, That it is indeed too Evident fairly to be denied, but that the Law given from Mount Sinai, w●● a Covenant of Works; Since yourselves cannot but acknowledge that Materially Considered it is the same with Adam's Covenant: But then (say you) Intentionally it is vastly different. But how doth that Appear? For though 'tis true God never designed, o● Intended that any should obtain Life and Righteousness by their Personal Obedience to it; yet even in this Respect also it was a● much a Covenant of Works, as that made with our first Parent▪ For God never intended that Adam himself should obtain Life and Righteousness by his Obedience to that Covenant: For if he had, the purpose or intention of God in that respect, must of necessity have been accomplished: And accordingly Adam should have stood, and Life and Righteousness should that way have been derived unto him; and not only unto him, but unto all his Offspring also. But it is evident, that Man that was in Honour, abode not, but fell, and we all in him; and accordingly a New Covenant takes place, whereby Life and Righteousness was to be derived, both unto him, and all his Elect Offspring.  
§. 3. So that if that Covenant at Sinai was materially a Cove-of Works, though God intended not, that Life should be that way derived unto us; so it was in respect of Adam's Covenant also. For as in the Legal Covenant, God doth now plainly tell sinners, That the Man that doth these things, shall live by them: that is, if you can perform a steady, perfect Obedience, Life and Salvation shall be your Reward; thus, and no otherwise was our first Parent himself dealt withal. For this was all the stipulation, or agreement that we find God made with him: Gen. 2. 16. The Lord God commanded the man, saying; of every Tree of the Garden, thou mayst freely eat: But of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, thou shalt not eat of it; for in the day that thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die. Carrying with it an implicit, conditional Promise; that if he forbore it, both Himself, and Posterity should live. For God, never, that we can find, made any absolute Promise of Life to him; only implicit, and conditional. And since it cannot, with any shadow of truth, be affirmed, that God ever made any absolute Promise of this nature unto him: Neither therefore can it be justly affirmed, that God ever intended, that Life and Righteousness should be conveyed unto him by his Obedience unto that Covenant. Nay, rather it is clear, that God foresaw he would fall; and consequently designed that Life and Righteousness should not that way be derived unto HIm, or to any of his Offspring. From whence it plainly follows, the Sinai Covenant, was as much a Covenant of Works, as that made with our first Parent; not only since it is materially the sane, but in this respect, intentionally also.   

SECT. XI.  
BUt whereas it is further objected; That if God never since the Fall published the Covenant of Works with a design to justify any man by it; and yet in the Sinai Covenant hath given it (materially Considered) a Second Edition, and Promulgation: It must needs follow, that it was done in Subserviency to Christ, and the Covenant of Grace; or done in vain, as to the Elect. To set it forth in opposition to the Covenant of Grace, can never be imagined. To make it a  way of Salvation with Christ, is proved impossible. Therefore it must be subordinate, or not at all; there being nothing else left us. And this, (say they) the Scriptures fully assert and confirm; Rom. 10. 4. Christ is the end of the Law for Righteousness, to every one that believeth. Are the End and Means contrariant? Or must not the means be always subordinate to the end? This is plain and clear Reasoning, not easily Answered. So Gal. 3. 24. The Law it as our Schoolmaster to bring us to Christ; that is, to bring us to a Conviction of his Necessity; as it did Paul, Rom. 7. after Christ was come, and thousands more since Paul. Again, Gal. 3. 23. It shut us up to Christ, or Faith, as our only Remedy. This was, and still is its use and design, and will be so to the end, to all that come to Christ. As to others it hath another end; even to Judge and Condemn them that continue under it, as a Covenant of Works; Rom. 2. 12. But to Believers, it is subservient to Christ; both to bring them to him at first, and regulate their Lives▪ as a Moral Rule ever after. And therefore the two Tables are put into the Ark, Heb. 9 4. to show their subserviency to him, and in this sense, its consistence with him.  
§. 2. For Answer whereunto, We do indeed acknowledge the subserviency of the Law to Christ, and the Covenant of Grace; in which respect it is also true, That the Means is not Contrariant to the End, but is always subordinate thereunto. But it doth not therefore follow, that the Law is a Covenant of Gospel-Grace, (for that is the only Point we are Contending about, or Enquiring after.) It hath indeed a plain subserviency; or subordination thereunto; as Hagar the type of the Bondage Covenant, had unto Sarah the type of the Gospel Covenant. But yet neither is the Handmaid the Mistress, nor the Mistress the Handmaid. These two are still distinct. The Law is not the Gospel, nor the Gospel the Law. And therefore, though the one of them is plainly subservient to the other, yet they ought not to be mixed, ●●ended, or confounded the one with the other, as if they were but one and the same Covenant, and no difference to be made between them; only in respect of the Different Degrees of the Discovery of Gospel Grace, as hath been suggested.  
§. 3. 'Tis true, the Law is appointed as our Schoolmaster to Christ, (for so the words run in the Original Text, as yourselves have acknowledged;) that is, to show us the Nature of Sin; together with the Holiness, and Righteousness of God's Nature and Being; to Convince us of our Sin and Misery without Christ, and our Necessity therefore of a Saviour. And in all these respects, it hath Indeed a plain subserviency to drive us to Christ; and to induce us to fly with the more earnestness to lay hold upon New-Covenant-Grace, wherein Christ is plainly exhibited unto us for our Relief. But than it doth not therefore follow, that the Law itself is subserviently a Covenant of Gospel-Grace; or that it is such for the substance of it; as both Mr. Sedgwick, Mr. Roberts, and many other worthy Divines, affirm it is. A subserviency in any thing to promote the Ends of something else, doth not make it to be the thing itself; the Ends whereof are promoted thereby. The temptations of Satan, and the persecutions of Wicked Men, have a plain subserviency, (and that by God's own appointment, through his overruling Providence) to promote the Ends of the Covenant of Grace; and to make us fly the more earnestly thereunto for Succour; yet it would be too absurd to affirm, that either of these are the Covenant of Grace; or subserviently such. So it is in our present Case: For though the Law is in itself against us, and contrary to us, as being a Ministration of Death and Condemnation, (as the Apostle witnesss it is) in which respect the Legal Covenant is directly opposite to the Gospel-Covenant, (as in our 23d Argument following, is more plainly and particularly demonstrated,) yet through the overruling Grace and Mercy of God; the Law with all its thundering Curses, and Menacies upon every Transgression and Disobedience; instead of destroying us; it is converted to a notable subserviency toward our Everlasting Comfort, by forcing us with the more speed to Christ, and the Covenant of Grace for Relief and Succour: So as that out of the Eater▪ comes Meat; and out of the strong, Sweetness. But shall we say therefore, that the Law itself is a Covenant of Gospel-Grace, (which is constantly in the Scripture represented unto us as quite another thing) because it hath a subserviency to drive us thither for shelter.  
§. 4. So that to allow, that there is indeed a subserviency in the Law to drive us to Jesus Christ, and the Covenant of Grace for Succour; and yet to deny, that the Law itself is therefore a Covenant of Grace, is Harmonious enough, and implies no Contradiction at all; (as it hath been suggested it doth) for as much as it is impossible, (and therefore it must rather of necessity be a plain contradiction on the other hand to affirm) that any thing can be subservient to the Ends of another; and at the same time, to be the same thing itself, which it is thus subservient unto: For if it be the same, how is it subservient to something else, as to another? The Law therefore being a Distinct Covenant from the Gospel; it must of necessity be a Covenant of Works, unless we shall say, there are two Covenants of Gospel-Grace; the one perfect, the other faulty; the one to endure for ever, the other to be Repealed, and Blotted out, as being against us, and contrary to us; a Ministration of Death and Condemnation, (as the Legal Covenant hath been proved to be) which in any sense, can never be applied to the Covenant of Grace, according to the Scripture Dialect.  
§. 5. It is certain therefore (as hath been before hinted) that the Law shuts us up to Christ, or Faith, as our only Remedy; and indeed this was, and still is its use and design; and will be so to the end, to all that come to Christ; that is, it precludes, or shuts us up from all other ways and Expectations of Comfort; by showing us our utter incapacity, to attain unto Life, by our own Righteousness; and therefore forces us, if ever we will be saved, to have recourse to the only Remedy. Accordingly the two Tables were put into the Ark, Heb. 9 4. to show their subserviency to Christ; and in this sense, its consistence with him; typically demonstrating, that though the Covenant of Works could not be kept, or performed by us; yet it should be perfectly fulfilled in Christ for us: In which respect he is said to be the end of the Law for righteousness to every one that believeth. But than it doth not therefore follow, that the Law, that thus shuts us up, is the Remedy itself; or that the School-masters-Rod, that drives us to Christ, is Christ himself, or the Covenant of Grace itself; since the Means cannot be the End; nor the end the Means; though the Means is indeed subservient, or subordinate thereunto.   

SECT. XII.  
BUT then we are also told, That the Intention and Design of God, in the Promulgation of the Law at Sinai, was fatally mistaken by the Jews, and perverted to a quite contrary end; namely, to obtain Righteousness by their own Works of Obedience to it; and so to slight and oppose the Righteousness of Christ; not considering, that Christ was the end, or scope of the Law for Righteousness, to every one that believeth: Nor that the Law was their Schoolmaster, to convince them of Sin, and Impotency; and so drive them to Christ their only Remedy. Now this mistake of God's Intention in giving the Law, is the true Reason and Ground of those Seeming Contradictions, which we find in the New-Testament. For when the Apostle speaks of the Law, according to the true end and use of it, which God designed it for; then he magnifies the Law, and calls it Holy, Just, and Good; a Spiritual Law, a Good Law: Our Schoolmaster to Christ, tells us, that Christ is the end of it for Righteousness, to every one that believeth: With many more high Encomiums of its Excellency and Usefulness. But when he considers it, as perverted by men; and reduced again to its Primitive Intention, to give Life and Righteousness by our Obedience to it; then he as much decries, and thunders against it; calling it a Ministration of Death and Condemnation; a weak and beggarly thing; with many other Notes of Disparagement. Nor can it be enough decried, when instead of Subordination, it's put in Competition; yea, in Opposition to Christ. And that this is no Fiction, or Groundless Distinction, which Obscures and Confounds Law and Gospel; appears not only by the Impossibility of Reconciling the Apostle with himself, but by this means: As also, by that plain Text in which it is grounded, Rom. 10. 3, 4. And 1 Tim. 1. 8. The Law is good, if a Man use it lawfully: That is, it's good or bad, according to the use men make of i●. If they take it according to those Excellent Ends, for which God Promulged it, viz. to prepare them by Convictions for Christ: And afterward, when in him, as a moral Rule of Duty and Obedience; than it is Good and Excellent: But if it be made the Ground and Matter of our Righteousness, and so set in opposition to Christ; then nothing more fatal and pernicious. So that this Distinction is the Apostles own Distinction, given us as a Key, to open this Controversy by.  
§. 2. Reply. But can weindeed think that when the Apostle thunders, as he doth against the Law; Calling it a Ministration of Diatb and Condemnation; a weak and beggarly thing; that which was against us, contrary to us; and that which is therefore now blotted out, and taken out of the way; being nailed to the Cross of Christ, etc. That he utters and declares all this, only because men had perverted the Law, and reduced it (as they thought) to its Primitive Intention, to give Life and Righteousness by their Obedience to it? 'Tis true, the Jews did plainly pervert, and misunderstood God's Design and Intention, in giving the Law as a Covenant of Works unto them; which was not, that any Person whatsoever, should ever attain unto Life and Righteousness thereby; but only to Convince them of their Necessity of a Saviour. But doth it therefore follow, that all those thundering Expressions, before mentioned, concerning the Law, were uttered by the Apostle, only because the Jews had perverted it? Doth not Moses himself call it a Fiery Law, that proceeded from God's right Hand, Deut. 33. 2. And doth not God himself pronounce a Curse upon every one that continueth not in all things therein contained, to do them, Deut. 27. 26▪ Gal. 3. 10. And is it not as plain, that from hence, even that from hence it is, that the Apostle calls it as he doth, a Ministration of Death and Condemnation: Against us, and Contrary to us, etc. Besides, it ought to be duly considered, that the Gospel and Covenant of Grace itself, was liable to a● great an abuse as the Law, by being turned into Lasciviousness; as the Scriptures tells us it was; and yet the Apostle never thunders against the Gospel, as he doth against the Law, because Men had abused it. 'Tis true, he tells us concerning the Gospel; that to some it is the savour of death, unto death, to others it is the savour of life, unto life; that is, to those that Reject it, it is the savour of death unto death; to those that Receive it, it is the savour of life, unto life. But this is vastly different from the character he gives of the Law: For (saith he) By the deeds of the Law, there shall no Flesh be justified in his sight, Rom. 3. 20. And therefore, whether it is Received or Rejected, it is, as the Apostle calls it, a Ministration of Death, etc. Whereas the Gospel is such, only to those that Reject it, and do not give a saving entertainment to it. So that the Distinction we now oppose, is altogether without Scripture Warrant; and is indeed no other, than to impute unfaithfulness to Paul, and Moses also, in declaring the Nature of the Law as they do. And accordingly hence we have just reason to conclude, that the Law was never instituted as a Covenant of Faith,, or as a Covenant of Grace, that hath such Epithets fixed thereon by the Spirit of God himself.  
§. 3. 'Tis true, as you say, the Law was our Schoolmaster to Christ; to Convince us of our Necessity of him. And Christ is also said to be the end of the Law, for Righteousness, to every one that believeth; that is, he was the accomplishment thereof; he having perfectly fulfilled its Commands, submitted to its Curse, and answered its Penalty on our behalf; whereby it received the Greatest Honour that could be given it; a greater by far, than ever could be given it by us, in our own persons. For what the Law could not do, in that it was weak, through the Flesh; God sending his own Son, in the likeness of sinful Flesh, and for sin, (or by a Sacrifice for Sin) condemned Sin in the Flesh; that the Righteousness of the Law might be fulfilled in us; that is, in the Person of our Sure●y for us, Rom. 8. 3, 4. But than it is so far from being true, that the Law was therefore a Covenant of Faith; that it is so much the more Convincingly Evident, that it was no other than a Covenant of Works: For as much as it is plain, that, as such, Christ himself submitted thereunto on our account. And it is as plain that, as such, it would else have lighted on us in our own Persons, in the Execution of its most dreadful Curses and Threaten. But if we will rather have the sense of the words to be, as you suggest it is, that Christ was the End [or Scope] of the Law for Righteousness, to every one that believeth; that is, that it was God's design, thereby to drive them to Christ, their only Remedy, by Convincing them of their Necessity of him; It still comes to the same Reckoning: For though 'tis true, there is a plain subserviency in the Law, towards the promoting of the Designs of the Covenant of Grace; yet (as we have already seen) it no way follows, that the Law is therefore the Covenant of Grace itself; or the Handmaid the Mistress herself: For (saith the Apostle, Gal. 4. 24. 25, 26.) These are the two Covenants; the one from Mount Sinai, which gendereth to Bondage, and is in Bondage with her Children: The other Answereth to Jerusalem that is above; which is free, and is the Mother of us all. And if these were the two Covenants, and those two essentially different the one from the other, in the nature and tendency of either; as it is plain by the Apostles scope they are; so they must be kept. Two they were, and two they still remain to be; so as what the one is, the other is not. Hagar had indeed a plain subserviency to Sarah: But yet as were the Types, so are the Antitypes themselves; Essentially different; so as that the Bondage Covenant, can with no more Sense, nor Justice be called a Covenant of Faith, because it hath a subserviency thereunto; than the Covenant of Faith can wish any shadow of pretence be called a Covenant of Bondage.  
§. 4. Besides, when the Apostle speaks of the two Covenants, these were the two Covenants; the one from Mount Sinai meaning the Legal; the other the Gospel Covenant. He doth sufficiently Intimate, that there were never but two General Covenants; made with Mankind, in all; that is, the Covenant of Works and the Covenant of Grace. And if so, then if there were any such thing as a Covenant of Works made with our first Parent before the Fall (as we all affirm there was) it must of necessity be Included in the Sinai Covenant; And that both Materially Considered, and Intentionally also: Else there were three Covenants; and those Specifically different each from other; whereas the Apostle tells us but of two. To say it was Included in the Gospel Covenant is wholly Absurd; Therefore it must of necessity be Included in the Sinai Covenant; so as that both together make up that first or old Covenant, which the Scripture speaks of. For when the Apostle, Heb. 8. calls the Sinai Covenant by the Name of the first or Old Covenant (as he there doth several times over) it cannot possibly be understood that it was therefore the first Covenant that God ever made with Men in respect of time; for there had been an Express Covenant made with Abraham, and with Noah also, long before; And we also acknowledge that there was an Implicit Covenant of Works made with our first Parent, upon his first Creation besides the Promise of Grace that followed soon after the Fall. Therefore the Sinai Covenant must of necessity be called the first or old Covenant, because of its Congruity, Harmony, and Identity, with the Covenant of Works made with our first Parent; And that both in respect of the matter, and Intention thereof also; Or else i● could never with any Propriety, or fitness of Expression, be called the first or old Covenant, as by the Apostle divers times over it is, in the forementioned 8th to the Hebrews.  
§. 5. The Law therefore could not possibly be a Covenant of Gospel Grace; (as by many the most Learned and Worthy Divines, and it may be the far greater part (of Moderns at least) it hath been confidently affirmed to be) For (as we have before acknowledged;) though there was never any Covenant that God ever made with Men; but hath more or less of Grace therein; Since it is an Infinite Condescension in God, that he will have to do with Men at any Rate; yet that the Covenant from Mount Sinai, was in any Sense; or is by virtue of any proper Scripture Distinction, to be understood as a Covenant of Gospel Grace; whereof Christ alone is the Mediator; This is that which for all those forementioned Reasons, we utterly deny. And this is the Point, the only Point, which in the beginning of this Discourse we undertook to disprove; And that as being of no small Consequence to the Church of God. For upon this Hypothesis, or Supposition; That the Covenant at Sinai was indeed a Covenant of Grace, or a Gospel Covenant (for any other Notion of it will not serve the turn) and consequently that the Covenant of Circumcision made with Abraham, Gen. 17. 7, 8, 9 is of the same Nature; the greatest part of the most plausible Arguments for the support of Infant's Baptism, are founded. But if we have, or c●● substantially prove, that neither of these forementioned Covenants, were Gospel Covenants; no wonder if we make an Answerable Improvement thereof in its proper place, by way of opposition to the forementioned Practice.  
§. 6: As for the Scripture before alleged, 1 Tim. 1. 8. We know that the Law is good if a Man use it Lawfully; It is indeed highly observable: For as much as there is a Lawful as well as an unlawful use that Men may make thereof; that is, if we make use of it as the Rule of our Obedience, than we make that Right, Just, Proper, and Lawful use thereof, which God requires. For we know that in this Respect we are still under the Law to Christ. And in this Respect it is true enough, as the Apostle tells us, that th● Law is Holy, Just and Good: For there is therein a Spiritual Discovery of the Holiness and Righteousness of God's Nature and Being; whose Image must be Engraven upon us, if ever we arrive unto true Blessedness. But if we Preach it up, or endeavour to Establish it, as a Covenant of Life; or as a Covenant of Faith, and Grace (which are Equipollent terms; Let us distinguish as we please, between a Covenant of Grace Absolutely, and subserviently such) and consequently are desirous in that Respect to be under it (as the Apostle tells the Gallatians, and which we cannot avoid if we reckon it to be a Covenant of Grace) then, according to the Apostles plain Scope, in the whole Epistles to the Romans and Gallatians; instead of using it lawfully, we make an unlawful use thereof, by perverting it to such a service as God never Intended it for; And are guilty of mingling Law and Gospel together: Life and Death; and as we have said before; a Ministration of Condemnation, with that of Righteousness and Peace, which would be no other than to overthrow both the Law and Gospel. And this is the Apostles own Distinction, given us as a Key to open this Controversy by, Gal. 1. 6, 7.   

