them under the Law or Sinai Covenant For with them all was that Covenant made and unâ—…er it they were Exod. 34. 27. Deut. 4 13. â—…h 27. 26. Yea they were absolutely under â—…t Gal. 5. 23. Before Faith came saith the Apostle we were kept under the Law shut up â—…nto the Faith which should afterward be revealâ—…d So Gal 4. 4 5. When the fulness of time was â—…ome God sent forth his Son made of a Woman made â—…nder the Law to redeem them that were under the Law that we might receive the Adoption of Sons And the Scriptures do equally assure us that as many as are under the Law they 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 Gal. 3. 10. unto which all the People were to say Amen Deut. 27. 26 These things you cannot but acknowledge as being no other than plain Scripture Propositions when yet at the same time you must needs grant that all Gods Elect among that People were under a pure Covenant of Gospel Grace whereby they were saved Now either it was the same or they were two different Covenants that had these essentially different Properties If they were two then â—…ou grant my main Proposition that God's People were then under two distinct and Essentially different Covenants If you say it was the same then see what follows For if the whole Body of the Israelites then were as they were under the Law and consequently under its Curse Can a Man be under the Curse of the Law and yet at the same time and as the fruit of the same Covenant be under the Blessing of the Gospel Doth the same Fountain at the same time send forth bitter Waters and sweet Or is it possible that the same Covenant should at the same time be a Covenant of Faith in Christ Jesus when both God himself Moses and Paul do plainly represent it to us as a Covenant of Works requiring strict universal and perfect Obedience under pain of the Curse Condemnation and Death Indeed I cannot but wonder how you hold and hug a Principle that runs you naturally into such gross Absurdities For do you not see what follows from hence by unavoidable Consequence For according to this Principle you must hold that Moses and all Gods Elect People in Israel who were under that Covenant and with whom it was made must during their Life hang midway between Justification and Condemnation and after Death between Heaven and Hell This you charge upon my Doctrin but do you not see that the same thundring Canon Limbus Patrum Pargatory and the like which with such a full Mouth you discharge at me comes thundring back again upon your self Yea do you not see that the very same Absurdities are far more justly and truly chargeable on your Doctrin than on mine For it may be reasonably concluded according to my Principles that how harsh or dreadful soever the Terms or Conditions of the Legal Covenant were to those that were under it as Moses and the whole Body of the Israelites then were yet the Grace of the Gospel Covenant far superseded and was by far more Victorious Powerful and Efficatious For as the Law entered that the offence might abound so saith the Apostle where Sin hath abounded Grace did much more abound And if by one man's offence death reigned by oue much more they which receive abundance of Grace and of the gift of Righteousness shall reign in life by one Jesus Christ Rom. 5. 17. 20. But what shall relieve when those two opposite and quite contrary conditions Faith and Works and the consequent fruits of either Justification and Condemnation shall be compriz'd or rather confounded together in one and the same Covenant Shall they fly from one part of the Covenant to the other from the Bitter Waters to the sweet Waters of the same Fountain for Relief This sounds harsh Is it not therefore much more congruous and suitable to Reason as well as also to the constant Analogy of the Christian Faith and Doctrin to affirm as Paul doth that these are the two Covenants and that the Sinner being scared with the dread and terrors of the Legal Covenant is forced thereby to have recourse unto the Gospel Covenant for succour which the Spirit of God hath assured us is of such a superabounding Nature for Comfort and Salvation above what the other contained for Death and Condemnation Besides God doth plainly tell the Israelites that he would remember his Covenant with them in the days of their youth I say His Covenant in opposition and contradistinction to their own before spoken of And then saith he thou shalt remember thy ways and be ashamed when thou shalt receive thy Sisters and I will give them to thee for Daughters but not by thy Covenant and I will establish my Covenant with thee and thou shalt know that I am the Lord Ezek. 16. 60 61. Now what may we infer from hence but plainly this that there was a two fold Covenant betwixt God and Israel the one called theirs the other Gods yet both Gods Covenants the first was called theirs because they were required to perform the Conditions of it the one a Covenant of Works whereof Moses was the Mediatour wherein themselves were immediately concerned to procure their own Salvation by their own Duties of Obedience which was impossible which was the true nature of the Sinai Covenant Rom. 10. 5. Gal. 3. 10 12. The other a Covenant of Gospel Grace which is wholly free and absolute whereof Christ is the only Mediatour and Surety Rom. 10. 