Vindiciæ foederis, or, A treatise of the covenant of God enterd with man-kinde in the several kindes and degrees of it, in which the agreement and respective differences of the covenant of works and the covenant of grace, of the old and new covenant are discust ... / [by] Thomas Blake ... ; whereunto is annexed a sermon preached at his funeral by Mr. Anthony Burgesse, and a funeral oration made at his death by Mr. Samuel Shaw.

CHAP. XXXV. (Book 35)

The Old Covenant was a pure Gospel-Covenant, and not mixt. (Book 35)

2ly. OThers that rise not so high against the first covenant, as to make it a covenant meerly carnal; yet loth to yield to so much truth, as to confesse it to be a covenant Evangelical; have found out a middle way; which yet they think may carry on their interests, and say, It is not a pure Gospel-covenant, but mixt; and therein differs from the second covenant, which is wholly Evangelical: In which they seem to go, but one half of the way with their old friends the Jesuites, from whom in this contro∣versie they so much glean, yet, far enough to sit down with Ana∣baptists, to cast Infants (as they hope) out of the covenant and Church-membership, and so exclude them from Baptisme. Here I shall undertake to make good these foure particu∣lars.

1. That this expression of theirs is very untoward;* 1.1 and such that will bear no fair sense, without the utter overthrow, even of that difference between the Covenants, which they would build on this distinction.

2. That the proof that they bring of this mixture of the first covenant is very weak, and not at all cogent.

3. That they are not constant to themselves, but give and take, and know not what to determine.

4. In case all were granted, yet they know not how to bring any thing home, of all that they say, to serve their own inter∣ests. Their expressions, I say, are untoward, in denying purity of Gospel in the first Covenant, and affirming a mixture. That which is not pure, but mixt, is a compound of pure and impure; such that hath some ingredients, such as they ought, and others such that make all adulterate: As silver mingled with dresse, or wine with water, Isa. 1. 22. The false teachers (Saint Pauls adversaries) preach such a mixt Gospel, when they urged with such vehemency a mixture of works, which caused the Apostle to stand in such feare of the Corinthians, lest they should be drawn away from the simplicity that is in Christ, 2 Cor. 11. 2. They do not beleeve that the Gospel which Paul tells us was preached to Abraham, Gal. 3. 8. was any such impure Gospel, this sure is not their meaning, they dare not say that Abraham was under any such delusion; What then can be the meaning, but that he had promises, not only of blisse, and in reference to eternal sal∣vation; but also promises of earthly concernment, as that of the land of Canaan, and his plantation there? The Covenant takes its denomination from the Promises, (saith one of them) but the Promises are mixt; some Evangelical, belonging to those to whom the Gospel belongeth; some are domestick or civil Promises, specially respecting the house of Abraham, and the policie of Israel. To this I readily agree, and then the distinction falls to nothing; Seeing in Gospel times, in New Testament-dayes, this will deno∣minate a not pure, but mixt Gospel as well as in those times, we our selves are under such a Gospel as well as the Jewes. I know not how we could pray in faith, Give us this day our daily bread; in case we were without a promise of these things, or how man could live by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God, in case we had no word from God. The Apostle tells us, Godlinesse hath the promise of this life, and that which is to come, 1 Tim. 4. 8. It would trouble many a perplexed man in case he could not make good, that those words, Verily thou shalt be fed, Psal. 37. 3. did not at all belong to him. There is no believing man in any relati∣on, but he hath Gospel-Promises in concernment to that relati∣on, as appears in that speech of Pauls encouragement of ser∣vants, Epes 6. 8. Knowing whatsoever for good thing any man doth, the same shall he receive of the Lord, whether he be bond or free. It

It were ill with all sorts, had not they their domestick relation-promises, which these speak of, as making a mixture.

2. As their expressions are untoward, so taking them at the best, their proof is weak, That the Covenant takes its denomination from the Promises; but the Promises are mixt, say these men. The most eminent Promises, which contain the marrow of all, give the denomination, and not such that are annext as Appen∣dants to them. The Promise of the land of Canaan, is an ap∣pendant to the great covenant made of God with Abraham, as Chamier with good warrant from the text, Gen. 17. 7, 8. calls it, lib. de baptis. cap. sec. The Covenant being made of God, to be the God of Abraham and his seed, which might have been made good wheresoever they had inhabited or sojourned, the promise of Canaan is over and above added to it. The reason given in by one for his dislike of Chamiers expression, calling it an Appendix to the covenant, is little to purpose, Psal. 105. 10, 11. The gift of the land of Canaan is called a Covenant, saith he, and therefore is not an appendant to it. By the same rea∣son Circumcision must be the Covenant, and not a Seal appen∣dant to it; seeing Circumcision is called a Covenant, Gen. 17. 10. they are not ignorant of these Scripture-metonymies.

