Selected quad for the lemma: death_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
death_n	law_n	sin_n	threaten_v	4,607	5	10.0030	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A39674	Planelogia, a succinct and seasonable discourse of the occasions, causes, nature, rise, growth, and remedies of mental errors written some months since, and now made publick, both for the healing and prevention of the sins and calamities which have broken in this way upon the churches of Christ, to the great scandal of religion, hardening of the wicked, and obstruction of Reformation : whereunto are subjoined by way of appendix : I. Vindiciarum vindex, being a succinct, but full answer to Mr. Philip Cary's weak and impertinent exceptions to my Vindiciæ legis & fæderis, II. a synopsis of ancient and modern Antinomian errors, with scriptural arguments and reasons against them, III. a sermon composed for the preventing and healing of rents and divisions in the churches of Christ / by John Flavell ... ; with an epistle by several divines, relating to Dr. Crisp's works.	Flavel, John, 1630?-1691.	1691 (1691)	Wing F1175; ESTC R21865	194,574	498

the whole Law for Righteousness You may ponder this Argument at your leisure and not think to refute it at so cheap a rate as by calling it a corrupt gloss of my own And thus I hope I have sufficiently fortified and confirmed my Third Argument to prove Abraham's Covenant to be a Covenant of Grace My Fourth was this Argument IV. That which in its direct and primary end teacheth Man the corruption of his Nature by sin and the mortification of sin by the Spirit of Christ cannot be a condition of the Covenant of Works But so did Circumcision in the very direct and primary end of it Therefore c. Your Reply to this is That when I have substantially proved that the Sinai Covenant as it contained the Passeover Sacrifices Types and Appendages under which were vailed many spiritual Mysteries relating to Christ and mortification of sin by his Grace and Spirit to be no Covenant of Works but a Gospel-covenant you will then grant with me that the present Argument is convincing p. 96 97. of your Reply Sir I take you for an honest man and every honest man will be as good as his word Either I have fully proved against you that the Sinai Law taken in that latitude you here express it is not an Adam's Covenant of Works or I have not If I have not doubtless you have reserved your more pertinent and strong Replies in your own breast and trust not to those weak and silly ones which you see here baffled and have only served to involve you in greater Absurdities than before But if you have brought forth all your strength as in such a desperate strait no man can imagine but you would then I have fully proved the point against you And if I have I expect you to be ingenuous and candid in making good your word That you will then grant with me that this Argument is convincing to the end for which it was designed And so I hope we have fully issued the Controversy between us relating to God's Covenant with Abraham You have indeed four Arguments p. 59 60 61 62. of your Reply to prove Abraham's Covenant a Covenant of Works of the same nature with Adam's Covenant 1. Because as life was implicitly promised to Adam upon his obedience and death explicitly threatned in case of his disobedience which made that properly a Covenant of Works so it was in the Covenant of Circumcision Gen. 17. 7 8. compared with vers 10 14. This Argument or Reason can never conclude because as God never required of Abraham and his Children personal perfect and perpetual obedience to the whole Law for life as he did of Adam so the death or cutting off spoken of here seems to be another thing from that threatned to Adam Circumcision as I told you before was appointed to be the discriminating Sign betwixt Abraham's Seed and the Heathen World and the wilful neglect thereof is here threatned with cutting off by Civil or Ecclesiastical Excommunication from the Commonwealth and Church of Israel as Luther Calvin Paraeus Musculus c. expounds not by death of Body and Soul as was threatned to Adam without place for repentance or hope of mercy 2. You say Abraham's Covenant could not be a Covenant of Faith because Faith was not reckoned to Abraham for Righteousness in Circumcision but in Uncircumcision Rom. 4. 9 10. This is weak reasoning Circumcision could not belong to a Gospel-covenant because Abraham was a Believer before he was circumcised You may as well deny the Lord's Supper to be the Seal of a Gospel-Covenant because the Partakers of it are Believers before they partake of it Beside you cannot deny but it sealed the Righteousness of ●aith to Abraham and I desired you before to prove that a Seal of the Covenant of Works i● capable of being applied to such an use and service which you have not done nor ever will be able to do but politickly slided by it 3. You say it cannot be a Covenant of Grace because it is contra-distinguished to the Righteousness of Faith Rom. 4. 13. The Law in that place is put strictly for the pure Law of Nature and Metaleptically signifies the Works of the Law which is a far different thing from the Law taken in that latitude wherein you take it And is not this a pretty Argument that because the promise to Abraham and his Seed was not through the Law but through the Righteousness of Faith therefore the Covenant of God made with Abraham and his Seed Gen. 17. cannot be a gracious but a legal Covenant This Promise mentioned Rom. 4. 13. was made to Abraham long before the Law was given by Moses and Free-grace not Abraham's legal Righteousness was the impulsive cause moving God to make that Promise to Abraham and to his Seed and their enjoyment of the Mercies promised was not to be through the Law but through the Righteousness of Faith By what rule of art this Scripture is alledged to prove God's Covenant with Abraham Gen. 17. to be a Covenant of Works I am utterly to seek If it be only because Circumcision was added to it that 's answered over and over before and you neither have nor can reply to it 4. Lastly It cannot say you be a Covenant of Grace because it 's represented to us in Scripture as a Bondage-covenant Acts 15. 10 c. Gal. 5. 1. 'T is time I see to make an end Your discourse runs low and dreggy Do you think it is one and the same thing to say That the Ceremonial Law was a yoke of bondage to them that were under it and to say it was an Adam's Covenant Are these two parallel distinctions in your Logick Alas Sir there is a wide difference The difficulty variety and chargeableness of those Ceremonies made them indeed burthensome and tiresome to that People but they did not make the Covenant to which they were annexed to become an Adam's Covenant of Works for in the very next breath vers 11. the Apostle will tell you they were saved yea and tells us that we shall be saved even as they So that either they that were under this yoke were saved by Faith in the way of Free-grace as we now are or we must be saved in the way of legal Obedience as they were Take which you please for one of them you must take We shall be saved even as they Acts 15. 10 11. If you can make no stronger opposition to my Arguments than such as you have here made your Cause is lost though your confidence and obstinancy remain It were easy for me to fill more Paper than I have written on this Subject with Names of principal note in the Church of God who with one voice decry your groundless Position and constantly affirm that the Law in the complex sense you take it as it comprehends the Ceremonial Rites and Ordinances whereunto Circumcision pertains is and can be no other than the