SECT. XIII.  
BUT whereas it is yet further Objected; That after this Rate, both Moses and Abraham, and all the Old Testament Saints, were under two contrary Covenants, at one and the same time, from whence many Absurdites do follow. As to this, we dare not Impeach or Control Infinite Wisdom. We have only declared plain matter of Fact; so far as the Scriptures themselves do inform us: For therein it is Evident (as hath been already proved) that both Moses and the whole Body of that People of Israel in the Wildernest, were under the forementioned Covenant from Mount Sinai; and that expressly as the Covenant which the Lord Commanded them to perform, Deut. 4. 13. And that under the severest Penalties of a dreadful Curse, upon every one that Confirmed not all the Words of this Law to do them, unto which all the People were to say Amen, Deut. 27. 26. This Covenant therefore they were absolutely under, as being expressly made both with Moses, and the whole Body of the Children of Israel, without Exception of any, Exod. 34. 27. which we have already argued at large, could be no other than a Covenant of Works; A Ministration of Death and Condemnation; A hand writing of Ordinances that was against us, contrary to us; And therefore now Blotted out, and taken out of the way, being Nailed to the Cross of Christ. When yet it is also as Evident from the same Holy Scriptures of Truth; That at the same time; both Moses, and all the Elect among that People, were under a pure Covenant of Gospel Grace, as we have already proved; when the Lord told Moses that he had found Grace in his Sight; and that he knew him by Name; and would make all his Goodness to pass before him; and would Proclaim the Name of the Lord before him: Saying, I will be Gracious to whom I will be Gracious; And I will show Mercy to whom I will show Mercy: And when accordingly, the Lord descended in the Cloud, and stood with Moses there; And Proclaimed the Name of the Lord: The Lord God Merciful and Gracious, Long-suffering, and Abundant in Goodness and in Truth; keeping Mercy for Thousands; forgiving Iniquity, Transgression and Sin. Now we have already proved that these were two Distinct Covenants; The one made with Moses, and the whole Body of that People; The other with Moses, and those that were Elected among them only. And if these were two contrary Covenants, and in themselves, just opposite, the one unto the other of them (●s indeed they were) we have nothing to say; but to Conclude with the Apostle in another, case concerning the Call of the Gentiles, and Rejection of the Jews, that were once Gods only Beloved People; to whom pertained the Adoption, and the Glory, and the Covenants and the giving of the Law, and the Service of God, and the Promises O the depth of the Riches both of the Wisdom and Knowledge of God How unsearchable are his Judgements, and his Ways p●st finding ●ut! Rom. 11. 33, 34.  
§. 2. However, though 'tis true; New Testament Saints are absolutely freed from the Law as a Covenant of Works, by the Sacrifice of Christ; yet it is Evident, that during the time thereunto appointed by the Father; those before were under the Power and Tyranny thereof, notwithstanding those Discoveries of Gospel Grace that were otherwise Revealed unto them. To this purpose the Apostle tells us Expressly, Gal. 3. 23. etc. Before Faith came, we (saith he, that is, we Jews, not we Gentiles, for thess passages agree not with the Gentiles at all, but we Jews) were kept under the Law, shut up unto the Faith which should afterward be revealed; ●or as he had said before; The Law was added because of Transgressions, till the Seed should come to whom the Promise 〈◊〉 made. Wherefore the Law was our Schoolmaster to Christ, that we might be Justified by Faith: But after that Faith is come, we are no longer under a Schoolmaster. So again Chap. 4. 1, 2, 3. etc. Now I say that the Heir, as long as he is a Child, differeth nothing from a Servant, though he be Lord of all: But it under Tutors, and Governors, until the time appointed of the Father; Even so we, when we were Children were in Bondage, under the Elements of the World: But when the fullness of time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a Woman, made under the Law, to Redeem them that were under the Law, that we might Receive the Adoption of Sons. So that upon the whole, it is plain matter of Fact, evident and undeniable (Resolve we the Mystery thereof how we will) That the Jews, even the whole Body of that People, without exception of any, were for the time appointed of the Father; under the Dominion and Tyranny of the Law; and that as a Covenant of Works, or a Bondage Covenant; when yet it is equally as evident, that at the same time, all the Elect among them, were under a Covenant of pure Gospel Grace, whereby they were saved.  
§. 3. Wherefore we must grant, that God's People were then under two distinct; or essentially different Covenants: We say, we must do so; provided always, that the way of Reconciliation, and Salvation, was the same under both. But it will be said, and with great pretence of Reason, (for it is that which is the sole Foundation they all build upon, who affirm the Legal and the Gospel-Covenants, to be only a twofold Administration of the same Covenant) That this being the Principal End of a Divine Covenant: If the way of Reconciliation and Salvation be the same under both, then indeed they are for the Substance of them but one: And we grant, that this would inevitably follow, If it were so equally by virtue of them both. If Reconciliation, and Salvation by Christ, were to be obtained, not only under the Old Covenant, but by virtue thereof, than it must be the same for substance with the New. But this is not so; For no Reconciliation with God, nor Salvation, could ever be obtained by virtue of the Old Covenant, or the Administration of it: For by the Deeds of the Law, there shall no Flesh be justified in his sight; (as our Apostle disputes at large, Rom. 3. 20, etc.) though all Believers were Reconciled, Justified and Saved, by virtue of the Promise, whilst they were under that Covenant.  
§. 4. And how absurd soever it may seem to be, to affirm, that God'● People were under two Contrary Covenants, at one and the same time; yet, as we see the Scriptures do plainly assure us they were; so it is evident that the absurdity is by far the greater, on the other hand, to affirm that the Sinai Covenant was purposely so dispensed, as to tender Life and Happiness upon two Opposite, and quite Contrary Conditions, viz. Works, and Faith: Perfect Doing and Believing, as if the same Foundai●●●, could at the same time yield forth bitter waters and sweet. Which absurdity, all those must of necessity run into, that affirm the Sinai Covenant; to be a Covenant of Faith in Christ Jesus: As hath been already shown.   

SECT. XIV.  
ANd here we should have drawn up the sum of what hath been already offered on the present Subject; but that there are four Arguments yet behind, pretending to prove, that the Sinai Covenant, and that made with Adam in Paradise, were not the same, but widely different Covenants; which remain therefore to be Answered. Only by the way it must be remembered, that two Arguments to the same purpose, have already been dispatched. The First was, That though the Sinai Covenant, materially Considered, is the same with adam's; yet intentionally, it is vastly different. The Second was; That the Sinai Covenant had a Mediator, which adam's wanted. Both which, we hope, have been Satisfactorily Answered, in the foregoing parts of this Discourse. It remains therefore, that we proceed to the Consideration of those that follow; The first whereof runs thus;  
Arg. 1. Those Covenants that differ in the Subjects, or Parties with whom they are made, are not the same, but different Covenants: But so doth that at Sinai, and that in Paradise. The Covenant made with Adam, was made with Innocent and Perfect Man, able to keep it; This with Lapsed, Sinful Man, utterly disabled to keep any one Precept of it.  
Reply. To which we Reply; That the difference betwixt the Subjects, makes no alteration in the Substance, or Essence of the Covenants; Especially since we have already, by several Arguments substantially proved; not only that they were Materially the same (which yourselves cannot but acknowledge) but intentionally also. And forasmuch as 'tis undeniable, That God hath not forfeited or lost his Right of Sovereignty, or Dominion over us, though we have forfeited and lost our strength and capacity of Obedience; the Covenants in question therefore may very well be the same, notwithstanding the difference betwixt their Subjects.  
Arg. 2. Those Covenants that vastly differ in their Dedication, are not the same but divers: But so doth the Covenants with Israel, and with Adam. The Covenant with Adam taught no way of the Expiation of Sins by the Dedication of it; so did that with Moses, Exod. 24. 8. And Moses took the Blood, and sprinkled it on the People, and said; Behold, this is the Blood of the Covenant, which the Lord hath made with you, concerning all these words.  
Reply: To this we Reply; That it hath been already proved, That though the Ceremonial Covenant, was indeed dedicated with Blood, and Sprinkling; yet the Law written in Stones was no●. So that if Adam's Covenant wanted Confirmation, or Dedication with Blood, showing the Remission of Sins; so did that written in Stones also: And therefore in this respect there is no difference at all betwixt them. True it is, that the Ceremonial Covenant was ●o dedicated; in which respect there is a plain difference betwixt that, and the Covenant made with Adam. But this altars not the Case; For it is evident, that the Law written in Stones, was not so dedicated; and that is enough to prove what we have all along asserted; That the Covenant of Works made with our First Parent, was renewed to that People in the Wilderness. And though 'tis true, the Ceremonial Covenant being dedicated as it was, did point unto Christ, and the way of Salvation by him; yet nevertheless, it hath been already proved, that it was a Covenant of Works, as well as that written in Stones; and therefore both of them now Repealed, to make way for the New Covenant, which was established upon better Promises. And it having been proved, that they were both, no other than two several Editions of the same Covenant of Works; and that neither of them can, with any shadow of Truth or Justice, be styled a Covenant of Grace, or a Gospel Covenant (which cannot be affirmed without contradicting the whole Scope of the Scriptures) it sufficiently serves the design we levelly at; whether there be a Perfect Identity in every Circumstance between either of these, and Adam's Covenant or no. For as Dr. Owen well observes; Whatever variations may be made in, or Additions unto the Dispensation of the First Covenant, so long as this Rule is retained, Do this and Live; it is still the same Covenant for the Substance, and Essence of it.  
Arg. 3. Those Covenants which vastly differ in the Privileges contained in them, are not just the same, but far different Covenants: But so doth the Covenant with Adam, and that with Israel differ. In Adam 's Covenant no Pardon was admitted or accepted upon Repentance: But so it is in Moses Covenant; God proclaimed himself at the Promulgation of it, a Sin Pardoning God, Exod. 34. And promiseth Pardon on Repentance for the Breach of it, Leu. 26. from vers. 40. to vers. 46. If you say this was the Covenant with Abraham, not with Moses; then Abraham's Covenant, was the Covenant of Grace: But see, vers. 46. and all is ended.  
Reply. The Answer we have returned to the foregoing Argument, may very well serve for this also. For if the Sinai Covenant, which was delivered by Gods own immediate Mouth and Voice; and which was also written with God's own Finger, upon the two Tables of Stone; was not dedicated with Blood and Sprinkling (which shown Remission of Sins) as the Ceremonial Covenant was; than it plainly follows, that in this respect also, there is no difference between this and the Covenant made with Adam: For if in Adam's Covenant, no Pardon of Sin was admitted or accepted upon Repentance, as wanting that which shown the Expiation thereof; so it was in this. But whereas you say, that at the Promulgation of Moses Covenant, God proclaimed himself a Sin Pardoning God, Exod. 34. We freely acknowledge he did so; for else none had been saved. But then we have also proved, that the Covenant of Grace, there mentioned, was vastly distinct, and essentially different from that mentioned, Exod. 20. The one being made with Moses, and the Elect only; the other with the whole Body of the Congregation of Israel. And not only were they two distinct Covenants, in respect of their different Subjects; but in respect of their vastly different nature also: For though the Covenant or Promises mentioned in the 33d and 34th Chapters of Exodus, expressly declared God to be a Sin Pardoning God; A God Merciful and Gracious, forgiving Iniquity, Transgression and Sin; yet there is nothing that can be more evident than this, that the other discovered no such thing, but rather the contrary. The Jewish Legal Covenant (saith Dr. Annesley) neither admitted of Faith in the Redeemer, nor Repentance of Sin. For Pardon of Sin, and Curse for Sin, are inconsistent, Gal. 3. 10. As many as are of the Works of the Law, are under the Curse: For it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the Book of the Law, to do them. As many as depend upon the Works of the Law for Justification, are under the Curse, And the Law discovered no other way of Justification but by Works, Morn. Exercise, p. 122.  
§. 2. But (say you) God promiseth Pardon, on Repentance, for the Breach of Moses Covenant, Leu. 26. 40, etc. And (say we) so he did in respect of Adam's Covenant; for otherwise we had all been undone for ever. But as Adam's Covenant promised no Pardon on Repentance, so neither did the Jewish Legal Covenant: For indeed it rather threatens, and inflicts the contrary, viz. a dreadful Curse upon every Transgression and Disobedience; and as the Doct. well observes, admits of no Repentance. For as it is evident, that the Law written in Stones, neither discovered, nor admits of any such thing: So as for the Ceremonial Covenant itself; the Apostle expressly tells us, Heb. 9 9 that the Sacrifices thereof could not make him, that did the Service perfect, as pertaining to the Conscience: For (saith he, Chap. 10. 1, 4.) the the Law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very Image of the things, can never with those Sacrifices which they offered year by year continually, make the Comers thereunto perfect.— For it is not possible, that the Blood of Bulls and of Goats, should take away Sins. Other Covenants ('tis true) there were, wherein God plainly discovered the mercifulness of his nature in that respect: And among the rest, the Covenant made with Abraham; which in the forementioned Leu. 26. God doth plainly direct them to for their Relief. But (say you) if you say, This was the Covenant with Abraham, not with Moses; then Abraham's Covenant was the Covenant of Grace. But yet (say we) neither will this do the business you allege it for: For having diligently examined, Leu. 26. 40, etc. We find recorded to this purpose; that in the latter days, after that the People of Israel should have been scattered into all Nations, and had all sorts of Plagues inflicted on them for their sins: If (saith God) they shall confess their sins, and the iniquities of their Fathers, etc. Then will I remember my Covenant with Jacob, and also my Covenant with Isaac, and also my Covenant with Abraham will I Remember. From whence, First, It may be plainly collected, that there was no Pardon to be expected by them, from the Sinai Covenant: For God doth not direct them to apply themselves thither for Relief; nor doth he in the least suggest, that that way any thing of Pardon could be justly expected by them: But he directs them rather to have recourse unto the Covenant made with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; for that is the Covenant (saith God) that I will Remember. And Secondly, It ought also to be duly observed, that though the Covenant of Circumcision, which God made with Abraham, Gen. 17. 7, 8, 9, 10. was indeed of the same nature with the Sinai Covenant (as we have already proved;) yet it is evident, that God had long before the Covenant of Circumcision was in being, entered into a Covenant of Grace, or a Covenant that was truly Evangelical, with Believing Abraham, wherein God freely promised, That in him, that is, in his Seed, all the Nations of the earth should be blessed, Gen. 12. 2, 3. And accordingly, this is the Covenant that Peter directs the Bleeding Jews unto in his time, Act. 3. 25. Ye 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 Kindred's of the Earth be blessed. Which free Gospel Promise doth plainly comprehend both Jews and Gentiles. And this therefore undoubtedly, is the Covenant that God tells them in Leviticus, he will Remember for the future Comfort of Distressed and dispersed Israel: For as Peter refers the Jews thereunto and unto that alone, so this very Covenant, and that in these very terms, had not only been made with Abraham, but as God here speaks with Isaac, Gen. 24. 4. and with Jacob also: Gen. 28. 14. Whereas the Covenant of Circumcision had not been so Renewed or Repeated: And therefore this must be the only Covenant that God here speaks of. And whereas God tells them Vers. 45. That he would for their sakes remember the Covenant of their Ancestors, whom he brought forth out of the Land of Egypt. This must of necessity have Reference either to the forementioned Covenant with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob: Or the Promises mentioned Exod. 33. 34. And cannot possibly have any Reference to the Sinai Covenant: For that was a Bondage Covenant, Gal. 4. 21, 22, etc. A Ministration of Death and Condemnation, 2 Cor. 3. 7, 8, 9 Against us and contrary to us; And therefore now Blotted out, Col. 2. 14. And is accordingly by Moses himself represented as a fiery Law that Proceeded from God's Right Hand, Deut. 33. ●●. So that that could not possibly yield any comfort unto them: Whereas the forementioned Covenants did plainly give them hopes of Relief and Pardon. But (say you) see Vers. 46. and all is ended. We have therefore accordingly Examined that Text; But cannot discern that it speaks any thing by way of opposition to what we have Asserted: For thus run the words. These are the Statutes and Judgements, and Laws which the Lord made between him, and the Children of Israel at Mount Sinai, by the Hand of Moses, which can have no other Sense than this, That this being the last Verse of the last Chapte (save one) of Leviticus, wherein the Statutes and Judgements, or the several branches of the Ceremonial Law had been particularly Rehearsed unto them: These words in this 46th Verse contains therefore only the general Sum thereof; So that we cannot discern that it makes off or on as to the present Argument.  
Arg. 4. The Fourth and last Argument runs thus; Those Covenants which have Seals annexed of vastly different Nature, are not Absolutely or just the same, but widely different Covenants: But so have these two Covenants; Ergo, not the same. The Tree of Life was the only Sacrament Annexed to the first; but the Passover and Circumcision to the last: Both holding forth Christ and Salvation by him. The first a plain Type of Christ in the Paschal Lamb. The other a Seal of the Righteousness of Faith.  
Reply. First, as to what concerns the Tree of Life, which you say was the only Sacrament annexed to Adam's Covenant; That it was either a Sacrament or a Seal annexed to that Covenant, the Scripture gives us no Account thereof that we can find. And as the Passover and Circumcision, which you make to be the Seals of the Sinai Covenant, the Scripture is as silent even in that Respect also. As for the Passover, it was indeed as you say, a plain Type of Christ, as many other things than were: But we do not find that it is ever called, a Seal of the Sinai Covenant; Nor do we find that Circumcision is ever called the Seal thereof. It is indeed called a Seal of the Righteousness of the Faith that Abraham had yet being uncircumcized, Rom. 4. 11. But the same Apostle expressly tells us, Gal. 3. 12. That the Law is not of Faith. And if the Law is not of Faith, than neither can it be a Covenant of Faith; And than it doth also as plainly follow, that Circumcision, which is by the Apostle termed a Seal of the Righteousness of Abraham's Faith, could not be the Seal thereof. And in this Respect therefore it is highly observable; That though Circumcision is frequently called a Token of the Covenant mentioned. Gen. 17. 7, 8, 9 to the generality that were under it; yet the Scripture no where tells us, That it was a Seal of the Righteousness of Faith, but unto Abraham only: For indeed none else had ever before or after their Circumcision, such a Faith that Entitled them to such Singular Promises, and Prerogatives as Abraham had. But of this we have already said so much, toward the Resolution of the present Point, in the Seventh Branch of our Answer to the Eleventh Objection, in the Second Part of this Discourse foregoing; and have yet so much to say in what follows, where we shall have a further occasion purposely to handle this Argument, that we shall need to say the less of it here.   