6 7 8 c. Heb. 8. 6 7 c. This is properly Gods Covenant and this is the Covenant saith God that I will establish In short the Scriptures do plainly assure us of two Covenants the Legal and the Gospel and that these two are essentially different in respect of the terms of Life propounded in either And the Scriptures do equally assure us that no man is justified by the Law in the sight of God This is evident saith the Apostle and why For the just shall live by Faith and the Law is not of Faith but the man that doth them shall livein them On the contrary you affirm that the Law is of Faith yea that it is a Covenant of Faith in Christ Jesus Now whomshall we believe whether Paul or you You affirm that the Sinai Covenant was purposely so dispensed as to tender Life and Happiness upon two opposite and contrary Conditions Works and Faith Perfect doing and believing The Apostle Paul on the other hand affirms That if it be by Grace then is it no more of Works otherwise Grace is no more Grace and if it be of Works then is it no more Grace otherwise Work is no more Work So that we see the Scripture allows of no such mixture and shews us it is impossible that the same Covenant should
our Hopes and Expectations in reference to all our own Covenants would soon fail us and expose us to the greatest of Disappointments at last Thus I have at length gone through your Discourse concerning the Covenants And in particular I have shewn you that the Covenant of Circumcision which God made with Abraham Gen. 17. 7. which you tell me is the Foundation on which our Divines have built the Right of Infant 's Baptism was so far from being a Gospel Covenant reaching Gentile Believers and their Seed that it could be no other than a Covenant of Works as that at Sinai was which was built thereon and consequently both now Repealed From hence therefore as I have already told you 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 Priviledges 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 Priviledges were then Bottomed on are now Repealed Neither is there any room left for any other Argument 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 Subjects thereof to the Exclusion of Infants as I have already Proved Your Foundation therefore being destroyed you might have saved your labour in the following Part of your Present Reply as I shall do mine by way of Return thereunto except further occasion be offered and then the Impertinency as well as Fallacy of your present Reasonings may be yet further detected The substance of what you now offer having been already sufficiently Answered had you been pleased to take notice of it in the same Discourse you pretend to Answer The End of the First Part. PART II. Containing a Reply to Mr. Joseph Whiston's Reflections on my forementioned Discourse in a late small Tract of his Entituled The right Method for the proving Infant Baptism As also a Reply to the several Propositions and Arguments by him insisted on in his Answer to Mr. Cox whereby he pretends to have clearly and fully proved That the Covenant of Circumcision established with Abraham Gen. 17. 7. is the Covenant of Grace IN the first place then As to what concerns Mr. Whiston's Reflections on my forementioned Discourse in his late forementioned Tract After he had dealt with Mr. Grantham he thus bespeaks the World I thought saith he I might justly expect something extraordinary in Mr. Cary's Book being recommended as it is and I shall not deny but my Expectations were somewhat high But if ever that Proverb Parturiunt Montes were verified it is here Alas what do I meet with but Ridiculus Mus For I have yet observed but two Arguments Syllogistically framed by which he attempts the Confirmation of that Notion of his That the Covenant Gen. 17. 7. is not the Covenant of Grace and the very Recital of them may in the Judgment of all unbyassed Persons be a sufficient Confutation of them Thus Mr. Whiston begins but how he makes good these Taunting Florishes and Scornful Reflections will appear in the Sequel In the mean season I do acknowledge that there are but two Arguments Syllogistically framed in my forementioned Discourse by which I attempted the proof of the forementioned Proposition to wit That the Covenant Gen. 17. 7. is not the Covenant of Grace though the Intelligent Reader may easily perceive that I could soon have dress'd up many more in the same form out of the Substance of my Discourse upon that Subject and should so have done but that I thought plain Reasonings from the Scriptures had been sufficient However since nothing will be taken notice of that is Argumentative in my Discourse but what is dress'd up in Mood and Figure let us attend to what he saith to these two My first Argument is this If the Covenant of Circumcision Recorded Gen. 17. 7 8 9 10. was as much a Covenant of Works as that at Mount Sinai and that mentioned Deut. 29. 