the Sanction of the Law may and did pass from us to Christ by Legal Imputation but sin it self the very Transgression it self arising from the very Preceptive part of the Law cannot so pass from us to Christ For if we should once imagine that the very acts and habits of sin with the odious deformity thereof should pass from our Persons to Christ and subjectively to inhere in him as they do in us then it would follow First That our Salvation would thereby be rendred utterly impossible For such an inhesion of Sin in the Person of Christ is absolutely inconsistent with the Hypostatical Vnion which Union is the very Foundation of his Satisfaction and our Salvation Tho the Divine Nature can and doth dwell in Union with the pure and Sinless human Nature of Christ yet it cannot dwell in Union with Sin Secondly This Supposition would render the Blood of the Cross altogether unable to satisfie for us He could not have been the Lamb of God to take away the Sins of the World if he had not been perfectly pure and spotless 1 Pet. 1. 19. Thirdly Had our Sins thus been essentially transfus'd into Christ the Law had had a just and valid Exception against him for it accepts of nothing but what is absolutely pure and perfect I admire therefore how any good Man dares to call our Doctrine which teaches the Imputation of our Guilt and Punishment to Christ a simple Doctrine and assert that the Transgression it self became Christ's and that thereby Christ became as compleatly sinful as we And Fourthly If the way of making our Sins Christ's by imputation be thus rejected and derided and Christ asserted by some other way to become as compleatly sinful as we then I cannot see which way to avoid it but that the very same Acts and Habits of Sin must inhere both in Christ and in Believers also For I suppose our Adversaries will not deny that notwithstanding God's laying the Sins of Believers upon Christ there remain in all Believers after their Justification sinful Inclinations and Aversations a Law of Sin in their Members a Body of Sin and Death Did these things pass from them to Christ and yet do they still inhere in them Why do they complain and groan of in-dwelling Sin as Rom. 7. If Sin it self be so transferr'd from them to Christ Sure unless Men will dare to say the same Acts and Habits of Sin which they feel in themselves are as truly in Christ as in themselves they have no ground to say that by God's laying their Iniquities upon Christ he became as compleatly sinful as they are and if they should so affirm that Affirmation would undermine the very Foundation of their own Salvation I therefore heartily subscribe to that sound and holy Sentence of a clear and learned Divine Nothing is more absolutely true nothing more sacredly and assuredly believ'd by us than that nothing which Christ did or suffer'd nothing that he undertook or underwent did or could constitute him subjectively inherently and thereupon personally a Sinner or guilty of any Sin of his own To bear the Guilt or Blame of other Mens Faults to be alienae culpae reus makes no Man a Sinner unless he did unwisely or irregularly undertake it So then this Proposition that by God's laying our Sins upon Christ in some other way than by Imputation of Guilt and Punishment he became as compleatly sinful as we will not ought not to be receiv'd as the sound Doctrine of the Gospel Nor yet this Second Proposition That we are as compleatly Righteous as Christ is or that Christ is not more Righteous than a Believer I cannot imagine what should induce any Man so to express himself unless it be a groundless conceit and fancy that there is an essential Transfusion of Christ's justifying Righteousness into Believers whereby it becomes theirs by way of subjective inhesion and is in them in the very same manner it is in him And so every individual Believer becomes as compleatly Righteous as Christ. And this conceit they would fain establish upon that Text 1 Ioh. 3. 7. He that doth righteousness is righteous even as he is righteous But neither this expression nor any other like it in the Scriptures gives the least countenance to such a general and unwary Position It is far from the mind of this Scripture That the righteousness of Christ is formally and inherently ours as it is his Indeed it is ours relatively not formally and inherently not the same with his for quantity though it be the same for verity His Righteousness is not ours in its Vniversal value though it be ours as to our particular use and necessity Nor is it made ours to make us so many causes of Salvation to others but it is imputed to us as to the Subjects that are to be saved by it our selves 'T is true we are justified and saved by the very Righteousness of Christ and no other but that Righteousness is formally inherent in him only and is only materially imputed to us It was actively his but passively ours He wrought it though we wear it It was wrought in the person of God-man for the whole Church and is imputed not transfused to every single Believer for his own concernment only For 1. It is most absurd to imagine that the Righteousness of Christ should formally inhere in the person of all or any Believer as it doth in the person of the Mediator The impossibility hereof appears plainly from the incapacity of the Subject The Righteousness of Christ is an Infinite Righteousness because it is the Righteousness of God-man and can therefore be subjected in no other person beside him It is capable of being imputed to a finite creature and therefore in the way of imputation we are said to be made the righteousness of God in him but though it may be imputed to a finite creature it inheres only in the person of the Son of God as in its proper subject And indeed 2. If it should be inherent in us it could not be imputed to us as it is Rom. 4. 6 23. Nor need we go out of our selves for justification as now we must Phil. 3. 9. but may justify our selves by our own inherent Righteousness And 3 dly What should hinder if this Infinite Righteousness of Christ were infused into us and should make us as compleatly righteous as Christ but that we might justify others also as Christ doth and so we might be the Saviours of the Elect as Christ is Which is most absurd to imagine And 4 thly According to Antinomian Principles What need was there that we should be justified at all Or what place is left for the justification of any sinner in the World For according to their Opinion the justification of the Elect is an immanent act of God before the World was and that Eternal act of Justification making the Elect as compleatly Righteous as Christ himself there could not possibly be