SECT. XV.  
FOR a Conclusion of the present Point, we shall only Collect the sum of the foregoing Arguments already Insisted on; proving that the Legal Covenant was not a Covenant of Faith: But was indeed and in truth, no other than a Covenant of Works. For;  
First, That Covenant that is not of Faith, cannot possibly be a Covenant of Faith. But the Apostle doth expressly affirm, that, the Law is not of Faith, Gal. 3. 11, 12. Therefore neither can it be a Covenant of Faith.  
Secondly, That Covenant which is now Repealed could not be a Covenant of Faith. But the Apostle doth plainly affirm, that the first Covenant for the faultiness thereof, is now Repealed, Heb. 8. 7, 13. 2 Cor. 3. 7, 11. Col. 2. 14. Heb. 7. 18. Therefore that Covenant could not be a Covenant of Faith.  
Thirdly, That Covenant that could not give Life, could not be a Covenant of Faith: But the Law could not give Life, Gal. 3. 21. 22. Therefore it could not be a Covenant of Faith.  
Fourthly, That Covenant that is opposed to the Covenant of Faith, as quite another thing, could not be a Covenant of Faith. But the School-mastership of the Law, is by the Apostle plainly opposed, and contradistinguished unto the Covenant of Faith, as quite another thing, Gal. 3. 23, 24, 25. Therefore it could not be a Covenant of Faith.  
Fifthly, That Covenant, the Righteousness whereof is opposed to the Righteousness of Faith; cannot be a Covenant of Faith. But the Righteousness of the Law is plainly by the Apostle opposed to the Righteousness of Faith, Rom. 10. 5, 6, etc. Therefore it could not be a Covenant of Faith.  
Sixthly, That Covenant that could never Justify any that were under it, could never be a Covenant of Faith. For being Justified by Faith, we have Peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, Rom. 5. 1. But the Scripture doth expressly Testify; That by the Deeds of the Law, there shall no Flesh be Justified in his Sight, Rom. 3. 20. Therefore that Covenant could never be a Covenant of Faith.  
Seventhly, That Covenant under which, though many were Justified; yet none were ever Justified by it, or by virtue of it; could never be a Covenant of Faith. But such is the Nature of the Law, that though many were Justified under it; yet none were ever Justified by it, or by Virtue of it, Rom. 3. 20. Therefore that Covenant could never be a Covenant of Faith.  
Eighthly, That Covenant that saith, Do this and Live; Or that the Man that doth these things shall Live by them; cannot possibly be a Covenant of Gospel-Grace, but of Works: Since the Apostle Informs us, That to him that worketh is the Reward reckoned, not of Grace but of Debt, Rom. 4. 4. But the same Apostle doth expressly tell us; That Moses describeth the Righteousness of the Law, that the Man which doth these things shall live by them, Rom. 10. 5., Therefore that Covenant could be no other than a Covenant of Works.  
Ninthly, That Covenant that is plainly and in direct terms opposed unto Grace, cannot be a Covenant of Grace. But the Law is by the Apostle directly opposed unto Grace. Rom. 6. 14. Sin shall not have Dominion over you: For ye are not under the Law, but under Grace. Therefore that Covenant could never be a Covenant of Grace.  
Tenthly, That Covenant that was not only by the Jews Estimated as a Covenant of Works, but was so by Gods own Appointment, must needs be a Covenant of Works. But the Law was not only by the Jews so Reckoned, but by Gods own Appointment it was expressly so designed, Leu. 18. 4, 5. Deut. 27. 26. Rom. 10. 5. Gal. 3. 10, 12. Therefore that Covenant must needs be a Covenant of Works.  
Eleventhly, That Covenant through which Abraham's Inheritance was not derived, could not be a Covenant of Faith but of Works. But the Apostle doth expressly tell us, That if the Inheritance be of the Law, it is no more of Promise: But God gave it to Abraham by Promise, Gal. 3. 18. Therefore the Law could not possibly be a Covenant of Faith, but of Works.  
Twelfthly, That Covenant through which had the Inheritance been conveyed, would have made void Faith, and made the Promise of none effect, could not possibly be a Covenant of Faith. But the Apostle doth expressly tell us; That if they which are of the Law be Heirs, Faith is made void, and the Promise made of none effect, Rom. 4. 14. Therefore the Law could not possibly be a Covenant of Faith,  
Thirteenthly, That Covenant from the Curse whereof, we were Redeemed by Christ, could not be a Covenant of Grace, but of Works. But the Apostle Informs us; That Christ hath Redeemed us from the Curse of the Law; himself being made a Curse for us, Gal. 3. 13. chap. 4. 4, 5. Therefore the Law could not be a Covenant of Grace but of Works.  
Fourteen, That Covenant that is set forth by the Apostle as a Ministration of Death, and Condemnation, could be no other than a Covenant of Works. But the Apostle doth assure us, that the Law Written in Stones was a Ministration of Death and Condemnation, 2 Cor. 3. 7, 9 Therefore it could be no other than a Covenant of Works,  
Fifteenthly, That Covenant in which 〈◊〉 the Hand writing of Ordinances contained, was against us, and contrary to us, which is therefore now Blotted out, and taken out of the way, being Nailed to the Cross of Christ; could be no other than a Covenant of Works. But such is the Nature of the Law, Col. 2. 14. 2 Cor. 3. 6, 7, 8, 9 Therefore it could be no other than a Covenant of Works.  
Sixteenthly, That Covenant which when it comes, Revives Sin, and kills the Sinner; And which though it was Ordained to Life, is by Experience found to be unto Death, could not be a Covenant of Grace: But Paul doth expressly tell us; That when the Commandment came, Sin Revived and he died. And the Commandment which was Ordained to Life, he found to be unto Death, Rom. 7. 9, 10. Therefore that Covenant could not be a Covenant of Grace but of Works.  
Seventeenthly, That Covenant that is a Bondage Covenant, which gendereth to Bondage; all whose Children also are in Bondage, cannot possibly be a Covenant of Faith, but of Works. But the Apostle doth Expressly Inform us, that Mount Sinai Covenant is a Bondage Covenant, that is gendereth to Bondage, and that her Children also are in Bondage, Gal. 4. 21, 22, 23, 24, 26. Therefore Mount Sinai Covenant could be no other than a Covenant of Works.  
Eighteenthly, That Covenant that admitted not of Faith in the Redeemer, nor Repentance of Sin: Since Pardon of Sin and Curse for Sin are Inconsistent; could not be a Covenant of Grace. But the Scripture doth expressly assure us; That as many as are of the Works of the Law are under the Curse: For it is Written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are Written in the Book of the Law to do them, Gal. 3. 10. Therefore that Covenant could not possibly be a Covenant of Grace but of Works.  
Nineteenthly, That Covenant that had not Christ for the Mediator of it, could never be a Covenant of Faith but of Works. But the Apostle speaking of the Legal Covenant made with Israel at Mount Sinai, tells us; That Christ hath obtained a more Excellent Ministry, by how much also he is the Mediator of a better Covenant, which was Established upon better Promises, Heb. 8. 6, 7, 8. 9 From whence it plainly follows, that Christ was not the Mediator of the Legal Covenant. Therefore that Covenant could never be a Covenant of Faith, but of Works.  
Twentiethly, That Covenant that was not Confirmed by the Blood of Christ (which alone can cleanse us from all unrighteousness) but only by the Blood of Bulls, and Goats, and Calves, and the Ashes of an Heifer sprinkling the unclean, which only Sanctified to the Purifying of the Flesh, and could never take away Sins, nor make him that did the Service perfect as pertaining to the Conscience; could not be a Covenant of Faith. But the Ceremonial Law was of this Nature, and the Sacrifices thereof, wherewith alone it was Dedicated, Heb. 9 9, 10. 11, 12, 13, 14. Chap. 10. 1, 2, 3, 4, etc. Therefore that Covenant could not possibly be a Covenant of Faith but of Works.  
Twenty first, That Covenant that was not confirmed by the Blood of Christ; No, nor so much as by the Blood of Bulls, or Goats, or Calves, which was plainly Typical thereof; could never be a Covenant of Grace but of Works. But the Law Written in Stones was so far from being confirmed by the Blood of Christ, that it was never (that we read of) Dedicated with any other sort of Blood whatsoever. Therefore that Covenant could not possibly be a Covenant of Grace, but of Works.  
Twenty second, That Covenant that is Represented to us in the Scripture as a Fiery, Burning Law; the Proclamation also whereof was attended with dreadful Thunderings and Lightnings; with Blackness and Darkness, and Tempest; And such a Voice of Words as could not be endured, which made Moses himself exceedingly to quake and tremble, could not be a Covenant of Faith, but of Works. But such was the Nature and Quality of the Legal Covenant at Mount Sinai, Exod. 20. 18. 19 Deut. 33. 2. Heb. 12. 18, 19, 20, 21. Therefore that Covenant could not be a Covenant of Faith but of Works.  
Twenty third, That Covenant that is just opposite to the Gospel Covenant; which the Scripture represents unto us as a Covenant of Peace and Liberty, making a Joyful found, and speaking with a small, still, comfortable, and alluring Voice, in the Ears, and to the Hearts of Sinners; that hath also Jesus for the Mediator thereof, and speaketh better things than the Blood of Abel; Proclaiming the Lord, the Lord God, Gracious, and Merciful, Abundant in Goodness, and in Truth, forgiving Iniquity, Transgression and Sin. That Covenant can never be a Covenant of Grace, but of Works. But the Legal Covenant is plainly in Scripture opposed unto the Gospel Covenant in all these Respects, Heb. 12. from the 18th to the 24th Gal. 3. 10, 11, 12, 13, 14. Gal. 4. 21, etc. Therefore the Legal Covenant could not possibly be a Covenant of Grace, but of Works.  
§. So that notwithstanding all the most plausible Arguments, which are usually urged by way of opposition to what we have now Asserted (unless we must shut our Eyes) there can be nothing more plain than this; That the Law given by Moses to the Seed of Abraham at Mount Sinai, instead of being a Covenant of Faith in Christ Jesus, or a Covenant of Gospel Grace (as many Divines famous for Learning and Piety do confidently affirm it is) was no other than a Covenant of Works, and that which is therefore now done away, 2 Cor. 3. 7, 8, 9, 11. Col. 2. 14. Heb. 8. 7, 13. From whence it plainly and undeniably follows, that the Covenant of Circumcision, mentioned Gen. 17. 7, 8, 9, 10. (which God there promised to Establish betwixt Himself, Abraham and his Seed after him in their Generations) being the same thing and of the same nature (as hath been already proved) is therefore now also Repealed and done away therewith, Acts 15. 10. Gal. 5. 3, 4, 5. Col. 2. 14. And consequently all the Arguments thence deduced, howsoever, or by whomsoever form, for the support of Infant's Baptism, do of themselves vanish.    

THE FIFTH PART,  
Containing a Description of that truly Evangelical Covenant, God was pleased to make with Believing Abraham: Wherein lies the Sum of the Everlasting Gospel then Preached unto him; since Proclaimed by the Apostles, and which now remains to be yet further Published unto all Nations, for the Obedience of Faith, Rom. 16. 25, 26. Rev. 14. 6, 7-  
Wherein the true Nature and Difference betwixt the two Covenants; that of Works, and that of Grace, is further Explained.  Rev. 11. 19 And the Temple of God was opened in Heaven and there was seen in his Temple the Ark of his Testament; and there were Lightnings, and Voices, and Thundering, and an Earthquake, and Great Hail. 

SECT. I.  
§. 1. BUT though the Covenant of Circumcision, which God was pleased to make with Abraham, Gen. 17. 7, 8, 9, 10. was not other than a Covenant of Works, as the Covenant at Sinai was, and are both therefore now done away; yet (as we have already declared) it is evident and undeniable, that God was also pleased to enter into a Covenant of Grace with Believing Abraham, even such a Covenant as was purely Evengelical, and that which never shall be abolished. And it is also as evident, that this Gospel Covenant had been Established and Preached unto Abraham, long before the Covenant of Circumcision was made with him: (For both Abraham and all true Believers, in that Age, were in the Covenant of Grace long before the Covenant of Circumcision was made, and would have been so, if that had never been) which Covenant of Grace or Gospel Covenant, which God was thus pleased to make with Believing Abraham, is indeed the great Charter, by which the Believing Gentiles always did, and do claim Heaven and Earth, and all the Promises they have title to. For in this respect it is, that the Apostle tells us as he doth, Gal. 3. 8. That the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Heathen through Faith; preached before the Gospel unto Abraham, saying; in thee shall all Nations be Blessed; Which he quoteth not from Gen. 17. 7, 8. but from Gen. 12. 2, 3. Where before Abraham's removal out of his own Country (and therefore long before the Covenant of Circumcision was in being) God enters into a solemn Covenant with Abraham, saying; I will make of thee a great Nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy Name great; and thou shalt be a Blessing. And I will Bless them that Bless thee, and Curse him that Curseth thee; and in thee shall all the Families of the Earth be blessed.  
§. 2. If we are to seek therefore of the Covenant of Grace that God made with Abraham, which is the Great Charter of the Gentiles hope; behold and see, lo here it is; a Covenant of Grace indeed. A Covenant truly Evangelical, as being every way Extensive, Full, Free, Absolute, and without those Conditions that the Covenant of Circumcision was manifestly clogged withal. And therefore called the Covenant of Promise, in the forementioned 3d of the Galatians; for having told us, vers. 8. of the Promise that God had made unto Abraham, that in Him should all Nations be Blessed. And having also told us, vers. 14. 16. that the blessing of Abraham was to come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ, that we might receive the Promise of the Spirit through Faith. He adds, vers. 17, 18. And this I say, that the Covenant that was confirmed before of God in Christ; the Law which was 430 years after, cannot disannul that it should make the Promise of none Effect. For if the Inheritance be of the Law, it is no more of Promise; but God gave it to Abraham by Promise. Which clearly argues the Absoluteness of this Gospel Covenant: For if it had not been Free and Absolute, but Conditional, as the Covenant of Circumcision was, and as the Legal Covenant at Mount Sinai was; then according to the Scope of the Apostles Reasoning, it had not properly been a Covenant of Promise, but a Legal Covenant; and so the Inheritance had been of the Law: For wherein differs the Law from a free Promise, but that the one is Conditional, the other Absolute? The one promiseth Life upon condition of Obedience; the other without Money, and without Price, Isa. 55. 1. And therefore the Covenant which God made with the Israelites at Mount Sinai, though it had many Glorious Promises in it; that God would be their God, and they should be his peculiar People, and Treasure, etc. Yet these Promises being clogged with Conditions of Obedience, impossible to be performed: That Covenant therefore is never presented to us in the Scripture, under the Notion, or Denomination of a Covenant of Promise; but under the Denomination of the Law, or as a Covenant of Works only. For Moses (saith the Apostle) describeth the Righteousness of the Law, that the man that doth these things shall live by them, Rom. 10. 5, And so likewise, Gal. 3. 10. As many as are of the Works of the Law, are under the Curse: For it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things that are written in the Book of the Law, to do them. And vers. 12. The Law is not of Faith, but the man that doth them, shall live in them. And for the same Reason therefore is the Covenant of Circumcision, represented to us also, under the same Denomination of the Law: Rom. 4. 13. (as shall be afterward shown) because though it is true, it had Promises in it that were full and glorious enough; yet those Promises being not absolute, but conditional, as the Covenant at Mount Sinai was, it is therefore represented to us under the same Character; and not as a Covenant of Promise, or an Evangelical Covenant: For that is the Peculiar Character or Denomination which is given by the Holy Spirit himself, to the forementioned Covenant, Gen. 12. 2, 3. which God had made with Abraham long before.  
§. 3. Wherefore (saith Dr. Owen) the Covenant of Grace; supposing it a New, Real Absolute Covenant, and not a Reformation of the Old, or a Reduction of it unto the use of our present Condition (as some, saith he, imagine it to be) must differ in the Essence, Substance, and Nature of it from that First Covenant of Works, Ibid. ut supra, p. 389.  
§. 4. The Covenant of Grace (saith Mr. Troughton, in a late Discourse of his, Entitled, Lutherus Redivivus, Part. 1. p. 111.) is expressed in the Nature and Form of a Promise, throughout the Scripture. Thus it was to our First Parents, soon after the fall, a Promise that the Seed of the Woman should overcome the Devil and his Seed: No Terms, no Conditions added, but a bare Declaration of Mercy to their Dejected, Self-condemned Consciences. Next when the Covenant was Revealed to Abraham, Gen. 12 1, 2, 3. It is a Formal Promise, that God would bless him, and all Nations in his Seed; and accordingly ever after it is called the Promise made to Abraham, which Israel waited to see performed. And the Apostle, Gal. 3. 18. affirms, that the Inheritance was given to Abraham by Promise and not by Law; and in vers. 15, 16, 17. he maketh the Covenant and Promise equipollent terms. The Law, (saith he) which was 420 years after, cannot disannul the Covenant with Abraham, that the Promise should be of none Effect. Neither was this Promise only of Christ's coming in the Flesh, but of a Blessing through Christ, vers. 14. Yea, the giving of the Holy Spirit is a part of the Blessing Promised to Abraham; That the Blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus; that we might receive the Promise of the Spirit through Faith.  
§. 5. And indeed this is that therefore that renders it sure, and certain to all the Seed therein concerned: For as it is evident, that this Gospel Covenant, mentioned Gen. 12. 2, 3. was Preached unto Abraham, long before the Covenant of Circumcision was made with him: So the Addition of the Covenant of Circumcision afterwards (as the Apostle speaks of the Law given by Moses; because of transgressions, till the Seed should come, to whom the Promise was made) could not disannul, that it should make this forementioned, and fore-established Promise to be of none Effect. For it being most plainly a Gospel Covenant, wholly free and absolute, and only to be received by Faith: Hence it follows, that it is of an Everlasting, Unchangeable Nature; and consequently sure, without any possibility of Miscarriage, unto all the Seed thereunto belonging (which the Covenant of Circumcision, being Conditional, was not) as is most excellently reasoned and argued by the Apostle to this purpose, Rom. 4. 13. where he tells us, that the Promise that Abraham should be the Heir of the World (which is the same in effect with his being the Father of all them that believe, just before spoken of) was not to him, or to his seed, through the Law; but through the Righteousness of Faith. Not through the Law; that is, not through the Covenant of Circumcision, (as shall be afterward demonstrated: For that was as much a Covenant of Works, as the Covenant at Mount Sinai was, and therefore a Legal Covenant) But through that mentioned, Gen. 12. 2, 3. which was purely Evangelical; and therefore through the Righteousness of Faith alone: Which gives the only Security to the Seed therein concerned, as is afterwards asserted, vers. 14, 15, 16. of the forementioned 4th to the Romans; For (saith he) if they, which are of the Law be Heirs, Faith is made void, and the Promise made of none Effect; because the Law worketh wrath: for where no Law is, there is no Transgression. Therefore it is of Faith, that it might be by Grace, to the end the Promise might be sure to all the Seed, not to that only which is of the Law (that is the Jews) but to that also that is of the Faith of Abraham (that is, the Gentiles) who is the Father of us all; as it is written, I have made thee Father of many Nations; according to that which was spoken; so shall thy Seed be.   

SECT. II.  
§. 1. IT is indeed suggested by Dr. Burthogg; That the forementioned Promise, That Abraham should be the Heir of the World, (which as the Apostle tells, was not to him, or to his Seed through the Law; but through the Righteousness of Faith) is to be understood in reference to Gen. 17. 8. Where God promiseth to give unto Abraham. and to his Seed after him, the Land of Canaan for an Everlasting Possession. From whence he infers, that the Covenant there mentioned, is a Covenant of Faith, and therefore a Covenant of Grace. But it doth not follow, because Canaan was promised in the Covenant of Circumcision, that therefore, according to the Apostles reckoning, that Covenant should be a Covenant of Faith: For as much as the Promise concerning Abraham's Heirship of the World, which the Apostle here speaks of, is of a vastly different Nature from the Promise of Canaan; or indeed any Terrestrial Inheritance whatsoever.  
§. 2. It is true, as the Apostle tells us, That Godliness is profitable unto all things; that is, in all respects; in respect of this World, as well as in respect of the other. And why so? Because it hath the Promise: Having the Promise of the Life that now is, as well as of that to come. In which respect it ought to be duly observed, that Abraham was promised Canaan long before the Covenant of Circumcision was made with him: For so we are told, Gen. 12. 7. The Lord appeared unto Abraham, and said, unto thy Seed will I give this Land. So Gen. 13. 15. All the Land which thou seest, to thee will I give it, and to thy Seed for ever. So likewise Gen. 15. 18. In that same day the Lord made a Covenant with Abraham; saying, unto thy Seed have I given this Land, from the River of Egypt, unto the Great River, the River Euphrates. From all which it plainly appears, that Abraham was promised Canaan long before the Covenant of Circumcision was made with him: And it was indeed therefore a free Promise, or a part of that Covenant of Promise, which the Apostle speaks of, Gal. 3. 17, 18. which was afterward ratified and confirmed by Oath, so as that it shall never be disannulled: For so we are expressly assured, Psal. 105. 8, 9, 10, 11. He hath remembered his Covenant for ever, the Word which he commanded to a thousand Generations; which Covenant he made with Abraham, and his Oath unto Isaac, and confirmed the same unto Jacob for a Law, and to Israel for an Everlasting Covenant; saying, unto thee will I give the Land of Canaan, the lot of your Inheritance. And though 'tis true, Canaan was only promised in the Letter, and was inherited only by the Carnal Seed and Descendants of Abraham; yet in the mystery, it means the whole World, of which Canaan was a part, in which he took Possession; or as it were, had Livery and Seisin given him in the name of the whole.  
§. 3. The like is to be said concerning the Spiritual Seed of Abraham; even the Gentiles also, on whom that selfsame Blessing of Abraham (as being the fruit of the Free Promise) doth also descend. For in this respect it is that the Apostle tells us, that all is ours: But how? For we are Christ's; and Christ is God's. And therefore as God hath promised, that the Meek shall inherit the Earth, Psal. 37. 11. Mat. 5. 5. So he hath also promised, that the Kingdom and Dominion, and the greatness of the Kingdom and Dominion, under the whole Heaven shall be given to the People of the Saints of the Most High, whose Kingdom is an Everlasting Kingdom, So likewise, Rev. 5. 10. Thou hast made us unto our God, Kings and Priests, and we shall Reign upon the Earth. All which are glorious Promises, and shall certainly receive their full accomplishment in the appointed Season; as being indeed no other than Gospel Promises; and of the same Nature with the free Promise of that kind, even the Promise of Canaan, made unto Abraham, long before the Covenant of Circumcision was made with him. So that it is no wonder that the Apostle tells as he doth, that Godliness hath the Promise of the Life that now is, as well as of that that is to come.  
§. 4. 'Tis true, Canaan was promised in the Covenant of Circumcision also as was also the Promise of a Celestial Inheritance too: When God told Abraham, I will be a God to thee, and to thy Seed after thee; 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, Gen. 17. 7, 8. But all these Promises, though good enough in themselves; yet being Conditional, they were therefore failable, and still liable to forfeiture, as they were contained in that Covenant. And therefore the Apostle would have us strictly to observe, that the forementioned Promise, concerning Abraham's Heirship (whatever it signifies) was not to him, or to his Seed through the Law, but through the Righteousness of Faith. For though it should be granted that it hath reference to a Terrestrial Inheritance in Canaan, and consequently to his Interest in the whole World, in the sense but now mentioned: Yet forasmuch as this Promise wa● made unto him, long before his Circumcision; and was therefore a part of the free Promise: The Apostle doth sufficiently suggest, that that was th● Promise he had most reason to trust unto, or to rely upon, as being a far surer Promise of the two (and that both to himself and his Seed also) than was the Promise of the same kind, as it was contained in the Covenant of Circumcision; which the Scripture doth so plainly represent unto us as a Conditional Covenant. The Promise (saith he) was not to him nor to his Seed, through the Law. And why not through the Law? Because (as he also tells us in the very next following words) If they which are of the Law be Heirs, Faith is made void, and the Promise made of none; effect: Because the Law worketh wrath; for where no Law is, there is no Transgression. Therefore, it is of Faith, that it might be by Grace; to the end the Promise might be sure to all the Seed. The like he tells the Galatians also, chap. 3. 18. If the Inheritance be of the Law, it is no more of Promise; But God gave it to Abraham by Promise. Which clearly argues the Freeness, or Absoluteness thereof; which the Covenant of Circumcision was not: It being evident, that it obliged all that were under it to Perfect and Universal Obedience, as the Condition of Obtaining thc Mercies therein contained, Gal. 5. 3. For I testify to every man that is Circumcised, that he is a Debtor to do the whole Law. And therefore though 'tis true, Canaan was promised in that Covenant as well as in the other; as was also the Promise of the Celestial Inheritance too; when God promised to be a God to Abraham, and to his Seed; yet those Promises there mentioned, being bounded as they were with Conditions impossible to be performed, and therefore of a Legal Stamp, and liable to forfeiture: That is not the Way, that is not the Channel, through which the Blessings in Promise must be derived unto the Heirs of Promise: For if ever they be derived, it must be through the Free Promise, and through that alone. Yea, if ever they be derived, it must be through the Free Promise. or not at all. For (saith he) vers. 21. If there had been a Law given, that could have given Life, verily Righteousness should have been by the Law: But the Scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the Promise by Faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.  
§. 5. But as we have already said, the Promise that Abraham should be the Heir of the World, is of a vastly different nature from the Promise of Canaan; neither indeed is it at all contained in the Covenant of Circumcision, where the Promise of Canaan is inserted: For it is evident, that the Promise that Abraham should be the Heir of the World, hath a single reference to his Fatherhood unto all them that believe; that is, both Jews and Gentiles; or the whole World of Believers. Thus Pareus in his Comment upon the Place, carries the sense of the Words; and so the Apostle himself interprets it, vers. 11, 12. And it is as evident, that there is no Promise at all of that kind in the Covenant of Circumcision, that Abraham should be the Common Father of all them that Believe; That Covenant having a plain reference to Abraham's Natural Posterity only; for as much as all those to whom the Promises of that Covenant were made, were bound to be Circumcised, as the Sign or Token of it; which doth not concern the Gentiles at all. So that it is the Gospel Covenant therefore which we have before spoken of, which we find mentioned. Gen. 12. 2, 3. and not the Covenant of Circumcision, mentioned Gen. 17. 7, 8, 9 that is the Great Charter, by which the Believing Gentiles always did, and do rightly claim both Heaven and Earth, and all the Promises they have Title to.   