9. nay as much as the Covenant made with Adam before his Fall then it is not a Covenant of Grace But it was as much a Covenant of Works as either of the Covenants before mentioned were Therefore c. Letting pass Mr. Whiston's scornful Reflection on this as a lusty Argument if it would stand Let us try the strength of it by the opposition he hath made thereunto In the first place then Mr. Whiston hath thought fit positively to deny the Minor Proposition as that concerns the Covenant made with Adam and that entred with the People of Israel at Mount Sinai Mr. Cary saith he attempts to prove his Minor thus It must needs be as much a Covenant of Works as that entred with the People of Israel at Mount Sinai Yea as that made with Adam in Innocency because although God promised to be a God to Abraham and to his Seed yet it was upon Condition of Obedience with an Answearable Threatning But saith he can Mr. Cary or any other Man of Common Sense think that the bare requiring of Obedience in any Covenant or threatening of Judgments in case of Disobedience makes it presently a Covenant of Works Well suppose it do not what then Not to waste time saith he Mr. Cary must know that it is not the bare requiring of Obedience nor yet the denouncing Threatnings that makes a Covenant a Covenant of Works but the Commanding a Perfect Sinless Obedience to all that is written therein and threatning Death unto all in case of the least failure in such an Obedience Well then say I If this be that that truly denominates a Covenant to be a Covenant of Works Doth not Mr. Whiston know that thus stood the Case in respect of Adam's Covenant yea that thus stood the Case in respect of the Sinai Covenant when God pronounceth a Curse upon every one that continued not in all things that are written therein to do them which I did upon this occasion expresly prove from Gal. 3. 10 12 And did I not also upon this very occasion and in the self-same place expresly prove that this was the very nature of the Covenant of Circumcision from Gal. 5. 3. For I testify to every Man that is Circumcised that he is a Debtor to do the whole Law And did I not observe from thence that it is evident that Circumcision indispensably obliged all that were under it to a Perfect Universal Obedience to the whole Revealed Will and Law of God And did I not also evpresly prove unto you that the breach of this Covenant was attended with an Answerable Threatning from Gen. 17. 14. The uncircumcised Man-child whose flesh of his foreskin is not Circumcised that Soul shall be cut off from his People he hath broken my Covenant And what would Mr. Whiston have more according to his own Concession to prove a Covenant to
Temple of God shall be opened in Heaven wherein shall be seen the Ark of his Testament And whatever Lightnings and Voices Thundrings or Earthquakes may be Coucomitant herewith to be sure the Issue must needs be Comfortable and Glorious to all that are upright in Heart Finally When the Pure and Uncorrupted Doctrin of the Grace of God in Jesus Christ shall be universally preached and all Corrupt Mixtures in Gods Worship shall be totally abolished then and not till then may we expect the Holy City New Jerusalem coming down from God out of Heaven prepared as a Bride adorned for her Husband having the Glory of God and her Light most precious clear as Christal When there shall be no more Curse But the Throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it and his Servants shall serve him In the Hope and Expectation of which day and state of Blessedness I take leave to Subscribe my self Christian Reader Thy Servant for Christ's Sake Philip Cary. PART I. Containing a Just and a Sober Reply to Mr. Flavell's Arguments by way of Answer to the forementioned Discourse SECT I. MR. Flavell tells me in the Manuscript Copy he sent me of his present Reply now in Print That his proper Province at this time is to Examine and Defend the Foundation on which our Divines have built the Right of Infants Baptism viz. Gods Covenant with Abraham Gen. 17. which saith he is the Covenant of Grace the same we are now under The Question hereon being the Articulus stantis vel Cadentis Paedobaptismi And that if I can make good my Thesis that it was not a Gospel Covenant but now abolished I have certainly destroy'd the principal Fort which defended the claim of our Infants to the priviledges of the Covenant He now tells me in his printed Reply That his proper Province is to discover that part of the Foundation meaning Abraham's Covenant whence our Divines deduce the Right of Infants Baptism So that I perceive he is not fixed in his Mind whether Abraham's Covenant be an Entire or Partial Foundation onely Sometimes it seems to him to be the sole Foundation of the Practice of Infants Sprinkling else the Question thereon cannot be the Articulus stantis vel Cadentis Paedobaptismi Otherwhile he is loath to venture it singly upon that Bottom However it be of this I am sure Every Plant which our Heavenly Father hath not planted shall in due season be rooted up And I suppose a little time will shew whether the present practice of Infants Sprinkling be not to be deservedly reckoned among that number That no small stress is and hath been laid upon the Arguments drawn from that Covenant by the Assertors of Infants Baptism for the justification of that practice cannot be denied How the Sinai Covenant came to be hooked into the Question Mr. Flavell himself hath accounted for p. 133. of his forementioned printed Reply as being occasioned by himself Accordingly he tells me in his Manuscript Copy that he is now to give his Reasons why he