faith consider'd and answer'd 206. Dr. Edw. Reynolds's Opinion about the Law 207 213. The Position about Abraham's Covenant being a Covenant of Grace defended 213. The first Argument for the proof of it 214. Mr. C's Reply answer'd 215. His distinction of A Covenant of Works and The Covenant of Works overthrown 217 218. The second Argument for the proof of it 220. Mr. C's Reply answer'd 221. Third Argument 222. Mr. C's Reply answer'd 223. The Covenants not made with Abraham in Gen. 17. 225 228. Circumcision did not oblige all men on whom it passed to keep the whole Law of Moses for Righteousness 230. Fourth Argument 231. Circumcision in its direct end taught them the corruption of Nature by sin and the mortification of sin by the Spirit 231. Mr. C's Reply answer'd 232. His Arguments to prove the Sinai Covenant a Covenant of Works likewise answered 233. Cutting off in Gen. 17. 14. not the same with the death threatned to Adam ibid. How faith reckon'd to Abraham for Righteousness while he was in Vncircumcision 234. How the Sinai Covenant is a Bondage Covenant 236. Dr. Crisp's Iudgment 237. Of the Conditionality of the New Covenant 242. The Question stated 243. What the word Condition signifies 245. Antecedent and consequent Conditions 246. No condition of the Covenant with respect to its first sanction with Christ 247. but hath an antecedent Condition with respect to the application of its benefits unto men 248. Which is Faith as organically consider'd 249. The Opinions of Orthodox Divines in this Question cited 250. That the Covenant is Conditional proved from M. C's own Concessions 256. Christ hath not perform'd the Condition for us 262. Tho he works Faith in us by his Spirit 263. A Condition does not imply merit 264. Arguments to prove the conditionality of the Covenant 266. First Argument 267. Second Argument 268. Third Argument ibid. Fourth Argument 270. Fifth Argument 272. Mr. Cary's Reply to it 273. The answer 274. The Reasons of my Faith and Practice in the Baptism of Infants 278. in several Theses Thes. 1. God hath dealt with his Church and People in the way of a Covenant and will do so to the end of the World 281. Thes. 2. After the Cessation of the first Covenant as a Covenant of Life God hath published a Second Covenant of Grace by Iesus Christ 283. When the Covenant of Grace took place 284. Thes. 3. Tho the primordial Light of this Covenant of Grace was comparatively weak and obscure yet God from the first publication of it hath been heightning its Privileges and amplifying its Glory in the after Editions and will more and more illustrate it to the end of the World 287. Thes. 4. It is past all doubt that the Infant-seed of Abraham under the second Edition of the Covenant of Grace were taken into God's gracious Covenant had the Seal of that Covenant applied to them and were thereby added to the visible Church 289. Thes. 5. That Rom. 11. 17. is a clear proof that believing Parents and their Seed are ingrafted into the room of the Jews who were broken off 290 291. Thes. 6. Suitably hereunto when a Christian Church was constituted the Children of such believing Parents were declared foederally holy 1 Cor. 7. 14. That the Promise which was seal'd to them by Circumcision is now seal'd by Baptism Act. 2. 39. 292. Thes. 7. The change of the Token and Seal of the Covenant from Circumcision to Baptism will by no means infer the change of the Covenants especially when the latter comes into the place of and serves to the same use and end with the former Col. 2. 11. p. 295. A Postscript to Mr. Cary 297. Some absurdities chargeable upon him 300. The Contents of the Second Appendix Or The Rise and Growth of Antinomianism THe rise of Antinomianism Ap. 2. 308. The Abuse of Free-grace chargable upon good as well as wicked Men 311. By what means some good Men may be drawn to such dangerous Opinions 313 314 315 316. A Catalogue of Ten Antinomian errors 318. which are all contrary to the current of the Scriptures 323. and to the experience of Saints 325. Error 1. That Iustification is an eternal Act of God and so perfectly abolishes Sin in our Persons that we are as clear from Sin as Christ himself 328. Sense of the Orthodox about it 328 329. This proved to be irrational 332. Vnscriptural 335. Injurious to Iesus Christ 338. and injurious to the Souls of Men 340. Error 2. That Iustification by Faith is only the manifestation to us of what was really and actually done before Reasons against it 341 ad 350. Error 3. That Men ought not to doubt of their Faith or question whether they believe or no. Reasons against it 351 ad 354. Error 4. That Believers are not bound to confess their Sins or pray for the Pardon of them From whence will follow either 1. That there is no Sin in Believers 355. Or 2. That Sin in them is inconsiderable 357. Or 3. That it is not the Will of God they should confess and mourn over them which is refuted 358 Error 5. That God sees no Sin in Believers 360. This proved to be injurious to God's Omniscience 361. To be inconsistent with his providential Dispensations 362. To have no foundation in Scripture 363. To clash with their other Principles 365. Error 6. That God is not angry with the Elect for their Sins 365. How the Antinomians led into this Error 366. Three Concessions about God's Corrections of his People 368. God lays his Corrections on his People 369. And for their Sins 371. These Corrections consistent with his satisfi'd Iustice 373 Error 7. That by God's laying our Iniquities upon Christ he became as sinful as we and we as compleatly righteous as he That not only the Punishment of Sin but the Sin it self was laid upon Christ 375 376. Four Concessions 377 378. Sin simply considered did not become the Sin of Christ 379. We are not as compleatly Righteous as Christ 384. Error 8. Neither Believers own Sins nor the Sins of others can do them hurt Nor must they do any Duty for their own Good Salvation or eternal Reward 389. That Believers sins do them no hurt refuted ibid. Sin consider'd formally 392. Effectively 392. Reductively 393. That Believers ought to do no Duty for their own good or with an Eye to their reward refuted 395. Self-ends either Corrupt or Spiritual 397. This Error injurious to the Souls of Men ibid. Error 9. The new Covenant is not made with us but Christ for us The Covenant is wholly a promise without any Condition on our parts That Faith Repentance Obedience are Conditions on Christ's part and that he performs them for us 398. Refuted 399. The Covenant of Redemption and of Grace distinguished ibid. Christ did not believe and repent for us 401. Error 10. They deny Sanctification to be the evidence of Iustification 404. Refuted ibid. The Contents of the Sermon about

