R. B. THE next Question that I should speak to is, whether these Laws, or Covenants, or Promises, are capable of a revocation, or repeal? and I shall take this for a question that needs no further debate, among men that know what a Law or Promise is. Gods immutability and perfection may make some Laws unrepealable, while the subject remains: but otherwise the thing it self is capable of it. Only where a Promise or Law is but for a limited time, when the time is expired it ceaseth, and the cessation ⟨p. 142⟩is as to the nulling of it, equal to a revocation or abrogation. I put in this question, lest you should hereafter change your mind and say, that indeed it is a law, or promise, or covenant, by which the right of Church-membership is conferred, and Infants dedicated to God: but it is but a transeunt Law or Covenant.] Answ. If so, then it is either immediately or presently transeunt, or at a certain limited time only, when it will cease. The former is certainly false and intolerable. For, 1. They are promises and laws for the future, and therefore cease not immediately. 2. That were to make God the most unfaithful promises and mutable Law-maker in the world, if his promise and his laws cease as soon as they are made. Nay it makes them to be no laws or promises. 3. It was one standing law and promise that belonged to the Nation of the Jews successively. And God did not make his promise anew to every Infant that was made a Church-member, nor renew his law to every Parent to enter their Children into his Covenant by the sign of Circumcision. Were not the uncircumcised Israelites in the Wilderness made members by the efficacy of the former Covenant of God remaining in force. And did former Laws oblige to Circumcision till Christ? Else there were but few members, nor but few that circumcised warrantably, if the promise and precept did extend but to the person that it was first delivered to, and every one else must likewise have a personal promise and precept. The Mother of Christ cannot then be proved to have been a Church-member in Infancy. If it be said that ⟨p. 143⟩these promises were limited in the making of them, to a certain time when they were to cease, I say when that is proved we shall believe it, which I have not yet seen done.
R. B. THE next Question that I spould speak to is, whether these Laws, or Covenants, or Promises, are capable of a revocation, or repeal? and I shall take this for a question that needs no further debate, among men that know what a Law or Promise is. Gods immutability and perfection may make some Laws unrepealable, while the subject remains: but otherwise the thing it self is capable of it. Only where a Promise or Law is but for a limited time, when the time is expired it ceaseth, and the cessation ⟨p. 142⟩is as to the nulling of it, equal to a revocation or abrogation. I put in this question, lest you should hereafter change your mind and say, that indeed it is a law, or promise, or covenant, by which the right of Church-membership is conferred, and Infants dedicated to God: but it is but a transeunt Law or Covenant.] Answ. If so, then it is either immediately or presently transeunt, or at a certain limited time only, when it will cease. The former is certainly false and intolerable. For, 1. They are promises and laws for the future, and therefore cease not immediately. 2. That were to make God the most unfaithful promises and mutable Law-maker in the world, if his promise and his laws cease as soon as they are made. Nay it makes them to be no laws or promises. 3. It was one standing law and promise that belonged to the Nation of the Jews successively. And God did not make his promise anew to every Infant that was made a Church-member, nor renew his law to every Parent to enter their Children into his Covenant by the sign of Circumcision. Were not the uncircumcised Israelites in the Wilderness made members by the efficacy of the former Covenant of God remaining in force. And did former Laws oblige to Circumcision till Christ? Else there were but few members, nor but few that circumcised warrantably, if the promise and precept did extend but to the person that it was first delivered to, and every one else must likewise have a personal promise and precept. The Mother of Christ cannot then be proved to have been a Church-member in Infancy. If it be said that ⟨p. 143⟩these promises were limited in the making of them, to a certain time when they were to cease, I say when that is proved we shall believe it, which I have not yet seen done.