thinks I have not proved that the Sinai Covenant was a Covenant of Works As also why he thinks I have not proved Abraham's Covenant Gen. 17. to be a Covenant of Works nor that the New Covenant is Absolute and without Condition In his printed Reply the Expression is a little varied for there he saith that that which I affirm and he is to disprove is that the Sinai Covenant and Abraham's Covenant are no Gospel Covenants which is the same in effect with the other For if neither of them be Gospel Covenants they must needs be both a Covenant of Works He begins p. 10. of his printed Reply with the Sinai Covenant which I affirm to be a Covenant of Works the very same for substance with that made with Adam in Innocency For the clearing up of which Proposition and to prevent any further Disputes thereon as to the true state of the Question By the Sinai Covenant I understand the whole Complex Body of the Law as it was delivered on Mount Sinai The Moral part whereof contained a clear and plain manifestation of the Law written in the Heart of Man at the first The addition of the Ceremonial Precepts whereunto makes no alteration as to the true Nature or Essence of that Covenant For so long as this Rule is retained Do this and live as it was in respect of the whole Body of the Law it is still the same Covenant with Adam's for the Substance or Essence of it and is accordingly represented to us in the Scripture under the Denomination of the First or Old Covenant The whole Complex Body of the Sinai Covenant therefore is that which I affirm to be a Covenant of Works the very same for substance with that made with Adam in Paradise Now this Assertion of mine you tell me is attended with many gross Absurdities For first say you from hence it follows that either Moses and all Israel were damned there being no Salvation possible to be attained by that first Covenant or else that there was a Covenant of Grace at the same time running Paralel with the Covenant of Works And so the Elect People of God were at the same time under the First as a Covenant of Death and Condemnation and under the Second as a Covenant of Grace and Justification And this latter you tell me I am forced upon which you say is attended with many false and absurd Conclusions For during Life they must hang mid-way betwixt Justification and Condemnation And after Death they must necessarily hang between Heaven and Hell And so at last say you we have found the Limbus Patrum which the Papists so earnestly contend for and must send Moses and all Gods People to Purgatory so your Manuscript Copyruns How to avoid these Absurdities you say you see not according to my dangerous Concession Reply By way of Answer hereunto I must tell you Sir That I should greatly admire if you your self be not sensible that the same pretended Absurdities do attend and fall full as heavily and indeed a great deal more on your Doctrine than on mine Since that which I affirm to be two distinct and essentially different Covenants to wit Perfect doing with the consequent Curse upon the Non-performance and believing in Christ unto Life and Salvation you are forced according to your Doctrin to comprise in one and the same Covenant And then I would willingly know if you or any other Man can free the present Point as it is thus stated by your selves from the very self same Absurdities you would fasten on me If you can you will with the same breath discharge me and that far more effectually than you can with any shadow of Reason do it for your selves For your Conviction therefore in this respect In the first place It cannot be denied but that the Scriptures do plainly inform us that both Moses and all Gods People during the former Administration were all of
of Promise but God gave it to Abraham by Promise Is the Law then against the Promise God forbid For saith he if there had been a Law which could have given Life verily Righteousness should have been by the Law So then the Law would but could not give Life and why could it not give Life but through our Weakness we were not able to perform it nor could the Law furnish us with power to Enable us thereunto But what the Law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh that Christ hath performed and by his Death and Sufferings made up the Breach between God and us And so in this respect there is only a Difference of Deficiency between the Law and the Gospel the one being strong and powerful the other weak and unable to Relieve us But yet say I this Difference notwithstanding 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 c. This you account strange Doctrin The Reason you give say you is as strange that this comes to pass through the satisfaction of Christ. Good Sir say you Enlighten us in this Rare Notion Did Christ Die to purchase a Reconciliation betwixt the Covenant of Works as such and the Covenant of Grace And I pray Sir why not Did not Christ satisfie the Law on our behalf Was he not made of a Woman made under the Law to Redeem them that were under the Law that we might receive the Adoption of Sons Doth or can the Law it self Impeach those for whom Christ Died and whom God himself pronounceth Righteous Doth not the Law it self that was before our Enemy against us and contrary to us stand up as our Friend