SECT. III.  
§. 1. BUT whereas the Doctor lays a mighty stress upon those words of the Apostle before mentioned Rom. 4. 13. For the Promise that he should be the Heir of the World was not to Abraham or to his Seed through the Law; but through the Righteousness of Faith. Whereby he endeavours to prove that the Covenant of Circumcision, mentioned Gen. 17. 7, 8, 9 is that very Covenant of Grace that the Believing Gentiles are now under, and from whence all their hopes and Comforts are derived: We must of necessity therefore endeavour to overrhrow and remove the seeming strength of what he offers by way of opposition to what we have asserted, before any thorough Conclusion can be drawn.  
§. 2. The Sum then of his Argument is this; It is Evident (saith he) that the Covenant of Promise made to Abraham, which is called the Blessing of Abraham, is still in being; and is the Covenant of Grace, into a Participation of which the true Believing Gentiles are taken; which is the true ground and Foundation of all their hopes and Comforts: For thus the Apostle carries it when he affirms that God gave the Inheritance to Abraham by Promise. And by what Promise, but that ratified Covenant of Promise. I will be a God to thee and to thy Seed.— In short (saith he) this is the Climax. If Believers then Christ's; If Christ's then Abraham's Seed; If Abraham's Seed than Heirs according to the Promise: For the Promise is; I will be a God to thee and thy Seed; And I will give to thee and thy Seed. Nor doth it make any alteration in the case, that Faith is now the requisite condition of Salvation; or that we must believe to be saved. This but Evidences the more clearly that the Gospel is but a Renovation of the Covenant of Abraham: For as it is through Faith that we Gentiles do become Christ's, and by being Christ's that we become the Seed of Abraham, and consequently Heirs of Salvation according to the Promise; so it was through Faith, the Righteousness of Faith that Abraham the Father of the Faithful had the Promise himself. For so the Apostle, Rom. 4. 13. For the Promise that he should be the Heir of the World, was not to Abraham, or to his Seed through the Law; but through the Righteousness of Faith. And if the Promise made to Abraham be the ground and Foundation of all our hopes and expectations as we are Christians, and it be the true Covenant of Grace, to be sure it is still in being, or we do but beat the Air, and are at a loss; our hope is in vain, and our rejoicing vain, which God forbidden.  
I know you take it for a very strong Argument, that the Covenant of Abraham, Gen. 17. 7, 8. cannot be the Evangelical or Gospel Covenant, because it is a Mixed one, and Composed of a Temporal (as well as an Eternal) bequest: But for that Reason, I the rather take it to be Evangelical: For this is Gospel, that Godliness is profitable unto all things, that is in all Respects; In respect of this World, and in respect of the other; And why so? Why it hath the Promise. Having the Promise of the Life that now is, as well as of that to come. And what is this but a finger to point you to the Covenant of Promise, as the Evangelical Covenant, the Promise, the Blessing that did descend on the Gentiles. And indeed the Inheritance promised to Abraham, and which in, by, and under him is descended on the Gentiles, is not only a Celestial, but a Terrestrial one also: For by that Promise Abraham was not only the Heir of Heaven; but also Heir of the World. And so the Apostle styles him. And the same Apostle tells all is ours; And Abraham being Constituted by the Promise, Heir of the World; he and his descendants according to the Flesh were to take Possession of it, and to have Livery of Seisin given in Canaan; a Livery of Seisin, which was given indeed, and taken but in part of the World, (as Livery of Seisin usually is) but in the Name of the whole. From the whole of which the Doctor Infers; That that Covenant mentioned, Gen. 17. 7, 8. where this Promise of a Terrestrial Inheritance bequeathed to Abraham and his Seed, is inserted (which he takes to be the same with his being the Heir of the World) must be a Covenant of Grace, or an Evangelical Covenant: For since the Promise that Abraham should be the Heir of the World, was not to him, or to his Seed through the Law; but through the Righteousness of Faith; Therefore the Covenant mentioned Gen. 17. 7, 8. where this Promise is Inserted, must of necessity be a Covenant of Grace, and such a Covenant as on which all the Hopes and Comforts of Believing Gentiles are Built.  
§. 3. This is the substance of what the Doctor offers; by which it may be easily perceived that there is a necessity that this now mentioned Argument of his, be substantially resolved, and removed out of the way, before we can draw any thorough Conclusion from the Premises; It being true enough; That if Abraham's Heirship of the World, spoken of Rom. 4. 13. And the Promise of a Terrestrial Inheritance in Canaan, mentioned Gen. 17. 8. be one and the same thing, and not of a quite different nature; then indeed, there will be some kind of appearance, or some shadow at least of Argument in what the Doctor offers, toward the proof of what he asserteth; That the Covenant mentioned Gen. 17. 7, 8. is the Covenant of Grace. Though should it be granted that the Doctor's Notion is right; That Abraham's Heirship of the World, is to be understood of the Promise of a Terrestrial Inheritance in Canaan; Yet it will not therefore follow, that the Inheritance the Apostle speaks of, is derived unto Abraham or to his Seed, through the Righteousness of that Covenant, and consequently that it is a Gospel Covenant: Because (as hath been already observed) though that be one of the Promises contained in that Covenant; yet since the same thing had been before assured unto Abraham, and his Seed also, by virtue of the free Promise, mentioned Gen. 12. 7. etc. which the Apostle takes such special notice of Gal. 3. 17. 18. And forasmuch as the Conditional Covenant of Circumcision, might be broken as it was; and the Mercies therein contained, forfeited, as they were; which the other could not: From hence it plainly follows, that the free Promise, and that alone, is that Covenant of Grace, or Anchor of Hope, that both Abraham and his Seed were only to trust unto, and through which the Inheritance was to be derived.   

SECT. iv  
HOwever, since the Doctor lays the stress he doth upon the Argument before us; It is necessary that it be Examined, and brought to the Test, whether right or no? In order whereunto our main business will be to prove that Abraham's Heirship of the World, spoken of Rom. 4. 13. And the Promise that was made unto him of a Terrestrial Inheritance in Canaan, mentioned Gen. 17. 8. is not one and the same Promise; but of a vastly different Nature and Tendency. The one being the Great Charter of all the Gentiles hope and blessedness, in reference both to this World, and that that is to come; The other being the Promise of a Terrestrial Inheritance only, and that which concerned Abraham alone, and his Natural Offspring. And if this can be substantially proved, it will easily be acknowledged that the Doctors forementioned Argument falls to the ground. In order therefore hereunto two things must be done, and that is; First diligently to Examine the Scope of Rom. 4. 13. where the words themselves do lie that are the bottom of his Argument. And Secondly to compare that with other Scriptures that give light thereunto.  
§. 2. As to the Scope of the place mentioned; It ought to be duly observed, that in the 11th and 12th Verses, it is told us of Abraham, That he received the Sign of Circumcision, a Seal of the Righteousness of the Faith, which he had yet being Vncircumcized, that he might be the Father of all them that Believe, though they be not Circumcised, that Righteousness might be Imputed to them also. And the Father of Circumcision, to them who are not of the Circumcision only, but also walk in the steps of that Faith of our Father Abraham, which he had yet being Uncircumcised. The plain Scope of which is to show that Abraham was appointed by God as the Common Father of all sorts of true Believers whatsoever, whether Jews or Gentiles; And that this Divine Privilege was not conferred on him upon the Account of the Works he had before spoken of Verse 2. 3. or because of his Circumcision which was a main part thereof, and which he had been just now insisting on; but through Faith; Even, that Faith which he had yet being Uncircumcised. Which self same Argument he further prosecutes in the next following words. For (saith he immediately Vers. 13.) the Promise that he should be the Heir of the World, was not to Abraham or to his Seed, through the Law, but through the Righteousness of Faith. Now let it be Judged what was the Apostles meaning, as to Abraham's Heirship of the World; whether it were concerning the Promise made unto him of a Terrestrial Inheritance in Canaan, mentioned Gen. 17. 8. that in that respect he should be the Heir of the World? Or rather whether it is not to be understood concerning his Common Fatherhood to all them that Believe; which he had just before been speaking of? For there he had been plainly treating, not concerning any Terrestrial Inheritance whatsoever; but concerning Abraham's Spiritual Relation as a Father to all sorts of true Believers. And in that sense the words in the 13th Verse come in most aptly and Conerently with what he had before told u●; which was that Faith was reckoned to Abraham for Righteousness, not in Circumcision, but in Uncircumcision, even long before he was Circumcised. That he received the Sign of Circumcision a Seal of the Righteousness of the Faith which he had yet being Uncircumcised that he might be the Father of all them that Believe, as well Jews as Gentiles, and Gentiles as Jews, Verse 10. 11, 12. In which respect well might the Apostle tell us as he doth, Vers. 13. that Abraham was promised that he should be the Heir of the World; Since the whole World both▪ of Jews and Gentiles, even as many as the Lord our God shall call, were now to become his Spiritual Seed by Believing.  
§. 3. And that this is the true Scope and Genuine Sense of the place, is plain also from the following words; when he comes to the proof of what he had Asserted, Vers. 13. For (saith he Vers. 14) If they which are of the Law be Heirs; Faith is made void, and the Promise made of none effect, because the Law worketh Wrath: For where no Law is▪ there is no Transgression. Therefore it is of Faith that it might be by Grace, that the Promise might be sure to all the Seed; not to that only which is of the Law (that is the Jews) but to that also which is of the Faith of Abraham (that is the Gentiles) who is the Father of us all. What Promise is it the Apostle here speaketh of? No doubt the same Promise he had spoken of just before, even the Promise that Abraham should be the Heir of the World; or as he here expresseth it; The Father of us all. But how doth that appear? Or where is that Promise? As it is Written (saith he Vers. 17.) I have made thee a Father of many Nations, before him whom he Believed; even God who quickeneth the dead; who against hope believed in hope, that he might become the Father of many Nations, according to that which was spoken; so shall thy Seed be. Wherein it is evident what was the Apostles meaning when he tells us of the Promise that Abraham should be the Heir of the World; that is, not that he should be the Heir of Canaan, or of any Terrestrial Inheritance whatsoever (though that be true too, and is a part of the same Gospel Covenant, as hath been before proved; and shall therefore be gloriously fulfilled in the appointed Season; when not Canaan only shall be the Possession and Inheritance of God's People; but the greatness of the Kingdom and Dominion under the whole Heaven shall be given unto them) But that which the Apostle intends in these words, is, that Spiritual Relation whereunto Abraham was designed and appointed by God, as the Father of many Nations; Or the Father of all them that Believe; according to that which was spoken so shall thy Seed be. Wherein he plainly refers to the Gospel Covenant which was first Recorded, Gen. 12. 2, 3. that God had made with Abraham before his removal out of his own Country; and therefore long before the Covenant of Circumcision was made with him: For then God first promised that he would make of him a Great Nation; make his Name Great; and that in him should all the Families of the Earth be blessed; which free Gospel Covenant was again repeated; Gen. 15. 5. and Gen. 17. 4, 5. where it is promised, that there should be of the Nations innumerable, that should be Abraham's Seed by Believing. To which the Apostle plainly refers in the forementioned Rom. 4. 17. As it is written (saith he) I have made thee a Father of many Nations, before him whom he believed; according to that which was spoken, so shall thy Seed be. For in this respect we are told, Gen. 15. 6. That Abraham believed in the Lord, and he counted it to him for Righteousness.  
§. 4. And in respect of this Covenant it is, that the Apostle affirms, as before, that the Promise is sure to all the Seed. For as herein was promised a Blessing unto all the Spiritual Seed of Abraham; even the whole Family of the Faithful throughout the World, whether Jews or Gentiles; of whom, through Christ, he was to be Father (whereas there is no such Promise contained in the Covenant of Circumcision:) So the tenor of it being purely Evangelical (which the Covenant of Circumcision was not:) This therefore, and not the other, is the Great Charter, and only Firm Deed of Gift, by which the Believing Gentiles always did, and do claim Heaven and Earth, and all the Promises they have Title to.  
§. 5. Besides, that the Promise that Abraham should be the Heir of the World, cannot be understood of an Earthly Inheritance, but the call of the Gentiles; and consequently hath reference to his Universal Fatherhood to all sorts of true Believers whatsoever, whether Jews or Gentiles; is yet further evident from what the same Apostle tells us, Rom. 1●. 11, 12, 13. Have they stumbled (saith he, speaking of the Jews) that they should fall? God forbidden: But rather through their fall Salvation is come unto the Gentiles. Now if the Fall of them be the Riches of the World, and the Diminishing of them the Riches of the Gentiles; How much more their Fullness? And so likewise vers. 15. If the Casting away of them, be the Reconciling of the World, what shall the Receiving of them be, but Life from the Dead? Where the same expression is made use of in reference to the Call of the Gentiles, as had been before made use of Chap. 4. 13. concerning Abraham's Heirship: For as Abraham by Promise was to be the Heir of the World; so the Call of the Gentiles is here said to be the Riches of the World. The same expression we have likewise in reference to Christ, 1 John 2. 2. And he is the Propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole World. Not for ours only; that is, not only for us Jews, but for the sins of the whole World; that is, both Jews and Gentiles; because the Partition Wall between Jew and Gentile was now broken down. In the same sense therefore, that Christ is here said to be the Propitiation for the sins of the whole World. In the same sense is Abraham said to be the Heir of the whole World; that is, he was constituted or appointed to be an Universal Father unto all them that Believe, not only Jews but Gentiles also. And indeed, as the Blessing of Abraham is hereby said to come upon the Gentiles, through Jesus Christ, Gal. 3. 14. So had it not been for this Gospel Promise, the poor Gentiles had still remained without hope of Relief, or ground of Comfort; strangers to the Covenants of Promise, and without God in the World; there being no ground of Relief, or hope of Comfort at all afforded unto them, from the Covenant of Circumcision.  
§. 6. And in this respect therefore, whereas the Apostle tells us in the forementioned Rom. 4. 13. That the Promise that Abraham should be the Heir of the World, was not to him, or to his Seed [through the Law] but through the Righteousness of Faith. It is yet further observeble, that the Law he here speaks of, and which he doth so manifestly contradistinguish or oppose unto the Righteousness of Faith; cannot be understood concerning the Law given by Moses to that People in the Wilderness 400 years after Abraham's time (though it was of the same nature:) But it must of necessity be understood concerning the Law, or Covenant of Circumcision, which God made with Abraham himself, and his Natural Posterity; which was extant in his own time. And that this is the Law which the Apostle here intends, will evidently appear, if we duly attend unto the scope of the Apostie in the foregoing part of this fourth to the Romans: which was to show, that Abraham himself was not justified by Works; no not by his Circumcision, but by Faith, which he had long before he was Circumcised. For thus he gins, vers. 1. 2. What shall we say then, that Abraham our Father, as pertaining to the Flesh, hath found? For if Abraham were justified by Works, he hath whereof to glory, but not before God. For what saith the Scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him for Righteousness. So then Abraham was not justified by Works before God, but by Faith alone. But how doth that appear? Why, thus it, appears, vers. 9 10. Because Faith was not reckoned to him for Righteousness, when he was in Circumcision, but in Uncircumcision. And so vers. 11, 12. He received (saith he) the Sign of Circumcision, a Seal of the Righteousness of the Faith which he had, yet being Uncircumcised, that he might be the Father of all them that believe, etc. For (saith he) vers. 13. the Promise that he should be the Heir of the World (or as he had said just before, that he should be the Father of all them that believe) was not to Abraham, or to his Seed through the Law; (which must needs therefore be understood of the Law of Circumcision) but through the Righteousness of Faith. From whence, as it hath been already made evident, the Promise he here speaks of, was not derived unto Abraham, or to his Seed, through the Covenant of Circumcision; there being no such Promise at all to be found in that Covenant: So it is as manifest that the Covenant of Circumcision was not a Covenant of Faith; since it is here so plainly contradistinguished, or opposed thereunto.   

SECT. V  
ANd therefore, whereas the Apostle tells us of Abraham in the formentioned, Rom. 4. 11. That he received the Sign of Circumcision, a Seal of the Righteousness of the Faith which he had, yet being Uncircumcised. From thence to infer, that the Covenant of Circumcision was a Covenant of Faith; would be point blank to contradict the whole scope and design of the Apostle in the foregoing passages of that Chapter; which (as hath been already shown) as it was in general to prove, that Abraham was not justified by Works, but by Faith only, vers. 2. 3, 4, 5. So in particular to assure us; that Faith was not reckoned to him for Righteousness, when he was in Circumcision, but in Uncircumcision, vers. 9, 10. And what more convincing Testimony or Evidence can we desire, that the Covenant of Circumcision was not a Covenant of Faith? The Sign of Circumcision was indeed a Seal unto Abraham of the Faith which he had, in respect of the Promises made him, yet being Uncircumcised: But it doth not therefore follow, that the Promises, Gen. 17. 7, 8, 9 that God would be a God unto him, and his Seed after him in their Generations, etc. upon Condition, that he and his were Circumcised; were any part of the Covenant of Faith: For otherwise the Apostle would never have told us as he doth; that Faith was not reckoned to him for Righteousness, when he was in Circumcision, but in Uncircumcision. The Argument hence resulting therefore is : That Covenant in which Faith was not reckoned to Abraham for Righteousness, could never be a Covenant of Faith: But the Scripture is express, that Faith was not reckoned to Abraham for Righteousness, when he was in Circumcision, but in Uncircumcision; therefore the Covenant of Circumcision could never be a Covenant of Faith. Besides it is evident, that long before his Circumcision, God had promised Abraham to bless him; to make his Name Great; that he should be a Blessing; that in him should all the Families of the Earth be Blessed; that he should be the Father of many Nations, according to that which was spoken, so shall thy Seed be. Gen. 12. 2, 3. Gen. 15. 5. And it is evident that these were the Promises; upon the account whereof we are told, that he believed in the Lord, and he counted it to him for Righteousness, Gen. 15. 6. Circumcision therefore was a Seal only unto Abraham; and that of the Righteousness of the Faith which he had in respect of the Promises made him, long before his Circumcision; and that for this very purpose, that he might be the Father of all them that believe; which was his Prerogative alone: For none besides him had ever before their Circumcision, such a Faith which entitled them to such singular Promises.  
§. 2. Upon the whole; though it must be acknowledged that the Objection seems at first very Plausible; How can it be but that the Covenant of Circumcision must needs be a Covenant of Faith, since Abraham is said to have received the Sign of Circumcision, a Seal of the Righteousness of Faith? Yet we see when it comes to be duly examined, there appears no such matter: For the only Argument fairly resulting from Rom. 4. 11. can be no other than this. That Covenant, or those Promises, in respect of which Abraham is said to have received the Sign of Circumcision, a Seal of the Righteousness of Faith, must needs be a Covenant of Faith: But the Scripture is express, that Abraham received the Sign of Circumcision, a Seal of the Righteousness of the Faith which he had, yet being Uncircumcised: (which must of necessity be understood in respect of the forementioned Promises, that had been made him long before his Circumcision, and upon the account of which we are expressly told, that he believed in the Lord, and he counted it to him for Righteousness, Gen. 15. 6.) Therefore that Covenant, or those Promises, must needs be a Covenant of Faith. But then, as hath been already observed, it follows not, that the Promises made unto him, and his Seed after him, in their Generations; upon Condition of his, and their Circumcision, mentioned Gen. 17. 7, 8, 9, 10. were any part of the Covenant of Faith; since the Apostle is express, that Faith was not reckoned to him for Righteousness, when he was in Circumcision, but in Uncircumcision.  
§. 3. Circumcision therefore (as we have said) was a Seal only to Abraham; and that in respect of the Promises, made him, yet being Uncircumcised; whereby he was Confirmed in the Assurance of that Peculiar Prerogative that had been before conferred on him; and which the Apostle here expressly mentioneth. He received (saith he) the Sign of Circumcision, a Seal of the Righteousness of the Faith which he had, yet being Uncircumcised, that he might be the Father of all them that believe. In respect whereof it is evident, that Circumcision was that to the Father of the Faithful, in its Extraordinary Institution, and in his Extraordinary Circumstances, that it could not be to any of his Natural Progeny in its Ordinary Use. It was indeed appointed as a Sign or Token of the Covenant, Gen. 17. 7, 8, 9 and that both unto Abraham himself, and the rest that were under it; and so the Spirit of God himself expressly styles it, vers. 11. Whereby they were obliged unto a Perfect and Universal Obedience to the whole revealed Will and Law of God, Gal. 5. 3. For I testify to every man that is Circumcised, that he is a Debtor to do the whole Law; and hereof 'tis true, it was a Sign or Token: It being no other than the Restipulation of the Covenant on their part, Gen. 17. 9 10. Thou shalt keep my Covenant therefore, thou and thy Seed after thee in their Generations; this is my Covenant which ye shall keep.— Every manchild among you shall be Circumcised. But it doth not therefore follow, that because it was a Token of that Covenant on their part, in respect of their Duty; that it was also intended as a Seal unto them of the same Covenant on God's part, in respect of God's Promise: It being a Seal only unto Abraham; and that in respect of those Peculiar Promises made him in Uncircumcision. Nor was every ones Circumcision, so much as a Token to him of his Right to any of the Promises therein contained; as is evident in Ishmael and others, the Servants born and bred in Abraham's Family, and Strangers bought with Money, who were all to be Circumcised; to whom yet nevertheless, none of the Promises in that Covenant were made; as is plain from Gen. 17. 7, 8, 20, 21, 23, 27. whereby it is clear, that the true Reason why any were Circumcised, was the Command, not Interest in the Covenant. Much less was Circumcision a Seal to all that received it of their interest in the Righteousness of that Faith that Abraham had. And it is equally absurd to say, that Circumcision was a Seal unto all its Subjects of the Righteousness of Faith, which they had while Uncircumcised; (since many of them were never Possessors of that saying Grace, neither before or after) as to affirm that it was the Seal of a Paternal Relation to all Believers, unto every one that received it; this being Abraham's Peculiar Prerogative, and Incommunicable to any else. And indeed Circumcision was so far from being a Seal of the Gospel Covenant, or of their Interest in the Righteousness of Faith, to the rest that were under it, that it was rather▪ Token unto them of Servitude and Bondage; and such a Yoke, that as the Apostles tell them, neither they nor their Fathers were able to bear it, Acts 15. 10, 24. Gal. 5. 2. 3. Which yet it had not been, had it been to them a Seal of the Righteousness of Faith, or of the Gospel Covenant: For that brings with it true Christian Liberty and Freedom, Gal. 5. 1.   