Law to omit forbear or give over to curse that People any more But did or can the Law forbear or cease to curse those that are absolutely under it as a ministration of death and condemnation Pray consult Rom. 3. 19. and Gal. 3. 10. Are you aware what you say when you place Believers absolutely under the Curse of the Law and then talk of the New Covenant's victory over it and after all this leave them as you do absolutely under the cursing power of the one and still under the victorious grace of the other For shame my Friend give up your absurd notion and repent of this folly I would not willingly shame you before the World I did all that lay in me to prevent it But however Pudor est medicina pudoris the only way you have left me to prevent your glorying in your shame is this way to make you ashamed of your vain-glory As for that Scripture you alledge to countenance your fancy Rom. 5. 17 20. you might to as good purpose have opened your Bible and have taken the first Scripture that came to hand and it would have done your Position less harm For the Apostle's scope there is to demonstrate the perfection of the abounding Righteousness of Christ for the full discharge of Believers from the guilt of sin and curse of Adam's Covenant and cuts the throat of your Position which it is alledged to prove I have stood the longer upon the clearing of this first Point because this being fully cleared it runs through and clears the whole Controversy betwixt us For now it will be evident to all That neither Abraham's nor Moses his Covenant complexly taken as Mr. Cary takes it could possibly be for this reason an Adam's Covenant of Works and if not a Covenant of Works then how dark or legal soever the Dispensations of them were they must needs be the same Covenant of Grace for substance under which we are and so the main Controversy betwixt us is hereby at an end I know not how many Covenants of Works or how many of Grace Mr. C. fancies there are But Orthodox Divines constantly affirm That as there never were but two ways of Life to mankind the one before the Fall by perfect doing the other after the Fall by sincere believing So answerably there can be but two Covenants betwixt God and Mankind viz. the Covenant of Works and the Covenant of Grace The last of which hath indeed been more obscurely Administred and in that respect is called the Old Covenant yet that and the New are essentially but one Covenant And the Church of God which for many Ages stood under that Old Covenant did not stand under it as an Adam's Covenant or the First Covenant of works for the undeniable Reasons above given And therefor Abraham's Covenant from whence we derive our Childrens Title to Baptism must of necessity be the very same Covenant for substance with this New Covenant which all Abraham's believing off-spring and their Infant-seed are now under And in proving this one point I have sufficiently confuted both Mr. C's Solemn Call and this his feeble vindication of it together But lest he should take this for the only Absurdity proved upon him tho' it be tiresome to me and must be ungrateful to him give me leave to touch one more among many and that the rather because I make great use of it in this Controversy and Mr. Cary both yields and denies it If his own words be the Messengers of his meaning either he or I must mistake their errand I had in my Prolegomena distinguished of the Law as strictly taken for the Ten Commandments and more largely and complexly taken as including the Ceremonial Law The former I considered according to God's intention and design in the prom●lgation of it which was to add it as an Appendix to the Promise Gal. 3. 19. And the carnal Iews mistaking and perverting the end of the Law and making it to themselves a Covenant of Works by making it the very Rule and Reason of their justification before God Rom. 9. 32 33. Rom. 10. 3. I told him That the Controversy depended upon this double sense of the Law for that it ought not to be denominated from the abused and mistaken End of it but from God's chief scope and design in the promulgation of it which was to add it as an Appendix to the Promise as the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there imports and so must be published with Evangelical purposes Let us now hear Mr. C's sense of this matter In his Call p. 131. he yields the distinction in these words In his Reply p. 43. proving the Law to be a Covenant of Works from Rom. 10. 5. he saith The Jews were right enough in reference to the true nature of the Law That it was a Covenant of Works c. 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 to shew 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 of a Saviour which they being ignorant of and still going about to establish the●r own Righteousness which was of the Law and refusing to submit themselves unto the righteousness of God c. they stumbled at that stumbling stone and were accordingly broken snared and taken Rom. 9. 31 32 33. Rom. 10. 3. And this saith he was the true ground of the dispute between the Apostle and them This was Orthodoxly spoken and would end the Controversy would he stand to it But This was the nature of it in the first sanction of it as the fruit of God's special designation and appointment and that it is the greatest violation and perverting of Scripture that can lightly be met with to affirm that this is uttered and declared by Paul c. only because the Jews had perverted it and reduced it as they thought to its primitive intention And again p. 44. he saith he hath proved that it was the same with Adam's Covenant in both respects that is intentionally as well as materially considered And once more p. 20. he expresly denies that the Law was added as an Appendix to the Promise calls that a crude assertion of mine and asks me Why it might not be added as an Appendix rather to the first Covenant of Works to re-inforce that And after all gushes out many slighting and opprobrious terms upon me which I will not throw back again but rather leave him to reconcile himself with himself I shall only ask Mr. Cary a sober Question or two instead of Recriminations and rendring reviling for reviling First How the Iews were right enough in reference to the true nature of the Law as it was a Covenant of Works and yet out in respect of its proper use and intention which was not that any should attain unto Life and Righteousness