through the Mediation of Christ And hath not God for this very purpose set forth his Son Christ unto us a Propitiation through Faith in his Blood to declare unto us his Righteousness that he might be Just and the Justifier of him that Believeth in Jesus And were not the Two Tables accordingly put into the Ark to shew their subserviency to Christ and in this sense its Consistency 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 Is there not here a Perfect Reconciliation betwixt the Two Covenants Are not Mercy and Truth here met together And do not Righteousness and Peace sweetly Kiss and Embrace each other through the satisfaction of Christ And yet it follows not that to be Justified by Works and by Faith should after Christ's Death make no odds of Difference between them according to the Corrupt Inference which you unjustly draw from the Premises For though 't is true in a sense we may be said to be Justified by Works rightly and truly enough that is as Christ in his own Person hath fulfilled the Law for us yet your Inference is far enough from being truly deducible from the Premises according to the common and proper sense of Justification by Works Since as all our own Works are throughout the Scripture perfectly Excluded from any concern in that matter viz. as the meritorious or procuring cause of our Justification So they are according to the tenour of the foregoing Discourse also For if Christ hath satisfied the Law for us hence it follows that our Justification is only the fruit of Gods meer free Grace alone through the Redemption that is in Christ Jesus Thus much may suffice to have been spoken concerning the Absurdities or Self-contradictions which Mr. Flavell chargeth on on me Which so far as they have been already Examined the Reader may easily perceive that they do all of them return upon himself There is only one Passage more which doth more nearly touch the Heart of the Controversie betwixt us which is necessary also to be considered before we proceed unto what follows And that is this Whereas I have Affirmed and do still Affirm that there was no Promise of Pardon on Repentance in Moses's Covenant Mr. Flavell thinks he hath a mighty Advantage against me and supposes I do therein plainly contradict my self because I do yet grant that God promiseth Pardon on Repentance Lev. 26. which Mr. Flavell Affirms to belong to the Dispensation of the Law at Mount Sinai where the Jews are directed to the Covenant which God had made with Jacob Isaac and Abraham for their Relief in this respect For that is the Covenant saith God there that I will remember Well Be it so saith Mr. Flavell if you will needs have it so that the Promise mentioned Lev. 26. refers to Abraham's Covenant yet still it follows that the Covenant made with Abraham must be a Conditional Covenant of Grace For so it s made by this very Text If they accept the Punishment of their Iniquities and their Uncircumcised Hearts be humbled then will I remember my Covenant with Abraham c. You see then that no Unhumbled or Impenitent Person could have Relief from it till Confession and Contrition were wrought in him when you in the mean time stoutly deny that there are any Conditions required in a Gospel Covenant M. S. P. 5. Printed Reply P. 20. But then Mr. Flavell should have considered that this Contrition and Gospel Humiliation can by no means be Effected or Expressed till the Heart be first soundly wrought upon by the Grace of that Covenant which God hath made with Sinners in Jesus Christ. And accordingly this is one main Branch of that Covenant Deut. 30. 6. which I have already proved to be a Gospel Covenant and Essentially Different from that of the Law The Lord thy God will Circumcise thy Heart and the Heart of thy Seed to Love the Lord thy God with all thy Heart and with all thy Soul that thou mayst Live Compare this with the forementioned Text in Leviticus If their Uncircumcised Hearts be humbled c. The Sinner might Reply But Lord this we cannot do of our selves we cannot break our hard and flinty Hearts nor will it ever be performed until thou takest the Work into thine own Hand This therefore the Lord himself undertakes The Lord thy God will Circumcise thy Heart c. And what Condition can there be of that but that of the good Pleasure of God's own Goodness and Grace For whatever is Antecedent thereunto being only a Work or Act of Corrupted Nature can be no Condition whereon the Dispensation of Spiritual Grace is superadded From whence as I have already told you it plainly follows that I the Covenant of Grace is wholly Free and Absolute Eor as much 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 Thus God himself is pleased to Represent unto us the Nature of that New and Evangelical Covenant which he Promised to make