SECT. VI  
AND therefore when the Apostle tells us, Gal. 3. 16. that to Abraham and his Seed were the Promises made; He saith not unto Seeds as of many, but as of one; and to thy Seed, which is Christ. He could not have the Covenant of Circumcision in his Eye (as 'tis generally concluded he had:) For as hath been plainly proved, that was no other than a Covenant of Works, or a Legal Covenant, obliging all that were under it to a perfect Obedience to the whole Law, Gal. 5. 3. And therefore as the Promise that Abraham should be the Heir of the World, was not derived unto him or to his Seed through the Righteousness of that Covenant: So neither was Christ the Mediator of it: He having obtained a more Excellent Ministry; by how much also he is the Mediator of a better Covenant, which is established upon better Promises, Heb. 8. 6. Better Promises, not for the Substance of them, in themselves considered. For as God promised to be a God unto that People in the Covenant of Works, made at Mount Sinai; and to take them for his Peculiar People, upon Condition of their Obedience to the Law: So in the Covenant of Circumcision; I will be a God to thee and to thy Seed; And I will give to thee and to thy Seed the Land of Canaan, etc. upon the same condition of Obedience. Thou shalt keep my Covenant therefore, thou and thy Seed after thee in their Generations. In both which the Promises themselves, are as large and as full as can be desired; And that with Respect to the Blessings of this Life, as also of that which is to come: So that the Promises of the Gospel Covenant itself cannot be better than were those under the Law, for the substance of them, or in themselves considered: For what doth the Gospel promise more? The betterness therefore of this Evangelical Covenant (whereof Christ is the only Mediator and Surety) must of necessity consist in the terms of it; the Promises thereof being free and Absolute; and only to be Received by Faith; (which the forementioned Covenants were not) And therefore called the Word of Faith which we Preach, Rom. 10. 6, 7, 8. That if thou shalt Confess with thy Mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine Heart that God raised him from the Dead thou shalt be saved. He had told us before that Moses describeth the Righteousness of the Law, that the Man which doth these things shall live by them: But (saith he) the Righteousness which is of Faith speaketh on this wise, etc. So likewise Gal. 3. 21, 22. If there had been a Law which could have given Life, verily Righteousness should have been by the Law: But the Scripture hath Concluded all under Sin, that the Promise by Faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that Believe. So also Rom. 4. 14. If they which are of the Law be Heirs, Faith is made void, and the promise made of none effect. Therefore it is of Faith, that it might be by Grace, that the Promise might be sure to all the Seed. The Gospel Covenant therefore we see is free and Absolute; Proclaiming Liberty to the Captives, etc. Isa, 61. 1, 2. And declareth that to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that Justifieth the ungodly, his Faith shall be counted to him for Righteousness, Rom. 4. 4, 5. Whereas the Covenant at Sinai, and that of Circumcision, was clogged with conditions of perfect Obedience unto the whole Law of God; and therefore Impossible to be performed. For the faultiness of both which in that respect, they are therefore now abolished. So that Christ was not the Mediator of either of these; but of this better Covenant which is Established upon these better Promises.  
§. 2. Besides, when the Apostle tells us; That to Abraham and his Seed were the Promises made; he saith not unto Seeds as of many; but as of one; and to thy Seed which is Christ. He could not have the Covenant of Circumcision in his Eye: Because the Promises of that Covenant were expressly made unto Seeds as of many Gen. 17. 7, 8. 9 I will Establish my Covenant between me and thee, and thy Seed after thee in their Generations, plainly and expressly Plural. And I will give to thee and to thy Seed after thee the Land wherein thou art a stranger, and I will be their God, still expressly in the Plural, and not in the Singular Number. And so runs the Obligation also. Thou shalt keep my Covenant therefore thou and thy Seed after thee in their Generations. Those words of the Apostle therefore Gal. 3. 16. cannot possibly refer to the Promises contained in the Covenant of Circumcision; (as it hath been generally though mistakingly imagined they do) But must of necessity refer to that Evangelical Covenant, first Recorded Gen. 12. 2, 3. I will make of thee (saith God to Abraham there) a Great Nation, and I will Bless thee, and make thy Name Great, and thou shalt be a Blessing. And I will bless them that Bless thee, and Curse him that Curseth thee; And in thee shall all Families of the Earth be Blessed. Which latter Promise is afterwards more fully Explained Gen. 22. 18. And in thy Seed shall all the Nations of the Earth be Blessed. In which respect well might the Apostle say that to Abraham and his Seed were the Promises made; he saith not unto Seeds as of many; but as of one; and to thy Seed which is Christ: For those Gospel Promises can be understood in no other Sense; but as of one: For it is plain that it is Christ alone that is the Promised Seed there spoken of; In whom God there promiseth that all the Nations of the Earth should be Blessed. To him therefore all the Promises of the Gospel were first made, Psal. 89. 27, 28, 29. In him they are all, yea and Amen, 2 Cor. 1. 20. And from him alone are they to be Communicated to all his Members, Isa. 49. 6, 8, 9 Jo. 1. 16. Jo. 6. 27. Gal. 3. 29. Some refer Gal. 3. 16. to Gen. 17. 7. But I conceive the Apostle hath here a direct and special Eye to that Promise, Gen. 22. 18. In thy Seed shall all the Families of the Earth be blessed, which runs directly parallel both in Terms and Sense with the Promise given to Abraham, Gen. 12. 3. which was before pleaded by him, Gal. 3. 8.— And if it be Objected, that the Promise there is made of or concerning Abraham's Seed, and not to his Seed; Let it be minded that all the Promises made of this Seed (viz. Christ) in one respect, may be said to be made to this Seed in another, because they are Originally Established in the Everlasting Covenant of Redemption, that was between the Father and him. Mr. Cox in his Discourse of the Covenants, page 77. 78, 79.   

SECT. VII.  
AND in this respect it is yet further Observable, That as God promiseth Abraham, Gen. 22. 18. That in his Seed should all the Nations of the Earth be blessed; plainly speaking of Christ the Promised Seed: So in the words just before he was also Expressly told; And thy Seed shall Possess the Gate of his Enemies: Not their Enemies, but his Enemies; expressly in the Singular, whereas the Promises of the Covenant of Circumcision were all his Expressly in the Plural Number: So that as the Apostle might justly say in Reference to this Gospel Covenant, that to Abraham and his Seed were the Promises made; not a single Promise only, but the Promises: So it is as evident that Seed, there, must of necessity be understood in the Singular Number: For as it is by Christ's Single Prowess, that both his and his People's Enemies are vanquished, Isa. 63. 3. John 16. ult. In which respect Abraham was told, And thy Seed shall Possess the Gate of his Enemies: So it is as evident that the following Promise, And in thy Seed shall all the Nations of the Earth be blessed; The Seed there spoken of must of necessity also be understood in the Singular, and cannot be understood in the Plural Number, as having any Reference to Abraham's Natural Posterity (nor indeed to any other sort of Seed) That as well as the foregoing Promise having a Single Reference unto Christ, the Promised Seed, to whom alone the Promises were made. And therefore the Apostle having said, 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. To give a convincing Evidence that he meant it of Christ Personal, and not Mystical (as some have Dreamt) he doth sufficiently explain his meaning in this Respect, Vers. 19 where he tells us, that the Law was added because of Transgression, till the Seed should come to whom the Promise was made. Where it is observable that the Law (that is the Mosaical Administration) is said to have been before the Seed was come, and was to have its Period then. Now if by the Seed, Christ be not to be understood Personally, but Mystically, for the Visible or Invisible Church (take which you will) than the Law could not have been before the Seed: For God had his Church in the World from the Beginning of it; and more especially in Abraham's Family, Four Hundred Years at least before the Law was given by Moses, of which Christ was the head, and they his Mystical Body. And so by this Interpretation the Seed should have been before the Law; contrary to the Apostle, who makes the Law to have been before the Seed, and to have its Period when the Seed to whom the Promise was made was come. Some do Interpret this Text in Gallatians of Christ Mystical, because of the Order of the Words. The Promise is made first unto Abraham, then unto his Seed; Therefore (say they) it is such a Seed as comes to have Right in the Promise Second to Abraham, and as his Children. But I should rather apply them to Christ as Personally Considered; For the Seed to whom the Promise is made, is the same in whom all the Nations of the Earth are Blessed, Gen. 22. 18. Now although all Believers being the Seed of Abraham are blessed with Faithful Abraham; yet they are not that Seed in whom all Nations are Blessed; but the Nations who are blessed in this Seed. And in the very next Verse, the Covenant is said to be Established of God, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in or unto Christ, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the same Seed, spoken of in the Preceding Verse. Now the Covenant is Confirmed in Christ Personal, not in Christ Mystical. Hence Pareus Concludes it is to be understood, Individue de uno Christo ex quo omnis Spiritualis Benedictio in fideles diffluit. But this also is to be observed, That Christ is given for a Covenant of the People, Isa. 42. 6. And therefore the Covenant is Established in him, and with him for all Believers. Mr. Cox in his Discourse of the Covenants, pag. 79, 80.  
§. 2. And indeed throughout this whole Chapter of Gal. 3. where Christ is spoken of, it cannot be understood of Christ Mystical, but of Christ Personal only: For so Vers. 13. Christ (saith he) hath Redeemed us from the Curse of the Law, being made a Curse for us. Is this to be understood of Christ Mystical, or Christ Personal only? Did Christ Mystical Redeem us from the Curse of the Law? So likewise Vers. 14. That the Blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ. Is it through Christ Mystical that the Blessing of Abraham is there said to come on the Gentiles? Surely that cannot be the Sense; but through Christ Personal only. In like manner therefore are we to understand him, Vers. 16. where he tells us, that to Abraham and his Seed were the Promises made; he saith not unto Seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy Seed, which is Christ. Which is further plain from the very next following words, Vers. 17. And this I say, that the Covenant that was Confirmed before of God in Christ, etc. Which must of necessity be understood of Christ Personal only: For as it is Christ alone that is given for a Covenant of the People: So it is by his Blood alone that all the Promises of the Gospel Covenant are Confirmed unto us. It is evident therefore that the Promises of the Gospel Covenant do all of them run to Christ the Inheriting Seed; to him they are made; In him do they all Centre; And by him alone are they to be Communicated to all his Members. So that those words of the Apostle Gal. 3. 16. are unfitly applied to Gen. 17. 7, 8. For as there is no Promise, nor the least hint of any Promise at all to Christ the Promised Seed, there mentioned or Recorded; And as that Covenant hath been plainly proved to be no other than a Covenant of Works, or a Legal Covenant, whereof Christ was not the Mediator: So it is as evident that those words of the Apostle have a direct and proper Reference to the Gospel Covenant, before mentioned, which had been long before made with Abraham, Gen. 12. 2, 3. And which afterward was Solemnly Renewed and Confirmed unto him, Gen. 22. 17, 18. Whereof as Christ is the alone and only Mediator: So he is the only Seed therein spoken of, to whom the Promises are made, and in and by whom alone all the Families of the Earth are Blessed.   

SECT. VIII.  
THE Doctor indeed also tells us, That the Promise to Abraham, mentioned Gen. 17. 7, 8. I will be a God to thee, and to thy Seed, etc. is a Ratified Covenant, Confirmed by two Immutable things, by Word and Oath, in which it is Impossible for God to lie; and therefore cannot be dis-annulled. And if it be not dis-annulled (saith he) it is still in Being. And in being it is, or we do but beat the Air, and are at a loss; Our Hope is in vain, and our Rejoicing in vain; which God forbidden.  
To this we Answer; That it is true, The Apostle tells us Heb. 6. 13. 14. That when God made Promise to Abraham, because he could Swear by no greater he Swore by himself; Saying, Surely, in Blessing I will Bless thee, and Multiplying, I will Multiply thee; wherein (saith he) Vers. 17. God willing more abundantly to show unto the Heirs of Promise the Immutability of his Counsel, Confirmed it by an Oath, that by two Immutable things, wherein it is Impossible for God to lie, we might have strong Consolation, etc. But what Promise is it that the Apostle here speaks of, which was thus Confirmed both by word and Oath? Was it the Promise or the Promises of the Covenant of Circumcision, mentioned Gen. 17. 7, 8. I will be a God to thee and to thy Seed, etc. By no means: For that as hath been already proved was a Legal Covenant, and is therefore now done away. And besides we do not find any Oath at all affixed, or annexed thereunto for the Confirmation thereof; As neither had the Legal Covenant at Mount Sinai, for the Confirmation of that. But the Promise which the Apostle here speaks of, hath a plain Reference unto the Evangelical Covenant before mentioned; which was first made with Abraham before his Removal out of his own Country, Gen. 12. 2, 3. which was afterward Repeated and Confirmed unto him by an Oath, Gen. 22. where God tells him, Vers. 16. 17, 18. By myself have I Sworn (saith the Lord) that in Blessing I will Bless thee (the same words the Apostle useth) and in Multiplying I will Multiply thy Seed as the Stars of Heaven, and as the Sand which is upon the Sea Shore. And thy Seed shall Possess the Gate of his Enemies. And in thy Seed shall All the Nations of the Earth be blessed; which is a full and a plain Repetition of the Covenant which God first made with Abraham Gen. 12. 2, 3. Saying, I will make of thee a great Nation, and I will Bless thee, and make thy Name great, and thou shalt be a Blessing. And I will Bless them that Bless thee, and Curse him that Curseth thee; And in thee shall all the Families of the Earth be Blessed. In both which Scriptures we have a fair and full Recital of that truly Evangelical or Gospel Covenant, which God made with Abraham; And upon which all the Hope and Comfort of Believing Gentiles is firmly built and founded. And it is plain that this is the only Covenant, which the Apostle speaks of, and as it were points with his Finger unto it, Reciting the very words and expressions of it (without taking any notice at all of the Covenant of Circumcision, or of any Expressions therein contained) as having been Confirmed before of God in Christ, Gal. 3. 17. And that as he here tells the Hebrews, both by word and Oath, that by two Immutable things in which it is impossible for God to lie, there might be strong Consolation afforded unto all the Heirs of Promise.  
§. 2. No wonder therefore, that the Apostle tells us as he doth, Gal. 3. 16. Now to Abraham and his Seed were [the Promises made] not a single Promise only, but the Promises: For as it is evident that there is a Plurality of Promises and Blessings contained in this Gospel Covenant, in reference to Abraham; The like we cannot but observe in reference to Christ himself the Promised Seed: Unto whom God doth not only here Promise, That in him should all the Nations of the Earth be blessed: But also, That he should Possess the Gate of his Enemies. Both which are most full and Comprehensive Promises; And that as well in respect of the Blessings of this World, as of that which is to come. Upon which account it is highly observable, That as all the Promises, both of the one sort as well as of the other, do all run unto Christ the Inheriting Seed; so from and by him alone they are to be Communicated to all his Members: Forasmuch as he needs them not for himself. And therefore when God told Abraham, That in his Seed should all the Nations of the Earth be Blessed, as he doth therein promise to be our God, through Christ the Mediator; And by him to bless us with all Spiritual Blessings, by giving unto us an Inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled, and that fadeth not away, which is reserved in Heaven for us: So in like manner; When God tells Abraham, That his Seed should Possess the Gate of his Enemies, God doth herein Promise to give unto us, through Christ, the Blessings, even of this World also: For so it is Explained in Reference to Christ himself, Psal. 2. 1, 6, 7, 8. Why do the Heathen rage? etc. Yet have I set my King upon my Holy Hill of Zion. I will declare the Decree: The Lord hath said unto me, Thou art my Son, this Day have I begotten thee. Ask of me, and I shall give thee the Heathen for thine Inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the Earth for thy Possession. To which same purpose we are also told, Rev. 11. 15. That upon the Sounding of the Seventh Angel, there were Great Voices in Heaven, saying, The Kingdoms of this World are become the Kingdoms of our Lord and of his Christ, and he shall Reign for ever and ever. From both which we may clearly discern the meaning of that Promise, That Christ should Possess the Gate of his Enemies; Even that the Actual Sovereignty of the whole World should at length be Committed unto him, as King of Kings, and Lord of Lords. For which very purpose he now sitteth at the Right Hand of God, from henceforth expecting till his Enemies be made his Footstool, Heb. 10. 12, 13. which Promise; as it is plainly made unto Christ himself, so it is of mighty Consequence unto his People also; Since upon the foot of this Promise depends all their happiness in this World; As upon the other, their happiness in that that is to come. For if Christ be Exalted in this World, so shall his People also. And if the Kingdoms of this World are to become The Kingdoms of our Lord and of his Christ, so also shall the Kingdom and Dominion, and the greatness of the Kingdom and Dominion under the whole Heaven, be given to the People of the Saints of the most High, Dan. 7. 27. So that since Christ is here promised, that he shall Possess the Gate of his Enemies; upon the same bottom, have his People sufficient ground to expect that they shall Possess the Gate of theirs also: Forasmuch as the same Blessedness that i● Conferred upon the Head, shall in due Season be derived to all his Members. And indeed for this Reason are all the Promises first made unto Christ himself, that he might have the single Honour, in the Distribution of the Blessings therein Contained, among his Servants and followers, Rev. 5. 9, 10, 11, 12. They sung a New Song; Saying, Thou art Worthy to take the Book, and to open the Seals thereof: For thou wast Slain, and hast Redeemed us to God by thy Blood, out of every Kindred, and Tongue, and People, and Nation. And hast made us unto our God, Kings and Priests; And we shall Reign upon the Earth. Therefore Worthy is the Lamb that was Slain, to receive Power, and Riches, and Wisdom, and Strength, and Honour, and Glory, and Blessing.   