3. As the proof is weak, to make the Covenant not a pure Gospel-covenant, but mixt; so, they are not constant to themselves, pointing that out, which makes pure Gospel, Gen. 17. 5. Gen. 15. 5. Gen. 12. 3. Gen. 18. 18. illustrated by some New Testament-Scriptures, Rom. 4. 17, 18. Gal. 3. 8, 9, 16. Acts 3. 25. one observes, it is to be noted, that those Promises, which were Evangelical, according to the more in∣ward sense of the Holy Ghost, do point at the priviledges of Abrahams house in the outward face of the words, and thereupon raises a doubt, whether any covenant made with Abraham be simply E∣vangelical? And so he findes out Evangelical-Promises in the inwards of that covenant, which is non-Evangelical in the out∣ward face; So Bellarmine, with whom he so much (to speak in his own language) symbolizeth, finds out spiritual Evangelical Promises, in that which he concludes to be of another nature; denying that the Promise made to Abraham in the letter, was any Promise of forgivenesse of sins, but of special protection and government, and earthly happinesse; yet confesseth that in a my∣stical

sense they were spiritual Promises,* 1.2 both of pardon of sin, and life eternal, and that they belong to us, Bellar. de Sacr. Bapt. lib. 1. cap. 4. whereupon Chamier observes, That which is promised mystically, God in covenant doth promise, but hea∣ven is here promised mystically; therefore in this covenant here is a Promise of heaven; so the inward, and outward face, will be all Evangelical.

Lastly, they yet know not how to bring any thing home (were all granted) to serve their interest, they seem to contend that the Evangelical Promises are vested in the persons of true Belevers. The other which are civil, or domestick, serving to make up the mixture, were priviledges descendable, and tradu∣cible to posterity, and upon this account, circumcision of the na∣tural seed of Abraham came in for confirmation and seale of that which alone was civil, domestical, and non-Evangelical; and being not considered, as a leading Sacrament of the whole Church, as Baptisme is now, but only of the Jewish Church, as such, proper to Abraham and his posterity, and much differing from Baptisme, it is no argument that we in Gospel-times trans∣mit any such priviledge to posterity,* 1.3 or that our seed before actual faith, have any title to the covenant. This seems to be their meaning, to which we have many things to say.

First, that Orthodox Divines, both ancient and moderne have made circumcision to be of the same signification and use as Baptism, and till Anabaptists closed, they had no adversaries but Papists, who to advance their ••pus operatum in the Sacraments of the New Testament, will have them, as far to exceed the Old, as heaven doth earth, and the substance doth the shadow; This is observed by Chamier Panstrat. Cathol. Tom. 4. lib. 2. cap. 19. sect. 58. having reckoned up several testimonies to this purpose, he addes,a 1.4 There are very many like testimonies, by which it ap∣pears, that Christians were heretofore perswaded that there was no so great difference between circumcision and baptisme; and why, saith he, is it now changed? Truly in favour of the Papists, and ac∣cording to the pleasure of the Iesuites.

Secondly, if circumcision have respect to those Promises that were no Gospel mercies, but civil, domestical, restrained to Jews, and not appertaining to Christians; How could it be a distinction between Jew and Gentile respective to Religion? it might have

made a civil distinction, and the want of it have been an evi∣dence against other Nations, that they had been none of the mul∣tiplied seed of Abraham according to the flesh, and that their interest had not been in Canaan. But how it could have con∣cluded them to have been without Christ, strangers from the cove∣nant of Promise, having no hope, and without God in the world, as the Apostle determines upon their uncircumcision, Eph. 2. 11, 12. cannot be imagined.

Thirdly, How is it that we hear so much in Scripture of circum∣cision of the heare Jer. 4. 4. Rom. 2. 28. Deut. 10. 16. Deut. 30. 6. Ezek. 44. 9. and the circumcised to have this character, that they worship God in Spirit and in Truth; if circumcision have not relation to Promises that are spiritual? When complaint is made of uncircumcision in heart, is it not (as it is ordinarily un∣derstood) that their ••••ndes were carnal, and not taken up with spi∣ritual things or is it that they were not fixt on their civil and do∣mestick interests? when they are said to be uncircumcised, as Ier. 6. 10. is it not upon that account that Ieremy there gives, that they could not hear the Word of the Lord, that they had no delight in it, that it was a reproach to them; or is it because they could not suck in Promises of meer civil, home, and self-interests? So it must need be if circumcision be such a Seale, when they em∣proved it for the use to which it was instituted, they kept the right use of it, and were not worthy of reproof concern∣ing it.

Fourthly, what Sacraments had the Jewes of any Gospel-rela∣tion, if this respected alone their civil interests? There might be more spoken to that of the Passeover, to carry it to peculiar National mercies, than to this of circumcision. See Exod. 13. 14, 15. And it shall be when thy sinne asketh thee in time to come, saying, What is this? that thou shalt say unto him, By strength of hand the Lord brought us out from Egypt, from the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of B••ndage. And it came to passe when Pharao•• would hardly let us go, that the Lord slew all the first-borne in the land of Egypt; both the first borne of man, and the first-borne of beasts; therefore I sacrifice unto the Lord all that openeth the Matrix, being males; but all the first-born of my children, I redeem. I am sure far lesse can be said to carry it to that which is spiritual, and of common concernment both to Jews and Christians.