three Lines in the 49th page of your Reply where you say you have sufficiently answered and cleared this in p. 169 172. of your former Discourse from the corrupt interpretation by me fastened thereon Now if the Reader will give himself the trouble to examine those Pages he shall find that Mr. C. there allows that very interpretation which he here calls corrupt and saith it comes all to one reckoning with his own If this will overthrow my second Argument it is gone Argument III. My third Argument was drawn from Acts 7. 38. in this Form If Christ himself were the Angel by whom the Laws were delivered to Moses which are there called the lively Oracles of God then the Law cannot be a pure Adam ●s Covenant of Works For it is never to be imagined that ever Jesus Christ himself should deliver to Moses such a Covenant directly opposite to all the ends of his future Incarnation But it is more than probable from that Text that it was Christ which delivered the Law to Moses on the Mount Ergo. To this Argument he saith not one word in p. 49. of his Reply where he cites a part of it nibling a little at that expression The lively Oracles of God thinking it unimaginable the Sinai Law should be such when as the Apostle Paul Rom. 7. 10. found the Commandment to be unto death and the Apostle 2 Cor. 3. 6 7. calls it a Ministration of death I must therefore leave Mr. C. to reconcile those two Scriptures And withal I must tell him that Spanhemius gives the same sense I do of Acts 7. 38. as the current judgment of Christians against the Iews That it was not a created Angel but Christ himself Argument IV. The last Argument I urged was from Rom. 9. 4. and thus it may run No such Covenant as by the Fall had utterly lost all its Promises Privileges and Blessings and could retain nothing but Curses and Punishments could possibly be numbred among the chief Privileges in which God's Israel gloried But the Law given at Sinai was numbred among their chief privileges Rom. 9. 4. Ergo. To this he only saith p. 57. of his Reply That the Law even as it was a Covenant of Works was a privilege inestimable beyond what all others enjoyed because the very Curses and Punishments annexed thereunto in case of the least faileur were of excellent use to convince them of their sin and misery without Christ and their necessity therefore of a Saviour which was the proper work of the Law as a Covenant of works which advantage all other Nations wanting it might well be numbred among the chief Privileges they were invested with But 1. If the Law were intended by God to be an Adam's Covenant to them as Mr. C. saith it was where then is the Privilege of God's Israel above other Nations 2. If their Privilege consisted in the subserviency of that Law to Christ as he here intimates it did then he yields the thing I contend for For this being its chief scope and end we do hence justly denominate it a Covenant of Grace though more obscure and legally administred And in this judgment most of our solid Divines concur Mr. Charnock on the Attributes p. 390. is clear and judicious in the point Mr. Samuel Bolton in that excellent Book called The Bounds of Christian Liberty gives nine solid Arguments to prove the Law was not set up at Sinai as a Covenant of Works Mr. Anth. Burgess gives us six Arguments to prove the same Conclusion Mr. Greenhill on Ezek. 16. gives us demonstration from that Context That since it was a Marriage-Covenant as it appears to be v. 8. it cannot possibly be a distinct Covenant from the Covenant of Grace The incomparable Turrettine Learnedly and Judiciously states this Controversy and both positively asserts and by many Arguments fully proves That the Sinai Law cannot be a pure Covenant of Works or a Covenant specifically distinct from the Covenant of Grace It were easie to fill Pages with Allegations of this kind but I hope what hath been said may suffice for this Point But still Mr. Cary complains that I have all this while but threatned his Arguments to prove them fallacious or to have four Terms in them and therefore he hath drawn out some select Arguments as he calls them p. 37. to try my skill upon I will neither tire my Reader in a foolish chase of such weak and impertinent Arguments as he there produceth nor yet wholly neglect them lest he glory in them as unanswerable And therefore to shew him the fate of the rest I will only touch his first Argument which being his Argumentum Palmarium deservedly leads the Van to all the rest And thus it runs upon all four That Covenant that is not of Faith must needs be a Covenant of Works yea the very same for substance with that made with Adam But the Scripture is express That the Law is not of Faith Gal. 3. 12. Ergo. The Law is considered two ways in Scripture 1. Largely for the whole Mosaical Oeconomy comprehensive of the Ceremonial as well as Moral Precepts and that Law is of Faith as the Learned Turrettine hath proved by four Scripture Arguments Pars secunda p. 292 293. Because it contained Christ the Object of Faith c. Because it impelled men to seek Christ by Faith Because it required that God be worshipped which he cannot rightly be without Faith And because Paul describes the Righteousness of Faith in those very words whereby Moses had declared the Precepts of the Law Deut. 30. 11 12 13. Again the Law in Scripture is taken strictly for the Moral Law only considered abstractly from the promises of Grace as the Legal Iusticiaries understood it These are two far different senses and acceptations of the Law Your Major Proposition takes the Law in its large complex body as appears by your 3d page Your Minor Proposition which you would confirm by Gal. 3. 12. takes the Law strictly and abstractly as it is set disjunctly from yea in opposition to Faith and the Promises and so there are two sorts of Law in your Argument and consequently your Argument is fallacious as all its fellows be and runs as I told you before upon all four I hope this may suffice with respect to the Sinai Covenant controverted betwixt me and my Neighbour to evince that it cannot be what he asserts it to be even an Adam's Covenant of Works and that I have discharged what I undertook to prove with respect to this Covenant namely That Mr. C. cannot free his Position from the gross Absurdities with which I loaded it but endeavouring to do that hath incurred many more that his Reply hath left my Arguments standing in their full strength against him and that the Position I have set up against him is well founded in Scripture and hath the general concurrence and consent of Learned Holy and Orthodox Divines To