SECT. IX.  
MOreover, That the Gospel Covenant before mentioned, and that alone, is the great Charter of the Gentiles hope, is yet further evident, from Gal. 3. For the Scripture foreseeing (saith the Apostle, Vers. 8) that God would Justify the Heathen through Faith, Preached before the Gospel unto Abraham. The Gospel? What Gospel? Was it the Promises contained in the Covenant of Circumcision, wherein God promised Abraham that he would be a God unto him, and to his Seed after him in their Generations? By no means; For that was plainly a Covenant of Works, and concerned only Abraham, and his Natural Posterity; which could yield no Comfort therefore to the Heathen. But (saith the Apostle) the Scripture foreseeing that God would Justify the Heathen through Faith (that is, freely, and without the Works of the Law) Preached before the Gospel unto Abraham; Saying, In thee shall all Nations be Blessed; that is, in Christ, the Promised Seed. And this was indeed plain Gospel; A pure Evangelical Covenant; wholly free and Absolute; containing glad Tidings even unto the Gentiles also, as well as to the Jews; And is the very Language of the Gospel Covenant before Rehearsed out of Gen. 12. 2, 3. and Gen. 22. 17, 18. And not a word or Syllable of the Expression or terms of the Covenant of Circumcision; That being plainly a Legal Covenant, and the Promises therein Contained, bounded with Conditions impossible to be performed. And in this respect it is, that he speaks as he doth in what follows. So then (saith he, Vers. 9) they which are of Faith, are Blessed with Faithful Abraham; still the Language of the Gospel Covenant. They which are of Faith (saith he) are Blessed. But how are they Blessed? Why they are Blessed a● Faithful Abraham was Blessed: And how was that? Was it in the way of Faith or Works? In the way of Doing or Believing? Not in the Way of Doing; but in the way of Believing. And accordingly the Apostle tells us, Rom. 4. 13. That the Promise that he should be the Hear of the World, was not to him, or to his Seed, through the Law; but through the Righteousness of Faith: For (saith he, Vers. 14.) If they which are of the Law, be Heirs, Faith is made void, and the Promise made of none Effect— Therefore it is of Faith, that it might be by Grace, to the end the promise might be sure to all the Seed. To which same purpose the Apostle further adds, Vers. 13, 14. of Gal. 3. That as many as are of the Works of the Law, are under the Curse: For it is Written, Cursed is every one that Continueth not in all things that are Written in the Book of the Law, to do them: But Christ hath Redeemed us from the Curse of the Law, being made a Curse for us; That the Blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ. The Reason of which last Clause. through Jesus Christ, He renders Vers. 16. to be, forasmuch as all the Promises of the Gospel Covenant, were first made unto Christ the Inheriting Seed, by and through whom alone they are to be Communicated to all his Members. Now (saith he) to Abraham, and his Seed were the Promises made: He saith not, Unto Seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy Seed, which is Christ. In all which we have the very words and Language, the Tenor and Terms (not of the Covenant of Circumcision; I will be a God to thee, and to thy Seed after thee in their Generations; as it is there plainly expressed in the Plural Number; and restrained only to Abraham's Natural Posterity; and that upon Condition of Obedience impossible to be performed; which was the Tenor of that Covenant: But) of the Gospel Covenant, before mentioned; which as it was every way free and Absolute, and therefore sure and certain to all the Seed therein concerned, Rom. 4. 13, 14, 15, 16. So it was as universally Extensible through Christ the Promised Seed; taking in both Jews and Gentiles: For in thy Seed (saith God to Abraham) shall all the Nations of the Earth be Blessed. Wherein as God's Heart and Mouth seems to be filled with Blessings through Christ, toward both Abraham himself, and all the Seed therein concerned: So doth the Apostle Recite the very same Expressions of Blessing, and Blessedness, over and over again, and that in the same Evangelical Style, pointing out unto us as with his Finger, what was that Covenant from whence all the Blessedness he speaks of, was to descend upon the Gentiles; which therefore is Represented unto us as the great Charter of the Gentiles hope; and which being Confirmed as it is, and that both by Word and Oath, shall therefore never be dis-annulled.  
§. 2. 'Tis true, the Covenant of Circumcision is called also an Everlasting Covenant: But that can be understood in no other sense, than that wherein the Priesthood of Aaron and his Sons, under the Law, was called an Everlasting Priesthood, Exod. 40. 15. which yet we know to be now abolished. And as likewise the Covenant made with Phineas was called the Covenant of an Everlasting Priesthood, Numb. 25. 13. which yet is now also done away; being only intended during the Continuance of the then present Administration. [For as Mr. Pool tells us, the word Olam, rendered for ever, doth not always signify Eternity: But a long Continuance; as is evident (saith he) from Gen. 17. 13. and Exod. 21. 16.] And thus was it in respect of the Covenant of Circumcision; which forasmuch as it was not Confirmed both by Word and Oath, as the Gospel Covenant made with Abraham was; and forasmuch as Circumcision itself, which was the very Sign and Token of it, is now Repealed; and more especially forasmuch as though God did indeed promise to Establish his Covenant between him and them, for an Everlasting Covenant; yet still it was, provided they kept his Covenant, and fulfilled the Condition thereof on their part; in which respect it was as much a Covenant of Works, as any of the other Covenants were, that have been before Discoursed of: From hence it inevitably follows, that it is now revoked and done away, Acts 15. 24. Col. 2. 14. Heb. 8. 7, 13. whereas the Gospel Covenant, being every way Free and Absolute, it is therefore unchangeably sure and certain, to all the Seed thereunto belonging, as it is expressly affirmed by the Apostle, Rom. 4. 13, 14, 15, 16. And as it had been for the same Reason before asserted by the Prophet David, 2 Sam. 23. 5. and by God himself, Isa. 55. 1, 3.   

SECT. X.  
BUT whereas we are told That it must needs have occasioned many clamours among, the Jews, and have been a great Bar against their Reception of the Gospel; had they been told that the Covenant they so much trusted in was now repealed, and their Seed cast out of the Church. It is manifest to those whose Eyes are open, that the Repeal of the Covenant of Circumcision (which the Jews could not but sufficiently understand by the Removal of the very Sign and Token of it) did indeed occasion no small Dissatisfaction unto them; as is evident from sundry places in the Acts, as well as also in the Epistle to the Galatians. More particularly, Acts 21. 20, 21. where James and the rest of the Elders present, tell Paul; That many thousands of the Jews which believed, and were all zealous of the Law, had been informed of him, that he had taught all the Jews which were among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying, That they ought not to Circumcise their Children, neither to walk after the Customs. And it is plain, that he had taught this Doctrine unto them, which had occasioned no small Dissension among them. For to this same purpose he expressly tells the Galatians, Chap. 5. 2, 3, 4. Behold, I Paul, say unto you, That if you be Circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing: For I testify again, to every man that is Circumcised, That he is a Debtor to do the whole Law; Christ is become of no Effect unto you: whosoever of you are justified by the Law, you are fallen from Grace. From whence, as we may clearly discern the Nature of the Covenant of Circumcision; that it was no other than a Covenant of Works, or a Legal Covenant, which he doth herein so plainly declare unto them to be now Repealed: So it doth as plainly appear, that from hence it came to pass, that Christ became so great an Offence unto the Jews, and the Gospel so sore a Stone of Stumbling, and Rock of Offence unto them all; yea to many of them after they had submitted to the Gospel: Yea, the Gentile-Churches themselves, were scarce, if at all, preserved from stumbling hereat with the Jews, (as appears from what the Apostle writes to the Galatians upon this Subject;) though all this loss and change of State and Privileges which they so much repined at, well considered, would amount to no more than what befalls a man, who from the Privileges of a Servant, is Invested into the Privileges of a Son. And this was the very Case, Gal. 4. 4. God hath sent forth his Son, etc. vers. 5. to Redeem them that were under the Law, that we might receive the Adoption of Sons: vers. 7. Wherefore thou art no more a Servant, but a Son; as hath been before at large explained. Neither indeed doth the present Alteration, or Change of State▪ occasion any Real or Substantial Loss unto the Children of Believers, any more than to themselves; but much of Spiritual Advantage rather to both, as hath been already discovered in the foregoing part of this Discourse.  
§. 2. And indeed, what needed the Jews to have been so much startled, or offended at the abolishing of Circumcision, as they were; if they had not plainly discerned that it touched their Main Copy hold, or the Covenant itself, they so much Gloried in, and Boasted of, Mat. 3. 9 Joh. 8. 33. to which Circumcision was annexed; and that the taking away of the One, was a plain Sign of the Abrogation of the Other also? Else they had no Pretence, or Shadow of Reason to make the Clamours they did: For if they had understood, that the Covenant itself had remained entire, and only the Signs changed: Or had Paul told them, their Children should be Baptised, and that Baptism was come into the room of Circumcision; (which had been absolutely necessary if it had been so) In all likelihood, they had quietly submitted to the present Alteration: But this was plainly therefore the ground of their Quarrel; for that the Covenant itself was now broken down; which they could not but understand by the Removal of the very Sign and Token thereof; from whence they could not but conclude, that their so long enjoyed Privilege of Church-membership for themselves and Children also, upon the bare account that Abraham was their Father, was now abolished, Mat. 3. 9   

SECT. XI.  
MOreover, That the Gospel Covenant before mentioned, Gen. 12. 2, 3. and Gen. 22. 16, 17, 18. is the only ground of the Gentiles hope, and indeed of the Jews also: The Apostle Peter likewise doth plainly declare unto us; when he tells the Jews that were pricked in their Hearts, for their Crucifying of Christ, as he doth, Acts 2. 38, 39 Repent and be Baptised, every one of you, in the Name of Jesus Christ, for the Remission of Sins, and you 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 sholl call. Where by the Promise unto them, and to their Children; we are not to understand the Covenant of Circumcision: For though God did therein promise to be a God to Abraham, and to his Seed; which was indeed a most Blessed and Comfortable Promise in itself considered, and contains in it the Sum of all our Blessedness: But how should they come at it? It is sensed about with a Flaming Sword, or a Fiery Burning Law, that turneth every Way, to keep the Way to the Tree of Life. To insist therefore upon that Covenant, or that Promise, as it is thus Bounded, will afford no Relief: For according to that Covenant they must be Circumcised, and keep the Whole Law, Act. 15. 1. 5. Gal. 5. 3. which is impossible to be performed, Gal. 3. 10, 11, 12. And therefore how Sweet, or Full, or Glorious soever, the Promise is, in itself Considered; yet it is impossible (bounded as it is) that ever they should come to obtain the Benefit of it: Which therefore could be no Proper Remedy for the Ease of their present Misery, or the Removal of their present Perplexity. And therefore instead of directing them to that Covenant; he plainly directs them to another, full of Grace and Truth, even the Gospel Covenant : For the Promise (saith he) is unto you, and to your Children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call. Plainly pointing to the Covenant which God made with Abraham, Gen. 12. 2, 3. long before the Covenant of Circumcision was in being; and which was afterward renewed unto him, Gen. 22. 16, 17, 18. Even that Ratified Covenant; That Free and Absolute Covenant, which had been confirmed both by Word and Oath; that by two immutable things, in which it was impossible for God to lie; there might be strong Consolation afforded unto all the Heirs of Promise. And that this is the Covenant that he directs them to, and not the Covenant of Circumcision, is evident from the words themselves: For the Promise he speaks of, was not only unto them, and to their Children: But unto all that are afar off (as Paul tells the Ephesians, Chap. 2. 12.) Even unto the Gentiles also, as many as the Lord our God shall call. Which Promise unto the Gentiles, is not to be found in the Covenant of Circumcision: For that was made unto Abraham, and his Natural▪ Posterity only; whereby they were Obliged unto Circumcision, and to keep the whole Law; and not a word of the Gentiles there: For it is plain, that as God there promiseth to be a God unto Abraham, and to his Seed: So the same Seed that are concerned in the Promises there mentioned, were also Commanded to be Circumcised. Thou shalt keep my Covenant therefore, thou and thy Seed after thee in their Generations, vers. 9 This is my Covenant which ye shall keep between me and you, and thy Seed after thee: Every manchild among you shall be Circumcised, Gen. 17. 10. The same Seed therefore that is the Subject of the Promises, vers. 7, 8. is the Subject of the Obligation, vers. 9, 10. So that it is evident, that the Gentiles are not at all concerned in that Covenant, as being no way concerned in Circumcision; the Condition thereof. The Promise therefore that Peter intends, must needs be the Free Promise, or the Gospel Covenant before mentioned: Whereof as Christ is the Alone, and Only Mediator: So he is also the only Seed therein immediately concerned: From, and by whom all Gospel Blessings must be derived unto all his Spiritual Offspring. And in this Covenant the Gentiles are indeed concerned as well as the Jews: For therein all the Kindred's, Families, and Nations of the Earth, are promised to be Blessed; even in Christ the Promised Seed. And therefore well might the Apostle tell them as he doth, That the Promise he now spoke of to them, was not only to them, and to their Children, but to all that were afar off also; even as many as the Lord our God shall call. For so Paul tells the Galatians also; That Christ hath Redeemed us from the Curse of the Law, that the Blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles, through Jesus Christ, Gal. 3. 13, 14. Not upon the Jews only, but the Gentiles also.  
§. 2. And that this is the Gospel Covenant that Peter here Preacheth unto these Bleeding Jews, is yet further evident, from what he tells them in Chap. 3. 25, 26. You (saith he there) 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 Kindred's of the Earth be blessed; unto you first, God having raised up his Son Jesus, sent him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from his iniquities. Where we have the very Words and Terms of the Gospel Covenant recited, as it was at first made with Abraham, Gen. 12. 2, 3. and Gen. 22. 16, 17, 18. You (saith he) are the Children of the Covenant. What Covenant? Doth he mean the Covenant of Circumcision, in which God Promised Abraham; saying, I will be a God to thee, and to thy Seed after thee, upon Condition, that thou and they be Circumcised. etc. No, saith Peter, I do not mean that Covenant; but the Covenant which God made with our Fathers; saying unto Abraham, And in thy Seed shall all the Kindred's of the Earth be Blessed. The Covenant of Circumcision concerned your selves alone, and was plainly Conditional, and therefore failable. But the Covenant that I speak to you of, is a Free Covenant, Sure and Certain; and that which concerns not you alone, but all the Kindred's of the Earth. Wherein we are duly to observe, that instead of directing them to the Covenant of Circumcision made with Abraham, Gen. 17. 7, 8. (whereof there is not the least Word or Syllable expressed in Peter's present words to the Jews, nor in all the New Testament besides; that being no other than a Bondage Covenant, Gal. 5. 1, 2, 3, 4 Acts 15. 1, 5, 10. as the Covenant at Sinai was; and so no Proper Remedy for the Removal of their Present Misery;) he rather directs them to that most Comfortable Promise, first mentioned, Gen. 12. 2, 3. And afterward by Solemn Oath Confirmed, Gen. 22. 16, 17, 18. That in Abraham's Seed should all the Kindred's of the Earth be Blessed. And this was home to the Point; it being bot● a free and a full Promise; and therefore an Answerable Remedy for their present Malady: For if God hath freely promised that in Christ (who is Abraham's Seed) all the Kindred's of the Earth shall be Blessed: Why then there is ground of hope for you; even for you also, though you have been the Betrayers and Murderers of the Lord of Glory: And not only is there ground of hope for you, but even for your Children also, on whom, as well as on yourselves, you have wished his Blood to be: And accordingly he Preaches Christ unto them in the very next words; Unto you first, God having raised up his Son Jesus, sent him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from his iniquities; wherein we are to note, That as the Gospel Covenant is a Covenant of Blessing; full of Blessings; Heaps upon Heaps of Blessings; Innumerable Blessings, I will Bless thee, (saith God to Abraham) and thou shalt be a Blessing: I will Bless them, that Bless thee: And again, Surely, in Blessing, I will Bless thee; and in thy Seed shall all the Nations of the Earth be Blessed: So in pursuance of the same Evangelical Promise, and Covenant of Blessing (saith Peter here) God having raised up his Son Jesus, sent him to Bless you, in turning away every one of you from his iniquities: Wherein that which was required before as a Condition, is now become a Main Branch of the Promised Blessing: For before the Promise was unto them that turn from Transgression in Jacob: But God (saith he) hath sent his Son Jesus to Bless you, by turning away ungodliness from Jacob; even in turning away every one of you from his iniquities.  
§. 3. It is undeniaby evident therefore, that Peter, instead of directing them to the Covenant of Circumcision, for their present Relief, He rather directs both them and theirs to have recourse to that Evangelical Covenant, which God had made with their Fathers; saying unto Abraham, And in thy Seed shall all the Kindred's of the Earth be Blessed: For this, as it was every way full and extensive; so it was as free and absolute: And therefore the most Proper Remedy for the Relief of their Wounded Spirits: Whereas had he directed them to the Promises contained in the Covenant of Circumcision, that had left them still in Despair; for that obliged them to Perfect Obedience, as the Condition of obtaining the Mercies therein Promised, which was impossible to be Performed. To tell them therefore of the Promises contained in that Covenant, was altogether beside his present Design; which was to give I ●elief to their Wounded Spirits, which the Promises of that Covenant, thus Bounded as they were, could never Accomplish.   