Fifthly, how is it that the Apostle giving a definition of cir∣cumcision, refers it to nothing national, civil, or domestick; but only to that which is purely spiritual, Speaking of Abraham, he saith; He received the signe of Circumcision, a seale of the righteousnesse of the faith which he had, yet being uncircumcised? The righteousnesse of faith, is a Promise purely Evangelical, Romanes 3. 22. Romanes 3. 30. Romanes 10. 3. Philippians 3. 8. and this Circumcision sealed, the self-same thing that our Sacraments seale; So that as their extraordinary Sacra∣ments are expressely affirmed to be the same with ours, by the Apostle, 1 Cor. 10. 3 They eat all the same spiritual meat, and did all drink the same spiritual drink, so are their ap∣pointed established Sacraments, Circumcision, and the Passe∣over. Will they with Bellarmine, lib. 1. cap. 17. de Sacra∣mentis in genere, deny, that Circumcision was an universal seale of faith, and affirme that it was only an individual seale of the in∣dividual faith of Abraham, that so all may fall to the ground which is spoken from that Text of the use of Circumcision to the Jewes, all that is there spoken, having reference only to Abraham in person; I answer, 1. This Popish shift is flat against the Apostle; He brings it as an argument for proof of the way, of our Justification to be by faith alone, which were a meer inconsequence, if proper to him, and not be∣longing to others. 2. It is flat against Moses, who referres this of circumcision to the covenant there mentioned, Gene∣sis 17. 7. But the covenant is not with Abraham alone, but his seed also together with him, as is there plaine. 3. It carries several absurdities with it. (1.) By this meanes Gods covenant with Abraham in person, and his covenant with Christians in Gospel-times is indeed the same; but his covenant with all beleevers in the Old Testament and with beleevers in the New Testament are essentially differing. A∣braham, and New-Testament beleevers, are under one cove∣nant; Old Testament-beleevers are under a covenant essen∣tially differing. (2.) Then Zachary, Luke 1. 72. inter∣preting the covenant made with Abraham of salvation by Christ should have limited it to Abraham, and not extended it to the Fathers; But we see all are there, under one and the same mercy; our father Abraham; and all that followed

him, even all that came out of Egypt, and were for Canaan, are called Fathers, 1 Corinth. 10. 1. All our Fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, and all these had the same mercy in promise with Abraham. To performe the mercy (saith Zachary) promised to our Fathers, and to remember his holy covenant, the Oath which he sware to our father Abraham. (3.) Then Abraham himself in person, and Christians in the dayes of the Gospel are interessed in Christ, and all other beleevers in the Law were without Christ; but the contrary is plain. Moses esteemed the reproach of Christ greater than the treasures of Egypt, Heb. 11. 26. (4.) Then Abraham and Christians have from God the Kingdom of hea∣ven and salvation; but the rest of the Jewes have nothing bet∣ter than the land of Canaan. They have no more than the co∣venant reaches unto, and the seale of the covenant did con∣firm; But the covenant reaches only temporal Promises, as the land of Canaan, in their opinion. These evasions Bellarmine is put to, and Anabaptists are glad to follow, both of them wil∣ling to say any thing rather than confesse a truth.

But they say, [Object.] This was a seale to Abraham, of the righteousnesse of faith, that he might be the Father of all them that beleeve, &c. But only Abraham is such a father.* 1.5 Answ. This priority of re∣ceiving the Faith, and the signe and seale, is proper to Abraham; each one could not be first, but father and childe, both received it, and both had the righteousnesse of Faith sealed in it. If Bellar∣mine please so well, I shall referre to Bellarmines opposites, Chamier de Sacramentis in genere, lib. 2. cap. 9. Ames. Tom. 3. more especially Whittaker praelectiones de Sacramentis page 22 23. H••c desperationis, &c. So that which way soever they take truth fastens upon them, and the friends of truth flie in their face; and all to make it appear that a pure Gospel was preach't to Abraham, and that the first covenant was not mixt, but truly E¦vangelical.

Notes

• * 1.1

  That expressi∣on of a mixt Covenant un∣der which the Fathers are supposed to live untoward.
• * 1.2

  〈…〉〈…〉 quodam sensu fuisse e••i∣am 〈…〉〈…〉 promissiones & remissionis pee∣c••••m ac vita ••ternae & ad nos pertinere.
• * 1.3

  Circumcision was a Seal of spiritual mer∣cies of the same that Baptisme sealeth.
• a 1.4

  Plurima sunt ejusdem te∣stimonia exqui∣bus constat per∣suasum olim fuisse Christia∣nis, non fuisse admodum diver∣san circumci∣sionis rationem & Baptismi. Cur bodie mu∣tatum▪ & qui∣dem in Papista∣rum gratiam & ••••idem ad ar∣bitrium Jesu∣narum.
• * 1.5

  Sol.