conclude Let the grave and learned Dr. Edw. Reynolds in his excellent Treatise of the Vse of the Law determine this Controversy betwixt us p. 371 c. where designedly handling this Doctrine from Rom. 7. 13. That the Law was revived and promulgated anew on Mount Sinai by the Ministry of Moses with no other than Evangelical and merciful purposes he abundantly confirms my Sense and Arguments and saves me the labour of refuting the principal and most of yours where carrying before him the whole Context of Gal. 3. from the 15th to the 23d he clearly carries his Doctrine with it proving from v. 15. That God's Covenant with Abraham was perpetual and immutable and therefore all other subsequent Acts of God such as the giving of the Law was do some way or other refer unto it 2. From v. 16. he further proves That as God's Covenant with Abraham is most constant in regard of the wisdom and unvariableness of him that made it so it can never expire for want of a Seed to whom it is made 3. From v. 17. he proves that if another Law be made after the Promise which prima specie and in strict construction doth imply a contradiction to the terms and nature of the former Law then it is certain that this latter Law must be understood in some other sense and admit of some other subordinate use which may well consist with the being and force of the former Covenant 4. From v. 18. he proves that the coming of the Law hath not voided the Promise and that the Law is not of force as you vainly dream towards the Seed to whom the Promise is made and therefore if it be not to stand in a contradiction it follows that it must stand in subordination to the Gospel and so to tend to Evangelical Purposes 5. He further proves his Conclusion from v. 19. which shews for what end the Law was added 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It was not saith he set up alone as a thing in gross by it self as an adequate compleat solid Rule of Righteousness as it was given to Adam in Paradise much less was it published to void and disannul any precedent Covenant but so far was it from abrogating that it was added to the Promise by way of subserviency and attendance the better to advance and make effectual the Covenant it self and that until the Seed should come which whether it respect Christ personal or mystical in either sense saith he it confirms the point we are upon viz. That the Law hath Evangelical purposes If the Seed be understood of the Person of Christ then this shews that the Law was put to the Promise the better to raise and stir up in men the expectations of Christ the promised Seed But if we understand by Seed the Faithful which I rather approve then the Apostle's meaning is this That as long as any are either to come into the unity of Christ's Body and have the Covenant of Grace applied to them c. so long there will be use of the Law both to the Unregenerate to make them ●ly to Christ and those that are already called that they may learn to cast all their faith hope and expectation of Righteousness upon him still This then manifestly shews that there was no other intention in publishing the Law but with reference to the Seed that is with Evangelical purposes to shew mercy not with reference to those that perish who would have had condemnation enough without the Law And further strengthens his Conclusion from the last words of vers 19. That it was ordained by Angels in the hand of a Mediator This saith he evidently declares That the Law was published in mercy and pacification not in fury or revenge for the work of a Mediator is to negotiate peace and treat of reconcilement between Parties offended whereas if the Lord had intended death in the publishing of the Law he would not have proclaimed it in the hand of a Mediator but of an Executioner 6. From vers 20. Those words saith he shew why the Law was published in the hand of a Mediator viz. that they should not despair and sink under the fear of his Wrath. For as he made a Covenant of Promise to Abraham and his Seed so he is the same God still one in his grace and mercy towards Sinners God is one i. e. in sending this Mediator he doth declare to Mankind that he is at peace and unity with them again Moses was the Representative and Christ the substantial and real Mediator God is one i. e. he carries the same purpose and intention both in the Law and in the Gospel namely benevolence and desire of reconcilement with men 7. To sum up all that hath been spoken touching the use of the Law in a plain similitude Suppose we a Prince should proclaim a Pardon to all Traitors if they would come in and plead it and after this should send forth his Officers to attach imprison examine convince arraign threaten and condemn them is he now contrary to himself hath he repented of his Mercy No but he is unwilling to lose his Mercy desirous to have the honour of his Mercy acknowledged unto him The same is the Case between God and us To Abraham he made a promise of Mercy and Blessedness to all that would plead interest in it for the remission of their Sins but men were secure and heedless of their Estate c. Hereupon the Lord published by Moses a severe and terrible Law yet in all this God doth but pursue his first purpose of mercy and take a course to make his Gospel accounted worthy of all acceptation which clears the general point That God in the publication of the Law by Moses on Mount Sinai had none but Merciful and Evangelical Intentions And once more The Law was not published by Moses on Mount Sinai as it was given to Adam in Paradise to justify or to save men And p. 385. it is not given ex primari● intentione to condemn men In consequence to all which he saith p. 388 389. that to preach the Law alone by it self is to pervert the use of it neither have we any power or commission so to do It was published as an Appendant to the Gospel and so must it be preached It was published in the hand of a Mediator and must be preached in the hand of a Mediator It was published Evangelically and it must be so preached See how this agrees now with p. 173. of your Call and how the several parts of the discourse of this sound and eminent Doctor which I have been forced to sum up and contract do abundantly confute your vain Notions of the Law and cut the very nerves of your best Arguments if they had any nerves in them for indeed it is moles absque nervis It were easy for me to represent the Sense of many other eminent Divines in perfect