SECT. XII.  
AND whereas Peter tells the Jews, That the Promise was unto them, and to their Children. We are not to understand it, as if the Gospel Covenant that Believers are now under, was at all made with Abraham, and his Natural Seed; and consequently with them and their Natural Seed: Or that any of the Promises thereof were immediately made unto him, as the Promises contained in the Covenant of Circumcision were. In which respect it is highly observable, that a● the Spirit of God himself doth plainly inform us of a twofold Covenant made with Abraham; the one a Covenant of Grace, and the other of Works: So he is pleased accordingly also to make a plain distinction between them, as to the Persons, or Parties, therein respectively concerned. For if we look into Gen. 12. We shall there find, that the former is made between God and Abraham only; and that with respect unto his Seed Christ, and his Spiritual Offering: Whereas the latter is plainly made between God and Abraham and his Natural Posterity. The first account which the Scripture gives us of the former, we meet with (as hath been before noted) Gen. 12. 2, 3. Where the Lord is pleased to enter into a Solemn Covenant with Abraham; saying, I will make of thee a great Nation; and I will Bless thee, and make thy Name great; and thou shalt be a Blessing: And I will Bless them that Bless thee, and I will Curse him that Curseth thee: And in thee shall all the Families of the Earth be Blessed. To the same purpose also the Lord tells Abraham, Gen. 17. 2. I will make my Covenant between me and thee, and will multiply thee exceedingly; vers. 3. And Abraham fell on his Face, and God talked with him, saying, As for me, behold my Covenant is with thee, and thou shalt be a Father of many Nations; neither shall thy Name any more be called Abram, but thy Name shall be called Abraham: For a Father of many Nations have I made thee. And I will make thee exceeding fruitful, and I will make Nations of thee, and Kings shall come out of thee. Which is a plain Transcript, or Rehearsal of the several Free Promises of the Gospel Covenant, that God had before made with Abraham, Gen. 12. 2, 3. Gen. 15. 5, 6. which are here gathered up together, and plainly Represented unto him, under the denomination of a Covenant, and such a Covenant as God had made with Abraham himself alone, not with his Natural Offspring. For saith God, vers. 2. I will make my Covenant between me and thee: And vers. 4. As for me, behold my Covenant is with thee, and thou shalt be a Father of many Nations; neither shall thy Name any more be called Abram, but Abraham, for a Father of many Nationt have I made thee. So that this Covenant could have relation to no other; it being no way applicable to any other Person whatsoever, whether Isaac or Jacob, or any else of his Natural Offspring, to be Father of many Nations; or as the Apostle explains it, The Father of all them that Believe, as Abraham was; his Prerogative herein being singular, and incommunicable to any else. Whereas the Covenant of Circumcision was as plainly made between God and Abraham, and his Natural Seed also; as Gen. 17. 7, 8, 9 declare. And (saith God, vers. 7. Or, Moreover, as 'tis in the Old Translation, as proceeding to speak of another Covenant, than what he had been before insisting on) 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: vers. 8. And I will give unto thee, and to thy Seed after thee, the Land wherein thou art a Stranger; all the Land of Canaan for an Everlasting Possession; and I will be their God: vers. 9 Thou shalt keep my Covenant therefore, thou and thy Seed after thee, in their Generations: vers. 10. This is my Covenant which ye shall keep between me and you, and thy Seed after thee; every Manchild among you shall be Circumcised.  
§. 2. So that though the Promises of the Covenant of Circumcision were indeed made unto Abraham, and his Natural Seed also; yet the Promises of the Gospel Covenant, we see were not, and the Apostle expressly disowns it, 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. For though God doth indeed tell Abraham, Gen. 12. 7. Unto thy Seed will I give this Land: And Gen. 13. 15. All the Land which thou seest, to thee will I give it, and to thy Seed for ever: And Gen. 15. 18. In that same day the Lord made a Covenant with Abraham; saying, Unto thy Seed, have I given this Land, from the River of Egypt, unto the Great River, the River Euphrates. Which are all plainly Gospel Promises, and made unto Abraham long before the Covenant of Circumcision was made with him, and therefore a part of the free Promise, or the Covenant of Promise, which the Apostle speaks of, Gal. 3. 17, 18. Yet by Seed, in all these Promises, we are plainly to understand no other than Christ himself: For so it is explained to our hands, not only in Gal. 3. 16. but also Gen. 22. 16, 17. By myself have I sworn (saith the Lord) that in Blessing, I will Bless thee; and in Multiplying, I will multiply thy Seed as the Stars of the Heaven, and as the Sand which is upon the Sea shore: And thy Seed shall possess the Gate of his Enemies: Expressly in the singular number; not the Gate of their Enemies, but the Gate of his Enemies. And accordingly it follows, vers. 18. And in thy Seed shall all the Nations of the Earth be Blessed; Which must of necessity be understood of Christ alone. And whereas Christ is here Promised, That he shall Possess the Gate of his Enemies; It is plainly Synonimous, or of the same signification with the forementioned Promises; Unto thy Seed will I give this Land, Gen. 12. 6. And all the Land which thou seest, unto thee will I give it, and to thy Seed for ever, Gen. 13. 15. For to Abraham and his Seed (saith the Apostle) were the Promises made: He saith not, And to Seeds, as of many; but as of one; And to thy Seed, which is Christ. And so again, Gen. 15. 18. Unto thy Seed have I given this Land, from the River of Egypt, unto the Great River, the River Euphrates: Which is by the Psalmist most plainly applied to Christ, in the Person of Solomon, Psal. 72. 8, 9 He shall have Dominion also from S●a to Sea, and from the River unto the ends of the Earth. They that dwell in the Wilderness shall bow before him, and his Enemies shall lick the Dust. The Kings of Tarshish, and of the Isles, shall bring Presents. The Kings of Sheba and Seba shall offer Gifts; yea, all Kings shall fall down before him; all Nations shall serve him. Where we have a clear Paraphrase upon the Promises made to Abraham and to his Seed; when he was told, All the Land which thou seest, to thee will I give it, and to thy Seed for ever: And thy Seed shall Possess the Gate of his Enemies. For as much as God hath by Promise given both unto Abraham, and unto his Seed Christ also, all those countries' now possessed by his Enemies; which we see is by the Psalmist interpreted, not only as having relation to Canaan, but unto his Universal Dominion over all the Earth. For Christ is here promised, not only that he shall have Dominion from Sea to Sea (or as God told Abraham, from the River of Egypt, to the Great River, the River Euphrates) but from the River to the ends of the Earth: That they that dwell in the Wilderness shall bow before him, and his Enemies shall lick the Dust: That the Kings of Tarshish, and of the Isles, shall bring Presents: The Kings of Sheba, and Seba shall offer Gifts; yea, all Kings shall fall down before him, and all Nations shall serve him. And accordingly he concludes, vers. 18, 19 Blessed be the Lord God, the God of Israel, who only doth wondrous things; and blessed be his Glorious Name for ever: And let the whole Earth be filled with his Glory; Amen and Amen.  
§. 3. The Promises of the Gospel Covenant made with Abraham, therefore, we see, do all of them run directly to Christ the inheriting Seed: To him they are made: In him do they Centre: And from him alone, all the Blessings in Promise are derived unto all his Spiritual Offspring, Gal. 3. 29. If ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's Seed, and Heirs according to the Promise. And therefore though God doth indeed Promise in this Gospel Covenant, to multiply Abraham's Seed as the Stars of Heaven, and as the Sand which is upon the Sea shore, Gen. 22. 17. (which we are to understand, no doubt, in reference to Abraham's Natural Offspring, as well as of those Multitudes, that in all Nations were to become his Spiritual Seed by believing, Gen. 15. 5. Rom. 4. 17, 18. In which respect Peter tells the Jews, Act. 3. 25. Ye 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 Kindred's of the Earth be blessed.) Yet there is not a word of blessing therein immediately Pronounced; either upon Abraham's Natural Offspring; or those that in all Nations were to become his Seed by Believing: All the Blessings being reserved for the Firstborn among many Brethren, Psal. 89. 27, 28, 29. Rom. 8. 29. who is therefore represented unto us as the Hear of all things, Heb. 1. 2. Even Christ the Promised Seed, Gal. 3. 18, 19 To whom the Promises were made, Gal. 3. 16. And who must therefore have the single Honour and Prerogative concerning the Distribution of all the Blessings therein Promised, among his Members, Children, and Brethren, Isa. 49. 6, 8, 9 Joh. 1. 16, 17. Joh. 6. 27. Gal. 3. 29.  
§. 4. 'Tis true, God pronounced a Blessing upon Isaac, and upon Jacob also, who were Abraham's Natural Offspring, as well as his Spiritual Seed, by Believing. And accordingly we find God speaking to Isaac, Gen. 26. 3, 4. Sojourn in this Land, and I will be with thee, and will Bless thee: For unto thee, and unto thy Seed will I give those Countries: And I will perform the Oath which I swore unto Abraham thy Father: And I will make thy Seed to multiply as the Stars of Heaven. And I will give unto thy Seed all these Countries: And in thy Seed shall all the Nations of the Earth be Blessed. I will Bless thee (saith God to Isaac,) But how? No otherwise than as the Gentiles are Blessed; that is, through Christ the Promised Seed, in whom all the Nations of the Earth are Blessed, Gal. 3. 8, 14. For it cannot be imagined that the Gospel Blessing should be derived to any of Abraham's Natural Offspring one-way, and to Believing Gentiles another: But they must all, both the one as well as the other, be beholding to Christ for the Blessing, if ever they have it: For if all the Nations of the Earth are Blessed in Christ; then the Jews as well as the Gentiles, must all of them, if at all, be Blessed that way also, Gal. 3. 29.  
§. 5. In the Covenant of Circumcision indeed God promiseth Abraham, to be a God, not only to him, but to his Seed after him, in their Generations; meaning his Natural Offspring; wherein a Blessing is immediately pronounced upon them all: But that was only upon Condition of their Obedience: As was also that at Sinai; which Covenant they broke, they Continued not in it, and God regarded them not, Heb. 8. 8, 9▪ And both being of the same Stamp made with the same People, and making up one and the same Old Covenant; it is therefore now Abolished, Heb. 7. 18. Heb. 8. 13. Coll. 2. 14. So that that could not be the Promise that Peter speaks of. How are we then to understand those words of Peter before mentioned, The Promise is unto you, and to your Children? Why, plainly thus, Though the Conditional Covenant of Circumcision is now done away: So that you have no further pretence, or Plea of that kind left you: And though the Promses of the Gospel Covenant do all of them run directly to Christ, the Promised Seed; yet still he might justly enough assure them that the Promise was to them, and to their Children also: Because God had therein promised that in Abraham 's Seed, that is, in Christ, All the Families of the Earth should be Blessed. And upon this Bottom there was sufficient ground of Comfort, not only for the Jews, and their Children; But for the Gentiles also, that were afar off; even as many as the Lord our God shall call: this being a most full and comprehensive Promise; every way free and absolute; and therefore Ministering Suitable Relief, even unto the Jews themselves, that had been the Betrayers and Murderers of the Lord of Glory; yea and unto their Children also, on whom, as well as on themselves, they had wished his Blood to be: And therefore though the Original Grant, or Promise was not made unto them, or their Children; or to any others immediately; yet at Second-hand Rate, at least, it did sufficiently appertain both unto them and their Children also: For, saith he, Acts 3. 26. God having raised up his Son Jesus, sent him to Bless you, in turning away every one of you from his iniquities. Which he doth immediately subjoin upon his Rehearsal of the forementioned General Promise, that in Abraham 's Seed should all the Kindred's of the Earth be Blessed; Unto you first, God having raised up his Son Jesus, sent him to Bless you, etc. Whereby as Peter doth sufficiently intimate, that the Promise was both unto them and their Children also; so that God would no longer deal with them immediately, as he had done in the Covenant of Circumcision, and in the Legal Covenant made with their Fathers at Sinai; or by any merely Humane Mediator whatsoever, as then: But they must expect all their Blessings now at the hand of Christ: For (saith he) God hath sent him to Bless you, &c And so likewise, Act. 5. 31. Him hath God exalted with his own Right hand to be Prince and a Saviour, for to give Repentance unto Israel, and the forgiveness of Sins. Hands off therefore from the Old Covenant; whether that in Moses his time, or the Covenant of Circumcision in Abraham's time: For God is a Consuming Fire, and there is no dealing with him at that Rate any longer; but through the Mediation of Christ alone; who hath obtained a more Excellent Ministry, by how much also he is the Mediator of a Better Covenant which is established upon better Promises.   

SECT. XIII.  
FOR a Conclusion therefore of the present Point; It is observable, that as the forementioned Covenants, both that mentioned Gen. 17. 7, 8, 9 as well as those mentioned, Gen. 2. Exod. 19 Exod. 20. and Deut. 29. were all Conditional, and therefore Legal Covenants; requiring strict and perfect Obedience, as the Condition propounded, in order to the Enjoyment of the Mercies Contained in them: Which are all of them therefore done away in Christ. So on the other hand, we see that the Covenant that God made with Abraham, Gen. 12. 2, 3. Gen. 17. 2, 3, 4. and Gen. 22. 16, 17, 18. was wholly Free, and Absolute, and therefore purely Evangelical, and that which never shall be disannulled, being Confirmed both by Word and Oath; and consequently sure to all the Seed therein concerned. For as therein God hath Absolutely promised, that in Christ the Promised Seed all the Nations of the Earth shall be Blessed (which according to the whole Current of the Scriptures must of necessity be limited to the Elect, or the true Believers of all Nations, that all that shall be blessed, shall be blessed by this means, and no other way:) So lest it should be suspected that any Condition should start up, whereby they might either be hindered from obtaining the Promised Blessing, or forfeit it when in Possession thereof; we are therefore also told, that God having raised up his Son Jesus, hath sent him to Bless us by turning away every one of us from his Iniquities. And it is as plain that of the same Nature and Tenor is ●he Covenant mentioned, Deut. 30. 6. As was also the Covenant which God made with Noah, Gen. 9 9, 10, 11. As also those mentioned, Jer. 31. 31, 32, 33. Jer. 32. 38, 39, 40. Ezek. 36. 25, 26, 27. Heb. 8. 7, 8, 9, 10, 11. For as God Promiseth to the Israelites, Deut. 30. 6. That he will Circumcise their Heart, and the Heart of their Seed to Love the Lord their God with all their Heart, and with all their Soul, that thy mightlive: So in Jer. 31. Jer. 32. and Heb. 8. the Lord there also promiseth unto the House of Israel, and to the House of Judah, after those Days, to put his Law in their Inward parts, and to Writ it in their Hearts; and that as he will not turn away from them to do them good, so neither shall they departed from him, etc. Wherein, as well as in the Gospel Covenant before mentioned, which the Believing Gentiles are now under; the terms are not Conditional or failable; I will, if ye will: But Absolute and Sovereign; I will, and ye shall. So that that which God had before required, as the Condition of the Covenant of Works, and was not before Promised; is now become a main Branch of the Covenant of Promise itself.  
§. 2. And therefore, when the Apostle tells us, Gal. 3. 21. That if there had been a Law given, that could have given Life, verily Righteousness should have been by the Law; from hence it appears; that the Gospel Covenant doth more for us, than the Legal did: For it giveth Life, and then Enables to the performance of that which it requireth of us; whereas from what the Apostle there tells us, it appears that the Legal Covenant did not give Life, and that it failed because it was Conditional. The Law indeed shows us our Duty, but gives no strength to perform it. The Gospel Covenant doth both, by Writing the Law in the Heart. Hence it is truly and properly a Covenant of Grace, as not depending at all upon Works: For if it be of Works, than it is no more Grace; otherwise Work is no more Work, Rom. 11. 6. And if by Grace, than it is no more of Works: Otherwise Grace is no more Grace. And therefore Christ is said to have obtained a more Excellent Ministry than that of Moses, by how much also he is the Mediator of a better Covenant, which is Established upon better Promises, Heb. 8. 6. 'Tis true the Promises for the Substance of them (as hath been before observed) are the same as before; I will be their God, and they shall be my People. But now the terms are altered: For whereas before it depended upon the Works of our Obedience; Now Faith alone is required in order to the receiving; and consequently in order to our participation of them. Thus Paul directs the Jailor. Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, Acts 16. 31. So Rom. 4. 5. To him that worketh not, but believeth on him that Justifieth the ungodly, his Faith is Counted for Righteousness. And in like manner the Apostle tells us, Gal. 3. 22. That the Scripture hath Concluded all under Sin, that the Promise by Faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that Believe. Not that Believing is the Condition of the Promise, (as 'tis generally Asserted) but a Designation rather of the Persons to whom the Promise is given; that is, to Believers; or a Declaration of the Way, in which the Promise is given, that is in a way of Believing. For indeed Faith is not the Condition, but the Fruit of the Promise: For if it be the Condition; either it must be wrought by us of ourselves; Or it must be given us of God. If it be to be wrought by ourselves; Then is the Promise of Grace worse and harder than the Covenant of Works which God made with our First Parent: For though it was required of Adam to do and live; yet he had then a Power of Doing; But so have not we of Believing: Yea no more was required of him than was put into his Nature: For the Covenant of Works was Written in his Nature; but so is not Faith in ours. If it be given us of God (as the Scripture doth plainly affirm it is, Eph. 2. 8. For by Grace are ye saved through Faith, and that not of yourselves, it is the Gift of God) than it is given by virtue of some Promise: For God gives nothing but by virtue of some Promise; which Promise can be no other than the Free Promise, the Promise of Grace: From whence it plainly follows, that the Covenant of Grace is wholly free and Absolute; Since Faith itself is the Fruit, and therefore cannot be the Condition thereof.  
§. 3. So that the Material Difference between the Covenant of Grace and that of Works, Consisteth in the Different Terms of either: The one being Conditional, the other free and Absolute. Not that we are therefore discharged from Duty under the Gospel: For as the Apostle tells us by way of Answer to the same Objection, Rom. 3. 31. Do we then make void the Law through Faith? God forbidden, yea we Establish the Law. Because that Obedience which was before, the Obedience of Servants, and Slaves, is now become Filial, or Son like; Not for Life, as under the Legal Covenant: but from a Principle of Life already received, which Powerfully Constraineth, and Effectually Enableth unto the Love, and Service of God, 2 Cor. 5. 14. 15. Tit. 2. 11, 12. Tit. 3. 8. It is certain therefore, that Working is required under the Covenant of Grace, as much as under the Covenant of Works itself: But not for the same purpose, nor from the same Principle. Not for the same Purpose; forasmuch as no Works of any kind whatsoever, as done or Performable by us, are at all designed as the matter of our Justification before God's Presence, under the Gospel Covenant, Rom. 3. 20. Tit. 3. 5. though they were so propounded under the Legal, Rom. 10. 5. Nor from the same Principle: Forasmuch as Good Works are not Previous to Faith, but the Consequent of it: That being the only Principle from whence all true Gospel Obedience flows, Heb. 11. 4▪ 5, 6, etc.   

SECT. XIV.  
§. 1. HAving therefore, we hope, Substantially proved that the Covenant of Circumcision, which God made with Abraham, and his Natural Posterity, mentioned Gen. 17. 7, 8. 9, 10. was not other than a Covenant of Works; As also that the Covenant mentioned Deut. 29. wherein the Jews and their little ones were Concerned, was of the same stamp; as well as that made at Mount Sinai, mentioned Exod. 19 5. and Exod. 20. All which were but several Repetitons of the Covenant of Works made with our First Parent; And therefore called the Old, or the First Covenant, Heb. 8. 7, 13. And forasmuch as 'tis as plain and evident, that they are all of them done away in Christ, as hath been already proved: From hence therefore, it unavoidably follows, that all the Arguments for the Support of Infant's Church Membership and Baptism under the Gospel, which are founded upon the like Privileges granted unto the Natural Posterity of Abraham, under the former Administration; do of themselves fall to the ground: Forasmuch as the Covenants themselves, which those Privileges were then Bottomed upon, are now Repealed. Neither is there any Room left for any other or further Argument from either of those forementioned Covenants, to Infer the Baptism of Infants: The Obligation upon Believers Concerning the Gospel Sign, being wholly left unto the time of its Institution; which determines both the Duties and the Subjects thereof, to the Exclusion of Infants; as hath been before abundantly proved.  
§. 2. But whereas it is Objected; That since according to the Scope of the foregoing Discourse, every Conditional Covenant is a Covenant of Works: From whence 'tis Inferred, that such was the Nature of all the three forementioned Covenants; both that at Sinai; that in the Land of Moab; and that made with Abraham also, Gen. 17. 7, 8, 9 And Consequently, that they are all of them now Repealed: The Absurdity of this Conclusion (say they) is manifest; Forasmuch as the Gospel Covenant itself that we are now under, is a Conditional Covenant: Since Faith and Repentance are therein plainly required as the Conditions of Life.  
§. 3. To this we Reply; First, Let the true state of the Case be duly Considered, and it cannot justly be denied, but that every Conditional Covenant is a Covenant of Works; that is, if Faith, Repentance, and Good Works must be Required as the Conditions thereof: Since it is not the greatness, or goodness of the Promises, that are the Substance of the Covenant, or wherewith even the Gospel Covenant itself is Replenished, that Excuse it from being a Covenant of Works, if Works must be the Condition of Obtaining the Mercies therein promised. For let Men distinguish as they please, betwixt Perfect Works, and those of Sincere Obedience only, though Imperfect, which we are told the Gospel now Requires as the Conditions of Life: This is Certain: that to Impose New Conditions of Obedience, though never so mild; is a New Covenant of Works with some Mercy; but not a Covenant of Grace, properly so called, or a Gospel Covenant. For this was that wherein the very Essence of the Covenant of Works Consisted. It required Obedience with a Promise of Life Annexed; where Man should have but his Wages for his Work, and Perish if he failed of Obedience. Or thus; The Covenant of Works Consisted in this: That upon our Personal Obedience, according unto the Law and the Rule of it, we should be Accepted with God and Rewarded by him. And indeed what else maketh, or wherein else Consisteth the true Form or Nature of a Covenant of Works, but that Works be the Condition of it? This was the whole entire Nature of the First Covenant, which alone renders it Essentially or Specifically different from the Promise of Grace or the Gospel Covenant. And what ever Covenant proceedeth on these terms, or hath the Nature of them in it, however it may be varied, or lenified with milder Conditions of Obedience than the first was; so long as this Rule is retained; Do this and live: It is the same Covenant still, and not another, for the Substance or Essence of it. If (saith the Apostle, Rom. 11. 6.) it be by Grace, then is it no more of Works; Otherwise Grace is no more Grace: But if it be of Works, then is it no more Grace; Otherwise Work is no more Work. Works are Works still, and Obedience is Obedience still, whether Perfect or Imperfect; And therefore if Imperfect Obedience will be Accepted of God, as the Condition of Life, the Covenant is to be denominated, and hath its Form from the Condition. Perfection, or Imperfection of Obedience, are but Circumstances. If then a Man be Justified by Gospel Obedience, which is Sincere, though Imperfect, as the Complete Condition of the Covenant; then this Covenant is a Covenant of Works as well as the other; Only that of Perfect, this of Imperfect Works. Which being allowed, though it seems more easy; yet it doth indeed render our Condition, and the Gospel Covenant we are now under (as hath been before observed) worse and harder than that made with Adam himself: Since we have now no Strength to Obey, nor Power to fulfil this Condition of Imperfect Obedience, though in the least or lowest degree; No not so much as to a thought: Whereas our First Parent was furnished with a Capacity sufficient for the discharge of the most Perfect Obedience.  
§. 4. And if you say, that God requireth nothing of us, but what he giveth Strength and Grace to perform, having to this purpose Promised to put his Laws in our Hearts, and his fear in our Inward parts: This doth but so much the more clearly evince the Freeness, or Absoluteness of the Gospel Covenant; since this Gospel Promise can depend on no Condition on our part: For whatever is Antecedent thereunto, being only a Work or Act of Corrupted Nature, can be no Condition whereon the Dispersation of Spiritual Grace is supperadded. From whence it plainly follows, that the Covenant of Grace is wholly free and Absolute: Forasmuch as there is nothing that can be supposed as the Condition thereof, whether it be Faith, Repentance, or New Obedience, which is not therein Absolutely Promised.  
§. 5. But whatever may be Alleged for or against, in these Respects, as to the Gospel Covenant we are now under: This is evident, and cannot with any shadow of pretence be justly Contradicted; That that Covenant that requires Perfect and Universal Obedience to the whole Revealed Will and Law of God; and Pronounceth a Curse upon the least. Transgression or Disobedience, must needs be a Covenant of Works, or else there was never any such thing Extant in the World. And of this Nature we have already proved the forementioned Covenants to be, viz. that made with Israel at Mount Sinai, that in the Land of Moab, and that made with Abraham also, Gen. 17. 7, 8, 9 Our present Question therefore (whereon the Main Hinge of the Paedobaptismal Controversy doth depend, and which we would therefore drive to an Issue) is only this: Whether that Covenant that will not admit of a Partial, though Sincere Obedience; but strictly requires that which is Perfect, and Universal, as the Condition of Salvation; be not a plain Covenant of Works? If so, than it cannot be justly denied, but that the several forementioned Covenants are such; And Consequently they are all of them now Repealed, as hath been already proved. From whence it plainly follows that no Just Argument can be drawn from either of these Covenants for the Establishment or Regulation of Gospel Worship: For since the Law itself is changed, and dis-annulled, as the Scriptures do plainly affirm it is, Heb. 7. 12, 18. Chap. 8. 7, 13. there follows of necessity a change of the whole Fabric and Constitution of the Ordinances thereunto once belonging: For so the Apostle himself Reasons, Heb. 7. 12. The Priesthood (saith he) being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the Law. And if the Law is changed, there follows with an equal necessity a change also of the Ordinances, thereon depending, and that news ones take place suitable to the Nature of the Gospel Covenant that Succeeds it. And Consequently the Plea for Infant's Baptism, as founded on either of those forementioned Covenants, must of necessity fail: Forasmuch as what ever Right Infants had to the Ordinance of Circumcision, which you say was Analogous therewith, the Right they then had was only by virtue of those forementioned Covenants; which being now Repealed, it unavoidably follows, that all the Arguments thence deduced for the Establishment of Infant's Church Member-ship and Baptism under the Gospel, must of necessity also vanish.   