assure us that the Law is not of Faith And accordingly whatever Subordination or Tndency the Law hath to drive us to the Covenant of Faith for Relief and Shelter to be sure the Law it self gives us no Relief For neither chiefly 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 gendereth 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 Paul or you Whether shall we believe the Blessed Apostle who affirms that the Law is not of Faith but of Works and that these are the two Covenants and who in effect also affirms that these two Covenants are essentially or specifically different in respect of the terms of Life propounded in either or those that affirm that the Law is of Faith yea that it is a Covenant of Faith in Christ Jesus These things being thus premised my fourth Proposition roundly and naturally follows For first If it is evident that there can be no medium betwixt these two Faith and Works And if it is as evident that neither will they admit of any mixture And if it be also as evident that the Law is not of Faith since neither chiefly nor ultimately was it propounded or intended thereby then it will unavoidably follow that the Sinai Covenant is a Covenant of Works Yea the very same for substance with that made with Adam It cannot be supposed that Adam's Covenant was a Covenant of Faith and I have now plainly proved that the Sinai Covenant was not the down right consequence of which is that they were both of the same stamp for the substance of them Argum. 2. That Covenant which saith Do this and Live or requireth perfect sinless Obedience in order to the obtainment of Life and Happiness and pronounceth a Curse upon the least failing must needs be a Covenant of Works the same for substance and of the very self same stamp with Adam's Covenant But such is the nature of the Sinai Covenant Ergo. The minor onely needing Proof hath it abundantly from Rom. 10. 5. Moses saith the Apostle Describeth the Righteousness which is of the Law that the man which doth these things shall live by them which he citeth from Lev. 18. 5. Ye shall therefore keep my Statutes and Judgments which if a man do he shall live in them And what can be a more plain Description of a Covenant of Works 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 he that confirmeth not all the words of this Law to do them And all the People shall say Amen And therefore when it evidently appears that this was the nature of the Sinai Covenant in the very first Sanction of it as the fruit of God's special Designation and Appointment and when it is also as manifest that from hence it is that the Apostle calls it as he doth A ministration of Death and Condemnation and therefore now took out of the way being nailed to the Cross of Christ It is the greatest Violation and Perverting of Scripture that can lightly be met with to affirm that all this is uttered and declared by Paul yea by Moses and God himself onely because the Jews had perverted it and not as God intended it For how could the Jews have perverted it before it was Instituted Is there any Scripture that gives the least ground for such a Supposition May we not make any thing or nothing of the Scripture after this rate of Reasoning Would not the Apostle 2 Cor. 3. and Col. 3. have given some hint or other that this had been the meaning when he thunders against the Law as there he doth that he meant it was so and so onely as the Ignorance and Infidelity of unregenerate Men had made it to themselves and not as God intended it And so when he tells us Gal. 3. That the Law requires Perfect Obedience under the pain of a Curse would he not have giuen some hint or other that this was onely because the Jews had perverted it and that it was not so in it self But can we think that Men of Reason will be so easily baffled Or can we believe that Men that have any regard to the Judgment of another day will be content to have their Eyes blinded so as to receive such Doctrines as these The Apostle was careful not to handle the word of God deceitfully but by manifestation of the Truth conmmending our selves saith he to every man's Conscience in the sight of God 2 Cor. 4. 2. So again We are not as many which corrupt the word of God but as of Sincerity but as of God in the sight of God so speak we in Christ 2 Cor. 2. 17. It would have been well if this Rule had been duly observed in our present case The want of this hath been often charged on those that plead for the right of Believers onely to Baptism I shall only pray that neither we nor those that oppose us herein may be found guilty of such a Transgression in the Great Day I shall add for the proof of the minor Proposition of the forementioned Argument what you your self have asserted p. 326 of your Book entituled The Method of Grace The Law say you there requires perfect working under the pain of a Curse Accepted of no short endeavours admitted no Repentance gaveno strength And if any Man can give a fuller Testimony concerning the Law as a Covenant of Works let him if he can I have alledged this to you in order to your Conviction upon this account and your Answer is That this was as the Ignorance and Infidelity of Unregenerate Men had made it to themselves and not as God intended it So say you it was a Covenant of Works a ministration of Death and Condemnation And so say you it requires perfect working under pain of a Curse accepts no short endeavours admitted no Repentance and gave no strength But Sir can you indeed upon second thoughts think this to be a fit or proper Answer Is this by manifestation of the Truth to commend your self to every Man's Conscience in the sight of God Do you indeed think this to be a good and sound Scripture Distinction to save you from the guilt of Self-contradiction when you deny the Law to be