Covenant of Grace though more obscurely administred But because Latin Authors are of little use to you and among English ones the Judgment of Dr. Crisp I suppose will be instar omnium with you I will recite it faithfully out of his Sermon upon the two Covenants where he makes the Old and New Covenants to be indeed two distinct Covenants of Grace for which I see no reason at all but proves the former to be so in these words It is granted of all men That in the Covenant of Works there is no remission of Sin there is no notice of Christ but the whole business or imployment of the Priests of the old Law was altogether about remission of Sins and the exhibiting and holding forth of Christ in their fashion unto the People In the 15th of Numbers vers 28. I will give you but one Instance there you shall plainly see That the administration of that Priestly Office had remission of Sins as the main end of that Administration If a Soul sin through ignorance he shall bring a She-goat unto the Priest and he shall make an atonement for the Soul that sinneth ignorantly and it shall be forgiven him See the main end is administring forgiveness of Sins And that Christ was the main Subject of that their Ministry is plain because the Apostle saith in the Verse before my Text That all that Administration was but a Shadow of Christ and a Figure for the present to represent him as he doth express in the 9th Chapter of this Epistle And the truth is the usual general Gospel that all the Iews had was in their Sacrifices and Priestly Observations So that it 's plain the administration of their Covenant was an administration of Grace and absolutely distinct from the administration of the Covenant of Works And what can be said more absolutely and directly contradictory to your Position than this is And yet again p. 250. speaking to that Scripture Heb. 8. 8. where the Apostle distinguishes of a better and a faulty of First and Second he saith Finding fault with them The days come when I will make a new Covenant with the House of Israel and with the House of Judah not according to the Covenant I made with their Fathers when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the Land of Egypt and as Ieremiah adds it for the Apostle takes all this out of Ier. 31. 31. although I was an Husband to them and in the close of all Your Sins and Iniquities will I remember no more Here are two Covenants a new Covenant and the Covenant he made with their Fathers Some may think it was the Covenant of works at the promulgation of the Moral Law but mark well that Expression of Ieremiah and you shall see it was the Covenant of Grace For saith he not according to the Covenant I made with their Fathers although I was an Husband unto them How can God be considered as Husband to a People under the Covenant of Works which was broken by man in innocency and so became disannulled or impossible by the breach of it The Covenant of Works runs thus Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things that are written in the Book of the Law and In the day thou sinnest thou shalt die the death Man had sinned before God took him by the hand to lead him out of the Land of Egypt and Sin had separated Man from God how then can God be called an Husband in the Covenant of Works The Covenant therefore was not a Covenant of Works but such a Covenant as the Lord became an Husband in and that must be a Covenant of Grace c. How the Doctor makes good his two distinct Covenants of Grace I see not nor expect ever to see proved and is not my present concernment to enquire but once it is evident by what he hath here said That the Ceremonial Law whereof Circumcision is a branch can be no other than the Covenant of Grace And nothing is more common among our Divines than to prove not only the Sinai Law but God's Covenant with Abraham Gen. 17. to be the Covenant of Grace by this Medium That God having entred into a Covenant of Grace with Abraham before would never bring him under a Covenant of Works afterwards which must nullify and void the former And beside such a Covenant of Works as you make this was never heard of in the World wherein God promises to be a God to Abraham and his Seed in their Generations upon the rigorous and impossible Terms of Adam's Covenant By this time I presume you must feel the force of those Arguments produced against your vain and groundless notion and how little you are able to do to deliver your Thesis from them but the more you struggle the more still you are intangled Go which way you will your Absurdities follow you as your Shadow haeret lateri lethalis arundo Leaving therefore all your Absurdities upon you till God shall give you more illumination and ingenuity to discern and acknowledge them I shall pass on to the examination of your third Position which led you into these other gross Mistakes and if God shall convince you of your Error in this point I hope it may prove a means of recovering you out of the rest which in love to your Soul I heartily desire III. Your third Position is That God's Covenant with Abraham Gen. 17. can be no other than the Covenant of Works because Circumcision was the Condition of it For say you the new Covenant is altogether absolute and unconditional Of the Conditionality of the New Covenant This Question Whether the Covenant of Grace be conditionate or absolute was moved as a learned Man observes in the former Age by occasion of the Controversy about Justification betwixt the Protestants and Papists Among the Protestants some denied and others affirmed the Conditionality of the Gospel-covenant Those that denied it did so for fear of mingling Law and Gospel Christ's Righteousness and Man's as the Papists had wickedly done before Those that affirmed it did so out of fear also lest the necessity of Faith and Holiness being relaxed Libertinism should be that way introduced But if the Question were duly stated and the sense of its Terms agreed upon the Gospel-Covenant may be affirmed to be conditional to secure the People of God from Libertinism without the least diminution of the Righteousness of Christ or clouding the Free-grace of God I did in my first Answer to your Call endeavour to prevent the needless trouble you have here given your self by a succinct state of the Question telling you the Controversy betwixt us is not 1. Whether the Gospel-covenant requires no duties at all of them that are under it nor 2. Whether it requires any such Conditions as were in Adam's Covenant namely perfect personal and perpetual Obedience under the penalty of the Curse and admitting no place of Repentance nor 3.