SECT. XV.  
§. 1. AS to what Concerns the Covenant of Grace, or the Gospel Covenant before Insisted on; We are told indeed by some that to affirm, that it is wholly free and Absolute; and to make that the Covenant of Grace, properly so called, which God made with Christ; is to destroy the whole Tenor of the Gospel, and to lay the Foundation of all Libertinism, and Looseness of Conversation. In Reference whereunto, we shall take leave to Insert a Passage or two of the late Worthy Dr. Owen, in his Third Volumn upon the Epistle to the Hebrews, page 15. It cannot be denied (saith he) but that some Men may, and it is justly to be feared, that some Men do abuse the Doctrine of the Gospel, to Countenance themselves in a vain Expectation of Mercy and Pardon, whilst they willingly live in a Course of Sin: But as this in their Management is the principal means of their Ruin; So in the Righteous Judgement of God, it will be the greatest Aggravation of their Condemnation. And whereas some have charged the Preachers of Gospel Grace, as those who thereby give Countenance unto this Presumption; It is an Accusation that hath more of the Hatred of Grace in it, than of the Love of Holiness: For none do, or can press the Relinquishment of Sin, and Repentance of it, upon such Assured Grounds, and with such Cogent Arguments, as those by whom the Grace of Jesus Christ in the Gospel, is fully opened, and declared.  
§. 2. And as to what concerns the freeness, or Absoluteness of the Gospel Covenant; The Doctor (in his-Exposition of the 12th Verse of Heb. 8. For I will be Merciful to their unrighteousness; and their Sins and Iniquities will I Remember no more, page 290. of his forementioned Discourse) Observes; That free and Sovereign, and undeserved Grace in the Pardon of Sin, is the Original Spring and Foundation of all New Covenant Mercies, and Blessings. Hereby (saith he) and hereby alone, is the Glory of God and the safety of the Church provided for. And those who like not God's Covenant on those Terms, will Eternally fall short of the Grace of it. Hereby all Glorying, and all Boasting in ourselves, is Excluded; which was that which God aimed at in the contrivance and Establishment of this Covenant, Rom. 3. 27. 1 Cor. 1. 29, 30, 31. For this could not be, if the Fundamental Grace of it did depend on any Condition, or Qualification in ourselves.— Some speak of an Universal Conditional Covenant made with all Mankind. If there be any such thing, it is not that here Intended: For they are all actually Pardoned, with whom this Covenant is made. And the Indefinite Declaration of the Nature and Terms of the Covenant, is not the making a Covenant with any. And what should be the Condition of this Grace here promised of the Pardon of Sin? It is, say they, that Men Repent, and Believe, and turn to God, and yield Obedience unto the Gospel. If so, than Men must do all these things, before they Receive the Remission of Sins: Yes. Then must they do them whilst they are under the Law and the Curse of it: For so are all Men whose Sins are not Pardoned. This is to make Obedience unto the Law, and that to be performed by Men whilst under the Curse of it, to be the Condition of Gospel Mercy; which is to overthrow both the Law and Gospel.  
But then on the other hand it will follow, they say; that Men are Pardoned before they do Believe.— But than it must be considered. (1.) That the Communication and Donation of Faith unto us, is an Effect of the same Grace whereby our Sins are Pardoned, and they are both bestowed on us by virtue of the same Covenant. (2.) That though the Application of Pardoning Mercy unto our Souls, is in order of Nature consequent unto Believing; yet in time they go together (3.) That Faith is not required unto the Procuring of the Pardon of our Sins, but unto the Receiving of it.  
§. 3. To the same purpose He also speaks, page 223. 224. of the same Discourse. The Promises of the Covenant of Grace (saith he) are better than those of any other Covenant, as for many other Reasons, so especially because the Grace of them prevents any Condition, or Qualification on our part. I do not say, the Covenant of Grace is Absolute without Conditions; if by Conditions we intent the Duties of Obedience, which God requireth of us in and by virtue of th●t Covenant: But this I say, the Principal Promises thereof, are not in the first place Remunerative of our Obedience in the Covenant; but Efficaciously Assumptive of us into Covenant, and Establishing or Confirming in the Covenant. The Covenant of Works had its Promises; but they were all Remunerative, respecting an Antecedent Obedience in us; (so were all those which were peculiar unto the Covenant of Sinai) they were indeed also of Grace, in that the Reward did infinitely exceed the Merit of our Obedience: But yet they all supposed it, and the Subject of them was formally Reward only. In the Covenant of Grace it is not so: For sundry of the Promises thereof, are the means of our being taken into Covenant, of our entering into Covenant with God. The First Covenant Absolute was Established on Promises, in that when Men were actually taken into it, they were encouraged unto Obedience by the Promise of a future Reward: But these Promises, namely, of the Pardon of Sin, and Writing of the Law in our Hearts, which the Apostle expressly Insisteth on, as the Peculiar Promises of this New Covenant, do take place and are Effectual Antecedently unto our Covenant Obedience. For although Faith be required in order of Nature, Antecedently unto our actual Receiving of the Pardon of Sin; yet is that Faith itself wrought in us by the Grace of the Promise; and so its Precedency to Pardon, respects only the Order that God hath Appointed in the Communion of the Benefits of the Covenant, and intends not that the Pardon of Sin i● the Reward of our Faith.  
§. 4. We shall Conclude what concerns this Subject, with another Passage of the Doctors to the same purpose with the former, in his Accurate and Judicious Discourse, Entitled, The Doctrine of Justification, through the Imputation of the Righteousness of Christ, Explained, Confirmed, and Vindicated, page 156. It is commonly said (saith he) that Faith and New Obedience are the Condition of the New Covenant. But yet because of the Ambiguous Signification, and various use of that Term (Condition) we cannot certainly understand what is Intended in the Assertion. If no more be Intended, but that these things, though promised in the Covenant, and wrought in us by the Grace of God, are yet Duties indispensibly required of us, in order unto the Participation and Enjoyment of the full end of the Covenant in Glory, it is unquestionably true. But, if it be intended, that they are such a Condition of the Covenant, as to be by us performed Antecedently unto the Participation of any Grace, Mercy, or Privilege of it, so as that they should be the Consideration, and Procuring Causes of them, that they should be all of them, as some speak, the Reward of our Faith and Obedience; it is most false, and not only contrary to Express Testimonies of Scripture, but destructive of the Nature of the Covenant itself.   

SECT. XVI.  
§. 1. LAstly, Whereas we do affirm, That though according to the Law of Circumcision, Infants were Admitted and Reckoned as Members of the Jewish Church; yet that Old Constitution being now pulled down, and all the Appurtenances and Privileges thereunto belonging, being now Repealed; a New Church State according to the Nature of the Gospel Administration, is now Erected, into which none are Admitted a● Members, but Professing Believers only. By way of Reply hereunto we are told, That Infant's Relation to the Covenant; and the Universal Church as Members, was not Repealed by Christ, because it was not founded only on the Law of Moses, which if it had (say you) it were as such Repealed: But Infant Church-Membership taking place as an Ordinance of God, before Circumcision was Enjoined, or the Ceremonial Law Instituted, why then should it cease with it? To the same purpose we are also further told, That it was no part of the Typical Administration, but a Moral Institution of God, even from the Beginning of the World: God ever having made a distinction between the Seed of the Faithful, and the Seed of the Wicked, as Visibly belonging to the several Kingdoms of God and of Satan.  
§. 2. To this we Reply; First, That this Notion of Infant's Church-Membership, before the Law of Circumcision, is but a bare Affirmation, without Proof: For if it be so, that Infant Church-Membership did indeed take place as an Ordinance of God, before Circumcision, where is that Ordinance? Why, are we not directed to some place of Scripture where we may find it? Hath God Revealed it to some, and to none else? Or in what Ancient Father shall we find it? Did any one ever say so before now? Therefore with what Confidence soever we are now told, That it was no part of the Typical Administration, but a Moral Institution of God, even from the Beginning of the World, unless we are directed where to find that Institution, whatever others do, we dare not presume to be Wise above what is Written: Mal. 2. 15. is indeed alleged. And wherefore one? That he might seek a Godly Seed. But that can be understood of no other than a Legitimate Seed, in opposition to a Spurious Offspring. And thus the Assembly do in their Annotations, carry the Sense of the place. As likewise doth Calvin, Camer▪ and divers others.  
§. 3. Secondly, Whereas we are told, That God ever made a Distinction between the Seed of the Faithful, and the Seed of the Wicked; What Distinction is it that is Intended? Did God single them out, and Separate them by any Visible Sign, or Character, before the Law of Circumcision? It is evident he did not; Or did God distinguish them by his Providential Care of them, or Provision for them more than others? The Scripture is silent as to this also. Or did God Love them with a saving Love, more than the Children of Unbelievers, as visibly belonging to the several Kingdoms of God and of Satan; so as that all the Children of Believers from Adam to Abraham, belonged to the Kingdom of God; and all the Children of Unbelievers belonged unto the Kingdom of Satan? This is indeed suggested by you, but not proved. But then if this was always the state of the Case between Believers and Unbelievers, as to their Respective Seeds, and that both before and since the Flood, and that it so continues: Then according to this Rule, woe unto all the Children of Unbelievers, most deplorable and desperate i● their State, without any ground of Comfort, or Hope of Relief; contrary to the Experience of all Ages, whilst we are assured that Grace is now Extended to the Gentiles, who were not the Children of Believers, whilst the Natural Branches, the Children of Believing Abraham, are cut off. But then we would willingly know, when the Sons of God took the Daughters of Men, and all Flesh had Corrupted its way, To what Kingdom did the Children of Believers belong then? Did not the Seed of Believers grow profane and wicked as well as others? That is undeniable. And did not the Seed of Unbelievers, some of them prove Pious and Godly? This also appears, even in Abraham himself, whose Father was an Idolater, as is probably supposed; he himself being bred up in Idolatry.  
§. 4. Thirdly, Whereas it is suggested, that there was always from the beginning, a Lineal Successive Conveyance of Grace from the Parent to the Child. If so, it is strange that all Flesh should so soon have corrupted its way, that God saw Cause to bring the Flood upon the World of the . And surely if there had been any such Covenant Holiness, as is imagined before the Flood; there would have been some Godly Society, some greater Number of Believers to have been preserved, beside Noah and his Family: Who were not all Godly neither; there was a Cham, even among them; which would not have been, if there had been such a Lineal Conveyance of Grace and Covenant Holiness, from the Father to the Son, as is affirmed.  
§. 5. Fourthly, Though Infant Church-membership did indeed take place, as an Ordinance of God before the Ceremonial Law was instituted: It doth not therefore follow, that it was a Moral Institution, and therefore not to be Repealed: For so did Sacrifices also, and the building of Altars for the Worship of God, as is evident in what is related concerning Abel, and Noah; and yet there is none but take it for granted, that they are now abolished. Nay even Circumcision itself was in use in the Church of God 400 years before the Proclaiming of the Law to that People in the Wilderness; and yet there is none that reckons it therefore to be a Moral Institution, or that questions the Repeal thereof, together with the rest of those Ceremonies which were imposed on them till the time of Reformation.  
§. And whereas we are told, that if Infant Church-membership be Repealed; it must be either in Justice or in Mercy. It may be neither in Judiciary Justice, nor in Favourable Mercy; but from a pure Act of God's Sovereignty, who, as he is highest Lord of all, may do with his own what he listeth; having an Unlimited and Boundless Right to Bestow or Revoke what he pleaseth, according to the Counsel of his own Will. For though the Gifts and Callings of God are without Repentance, in respect of Inward and Spiritual Blessings; yet not so in respect of outward Privileges. But that the Repeal in question is not to the Loss, but rather to the Spiritual Advantage of Parents and Children; and consequently in Mercy to both; hath been already sufficiently manifested in the foregoing parts of this Discourse.  
§. 7. So that it clearly appears, that the Novel Opinion which hath been lately started concerning the Morality of Infants Church-membership, hath no Scripture Foundation for the support thereof; it being evident that as it came in with the Law of Circumcision; so it went out and was Repealed with it. For the Priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the Law, Heb. 7. 12. Which must needs include Circumcision, with all the Appurtenances and Privileges thereunto belonging; as hath been before abundantly proved.   

SECT. XVII.  
§. 1. FOR a Conclusion therefore, unto the whole of what hath been offered on this Subject, in this and the foregoing parts of this Discourse: It is now at last with all Humility presented unto God's People, to consider whether it be not their high Concernment, Speedily and Effectually to endeavour a thorough Reformation of so great an Abuse in the Divine Service, as the Practice of Infant-Sprinkling hath been now proved to be: It being no other than the Change of a Divine Institution; and that not only in respect of the Subject, Infants being substituted in the Room of Professed Repenting Believers: But also in respect of the due Form, or Manner of its Administration; Sprinkling being used instead of Dipping: And so in both Respects making void the Commandment of Christ. It was the Commendation that Paul gave the Corinthians, 1 Corinth. 11. 1, 2. That they had kept the Ordinances, as they were delivered unto them. Certainly Jesus Christ is very Punctual in things of this Nature; and he will one day call men to an account for their Deviations in matters of such importance. If men are careful to see that their Laws be strictly obeyed, without which they reckon their Authority slighted; What may we think of the Laws of the Great King? And whether or no will he not reckon his Authority slighted in our present case, when he cometh to make Inquisition concerning such as have not demeaned themselves according to the Divine Prescript? We know with what severity God proceeded against Nadab and Abihu, for their presuming to Change his Ordinance of Old, by Offering up Strange Fire, which he had not Commanded, Leu. 10. 1, 2. We know also what befell David, and the People of Israel, who had made a New Cart for the Carriage of the Ark, which was to have been born on the Priest's shoulders only. They might have pleaded as well as you, that this was not expressly forbidden: But yet nevertheless, For this Cause the Lord made a Breach upon them, for that they did not seek him after the due Order, 1 Chron. 15. 13. In reference whereunto let that Scripture also be duly considered, Isa. 24. 5, 6. Because they have transgressed the Laws, changed the Ordinance, broken the Everlasting Covenant; therefore hath the Curse devoured the Earth, and they that dwell therein are desolate; therefore the Inhabitants of the Earth are burned, and few men left.  
§. 2. That Infant's Baptism hath no Footing, nor Foundation at all in the Word of God, hath been already at large demonstrated. And that it is made use of to the Justling out, and making void the Commandment of Christ, in reference to the Baptism of Believers, hath been also evinced; and all the most Material Arguments, which are usually urged for the support thereof, have been with Scripture Evidence, Refuted. The Lord grant a hearing Ear, and an understanding Heart, and an obedient Mind, that the present Testimony rise not up at last as a Witness against you: For the Lord, the God of gods, even the Lord, the God of gods, he knoweth, and Israel at length also shall know, if it be in Rebellion, or if it be in Transgression against the Lord, that the present Witness is born; and if it hath not rather been done with his Approbation, and at his Commandment, in order to the stirring up all that truly love and fear God's Name, to a sincere endeavour after the Primitive Purity; and that both in respect of Doctrine and Worship.  
§. 3. Certain it is, that these things will be found at length to have been of Highest concernment unto us; and must therefore be our most Serious Practice, and Faithful Endeavour, as    

BOOKS Printed for John Harris, at the Harrow against the Church in the Poultry.  
(1.) A Discourse of Divine Providence, 1. In General; That there is a Providence Exercised by GOD in the World. 2. In Particular: How all God's Providences in the World, are in order to the good of his People. By the late Learned Divine Stephen Charnock, B. D. sometimes Fellow of New College in Oxon. Price Bound Three Shillings.  
(2.) THe Balm of the Covenant Applied to the Bleeding Wounds of Afflicted Saints. First Composed for the Relief of a Pious Worthy Family, Mourning over the Deaths of their Hopeful Children; and now made Public for the Support of all Christians, Sorrowing on the same, or any other Account. To which is added, a Sermon Preached for the Funeral of that Excellent and Religious Gentleman John Vpton of Lupton, Esq By John Flavel, Preacher of the Gospel at Dartmouth in Devon. Price Bound One Shilling.  
(3.) A Confession of Faith, put forth by the Elders and Brethren of many Congregations of Christians, (Baptised upon Profession of their Faith) in London and the Country. With an Appendix concerning Baptism. Price Bound One Shilling.  
(4.) THe Conviction of Worldly Vanity: Or, The Wand'ring Prodigal, and his Return: in Two Parts.  
PART I.  
Containing his Debate with himself about his setting forward in search of the Palace of Worldly Felicity; His Harkening to the Advice of Folly, and submitting himself to her Conduct; the manner of her furnishing him out; of the Progress he made, and the various Adventures he met with by the way: As also the Entertainment he found at his Arrival, and his Riotous Living there; with his Description of the Vices Reigning therein.  
PART II.  
Giving a Full Account of his Miraculous Escape from the Palace of Worldly Felicity. Of the Glorious Prospect he had of the Celestial City; and of the Progress he made towards it, under the Conduct of Divine Grace: With the manner of his Proceeding, 〈◊〉 the several Occurrences he met with by the way: His Arrival 〈◊〉 Palace of Virtue and True Felicity, and his joyful Reception there: His Excellent Description thereof, and of the Divine and Moral Virtues which he found therein; both Pleasant and Profitable. Delivered under the Similitude of A Wand'ring Youth. Illustrated with Proper Cutts. Price Bound One Shilling.  
(5.) INstructions for Children: Or, The Child's and Youth's Delight. Teaching an easy way to Spell and Read True English. Containing the Father's Godly Advice: Directing Parents in a right and spiritual manner to Educate their Children. With a Scripture Catechism, wherein all the Chief Principles of True Christianity are clearly opened. Together with many other things both Pleasant and Useful for the Education of Children. Written by B. Keach, Author of War with the Devil. Recommended to the Use of all Parents and Schoolmasters, by H. Knollys. Price Six Pence.  
(6.) ENgland's Jests Refined and Improved; Being a choice Collection of the Merriest Jests, Smartest Repartees, Wittiest Sayings, and most Notable Bulls, dispersed through the several Tracts on those Subjects: With many new Ones, never before Printed. To which are Added, Fourteen Ingenious Characters, drawn to the Life. The whole Work compiled with great Care and Exactness: And may serve as the Witty-man's Companion, the Busie-man's Diversion, and the Melancholy-man's Physic and Recreation. The Second Edition, with Additions of several Jests, Witty Say, Bulls, and Two New Characters. Calculated for the Innocent Spending of the Winter Evenings, by H. C. Price Bound One Shilling.  
(7.) A Present for Ladies. The Nymphs of Diana: Or, The Excellencies of Womenkind, described as well in their External Beauty, as Internal Virtue; being an Advocate for the Fair Sex; Comprised in an Illustrious History of it. Represented not only in Lively and Pathetical Discourses grounded upon Reason, but in sundry rare Examples of Virtuous Love, Piety, Prudence, Modesty, Chastity, Patience, Humility, Temperance, Conduct, Constancy, and Firmness of Mind; with what else in the like Nature is necessary to the Accomplishment of the most Celebrated Beauties. With other Examples of Women, skilled in the most curious Arts and Sciences. To which are Added, the Examples of Warlike Women, their Noble Exploits and Victories: With the Prophecies and Predictions of the Sibyls, in Relation to our Saviour Christ, etc. And as an Appendix, The Character of a Virtuous Woman in all 〈◊〉 Capacities, viz. of a Virgin, of a Wife, and of a Widow; Wherein is showed the happiness that accrues to Man, in the possession of so great a Blessing, as a Virtuous Woman; with the Reasons, why Man's Happiness is not Complete on Earth, without the Charming Creature Woman. The whole Work Enriched and Intermixed with Curious Poetry and Delicate Fancies, suitable to so Charming a Subject. Price Bound One Shilling.  
(8.) THe True Fortune-Teller: Or, Guide to Knowledge. Discovering the whole Art of Chyromancy, Physiognomy, Metoposcopy and Astrology. Containing, 1. A Description of the Planets, their Power and Influence over the Bodies of Men, Women, and Children. 2. Of the several Lines, Mounts, Marks, Angles, and Sacred Characters in the Hand and Wrist; and by what Planets they are Governed as to good and bad Fortune. 3. Of Physiognomy. 4. Observations on the Eyes, Kickshaws, Nose, Chin, Neck, Hair, Beard and Face. 5. Metoposcopy, or the signification of the Lines in the Face. 6. Of Moles and their significations. 7. Of Dreams, and their Interpretations. 8. Of Nativities, and their Calculation. 9 Of the Rod, by which hidden Treasure is found. 10. Of Marriages, and at what time any Person shall be Married. 11. Rules to know the danger of Death. 12. Of good and bad Days. 13. The manner of resolving doubtful Questions, as to Friends, Marriages, places of Abode, Health, Prosperity or Adversity, Love or Business. 14. Of Pythagoras his Wheel of Fortune. 15. Of the good and days in each Month relating to Health. To which are Added, Aristotle's Observations on the Heavens, their Motion. Of Fiery Meteors, Thunder, Lightning, Eclipses, Comets, Earthquakes and Whirlwinds. Illustrated with several Proper Figures. The Second Edition. Price Bound One shilling.  
(9) A Pleasant and Compendious History of the first Inventors and Instituters of the most Famous Arts, Mysteries, Laws, Customs and Manners in the whole WORLD. Together, with many other Rarities and Remarkable things, Rarely known, and never before made public. To which is added Several Curious Inventions, peculiarly Attributed to England and Englishmen. The whole Work Alphabetically Digested, and very helpful to the Readers of History. Price Bound One Shilling.  
FINIS.