any the least guilt in the Elect to be pardoned and consequently no place or room could be left for any Justification in time And then it must follow that seeing Christ died in time for sin according to the Scriptures It must be for his own sins that he died and not for the sins of the Elect Diametrically opposite to Rom. 4. 25. and the whole current of Scripture and faith of Christians 'T is therefore very unbecoming and unworthy of a justified person after Christ hath taken all his guilt upon himself and suffer'd all the punishment due thereunto in his place and room Instead of an humble and thankful admiration of his unparallel'd grace therein to throw more than the guilt and punishment of his sins upon Christ even the transgression it self and comparing his own Righteousness with Christ's to say he is as compleatly Righteous as Christ himself This is as if a company of Bankrupt Debtors Arrested for their own Debts ready to be cast into Prison and not having one Farthing to satisfy after their Debts have been freely and fully discharg'd by another out of his immense treasure should now compare with him yea and think they honour'd him by telling him that now they are as compleatly Rich as himself I am well assur'd no good Man would embrace an Opinion so derogatory to Christ's Honour as this is did he but see the odious consequences of it doubtless he would abhor them as much as we And as for those now in Heaven who fell into such mistakes in the way thither were they now acquainted with what is transacted here below they would exceedingly rejoyce in the detection of those mistakes and Bless God for the refutation of them Error VIII They affirm That Believers need not fear their own sins nor the sins of others for as much as neither their own or others sins can do them any hurt nor must they do any duty for their own good or salvation or for eternal rewards That we need fear no hurt from sin or may not aim at our own good in Duty are two Propositions that sound harsh in the ears of Believers I shall consider them severally and refute them as briefly as I can Proposition I. Believers need not fear their own sins or the sins of others because neither our own or others sins can do us any hurt They seem to be induced into this Error by misunderstanding the Apostle in Rom. 8. 28. as if the scope of that Text were to assert the benefits of sin to justified persons whereas he speaks there of Adversities and Afflictions befalling the Saints in this Life Vniversalis restringenda est ad materiam subjectam loquitur enim de afflictionibus piorum The subject matter saith Pareus on the place restrains the Universal expression of the Apostle For when he there saith All things shall work together for good he principally intends the afflictions of the Godly of which he treats there in that context It may be extended also to all providential events Omnia quaecunque eis accedunt forinsecus tam adversa quàm prospera All adverse and prosperous events of things without us as Estius upon the place notes Nothing is spoken of sin in this Text. And the Apostle distributing this General into Particulars verse 38. plainly shews what are the things he intended by his Universal expression verse 28. as also in what respect no creature can do the Saints any hurt namely that they shall never be able to separate them from the love of God which is in Christ Iesus our Lord. And in this respect it is true that the Sins of the Elect shall not hurt them by frustrating the purpose of God concerning their Eternal Salvation or totally and finally to separate them from his Love This we grant and yet we think it a very unwary and unsound expression That Believers need not fear their own sins because they can do them no hurt 'T is too general and unguarded a Proposition to be received for truth What if their sins cannot do them that hurt to frustrate the purpose of God and Damn them to Eternity in the World to come Can it therefore do them no hurt at all in their present state of conflict with it in this World For my part I think the greatest fear of caution is due to sin the greatest evil and that Chrysostome spake more like a Christian when he said Nil nisi peccatum timeo I fear nothing but sin Though sin cannot finally ruine the Believer yet it can many ways hurt and injure the Believer and therefore ought not to be misrepresented as such an innocent and harmless thing to them In vain are so many terrible threatnings in the Scriptures against it if it can do us no hurt and it is certain nothing can do us good but that which makes us better and more Holy But Sin can never pretend to that of all things in the World But to come to an issue Sin may be consider'd three ways 1. Formally 2. Effectively 3. Reductively First Formally as a transgression of the Preceptive part of the Law of God and under that consideration it is the most formidable evil in the whole World The evil of evils at which every gracious heart trembles and ought rather to chuse Banishment Prison and Death it self in the most terrible form than Sin or that which is most tempting in Sin the pleasures of it as Moses did Heb. 11. 25. Secondly Sin may be consider'd Effectively with respect to the manifold mischiefs and calamities it produceth in the World and the Spiritual and Corporeal Evils it infers upon Believers themselves Though it cannot Damn their Souls yet it makes War against their Souls and brings them into miserable Bondage and Captivity Rom. 7. 23. It wounds their Souls under which wounds they are feeble and sore broken yea they roar by reason of the disquietness of their hearts Psal. 38. 5 8. Is War Captivity Festering painful Wounds causing them to roar no hurt to Believers It breaks their very Bones Ps. 51. 8. And is that no hurt It draws off their Minds from God interrupts their Prayers and Meditations Rom. 7. 18 19 20 21. And is there no hurt in that It causeth their Graces to decline wither and languish to that degree that the things which are in them are ready to die Rev. 3. 1. and Rev. 2. 4. And is the loss of Grace and Spiritual strength no hurt to a Believer It hides the Face of God from them Isa. 59. 2. And is there no hurt in spiritual withdrawments of God from their Souls Why then do deserted Saints so bitterly lament and bemoan it It provokes innumerable afflictions and miseries which fall upon our Bodies Relations Estates and if Sin be the cause of all these inward and outward miseries to the People of God sure then there is some hurt in Sin for which the Saints ought to be afraid of it Thirdly Sin may be consider'd Reductively