Covenant and consequently that it could not be a Covenant of Works Printed Reply p. 27 28 29 30. The First is Rom. 10. 4. where the Apostle tells us that Christ is the end of the Law for righteousness to every one that Believeth Which I have sufficiently Answered and cleared in my former Discours pag. 169. to pag. 172. from the corrupt Interpretation by you fastened thereon which needs not here to be Repeated The Second is Act. 7. 8. Where Stephens expression of the lively Oracles which you say is to be under stood concerning the Law delivered on Mount Sinai doth no way prove that Covenant to be a Gospel Covenant or that it was not therefore a Covenant of Works For as much as Paul expressly affirms concerning the same Covenant Rom. 7. 10. That the Commandment which was Ordained to Life he found to be unto Death 'T is true the Apostle tells us Rom. 10. 5. That Moses describeth the Righteousness which is of the Law that the Man which doth these things shall live by them But though the Law was ordained to life and promiseth life upon condition of perfect obedience yet since it cannot perform what it promiseth in that it is Weak through the Flesh it is far enough from being a Life giving Covenant or a Covenant of Gospel Grace as you affirm it is And accordingly the Apostle sets it rather in direct opposition to the Righteousness of Faith or the Gospel Covenant in the following verses And not onely so but 2. Cor. 3 6 7. He expressly calls it a Ministration of Death and Condemnation by way of opposition to the Gospel which is a Ministration of Life and Righteousness So that Stephens forementioned expression of the Lively Oracles no way serves your turn at all No more doth the third Scripture by you insisted on Rom. 9. 4. Where the Law is numbred among the chief Priviledges in which God's Israel gloried For though the Law is reckoned among their Chief Priviledges since God had shewed his Word unto Jacob his Statutes and Judgments unto Israel which all other Nations wanted yet this no way proves the Law to be therefore a Gospel Covenant for as much as the Law even as it is a Covenant of Works was a Priviledg inestimable beyond what all others enjoyed And the Reason is plain because the very Curses and Punishments annexed thereunto in case of the least Failure 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 Priviledges the Israelites were Invested with Your following Particulars being a Repetition of what you sent me formerly in Writing have been already sufficiently Answered in my former Discourse from P. 164. to P. 174. Thus much for the Sinai Covenant SECT III. IN the next place then As to what concerns the Covenant of Circumcision I shall first lay down some Scripture Arguments plainly proving that it was also a Covenant of Works and of the same stamp with that at Sinai and then shall attend unto Mr. Flavell's Arguments whereby he now attempts the Proof of the contrary viz. That it was a Gospel Covenant In the first place then Though I do acknowledg 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 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 is not a Covenant of Grace properly so called nor a Gospel Covenant whereof Christ is the Mediator and consequenrly that the Gentiles are not concerned therein is thus proved Argum. 1. If that Covenant was as much a Covenant of Works as the Sinai Covenant before mentioned yea as much as the Covenant made with Adam in Innocency Then it is not a Gospel Covenant whereof Christ is the Mediator But it was as much a Covenant of works as either of the forementioned Covenants were Ergo That Adam's Covenant was a Covenant of Works cannot rationally be denied For as much as Life was Implicitly Promised unto him upon his Obedience and Death was Explicitly Threatned 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 Sinai Covenant was of the same Nature I have before fully proved since it admitted not of Faith in the Redeemer nor Repentance of Sin it required Perfect Working under the pain of a Curse accepted no short Endeavors and gave no Strength This I have already proved from Express Testimonies of Scripture and the concurring Suffrage of many Worthy Divines from whence it is Evident that the Sinai Covenant was the same for substance with that made with Adam and is frequently therefore in the Scripture represented to us under the Denomination of the First or Old Covenant There being therein a plain Manifestation of the Law written in the Heart of Man at the First Now that the Covenant of Circumcision is of the same stamp is as Evident For though God promiseth to be a God to Abraham and to his Seed Vers. 7 8. as he did also in the Sinai Covenant to the same People in the Wilderness yet still it was upon Condition of Obedience with an Answerable Threatning in case of Disobedience Vers. 9. TThou 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 Man-child among you shall be Circumcised And Vers. 14. The Uncircumcised Man-child whose Flesh of his fore-skin 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 Universal Obedience to the whole Revealed Will and Law of God Gal. 5. 3. For I Testifie to every Man that is Circumcised that he is a Debtor to do the whole Law And if the Sinai Covenant was a Covenant of Works as the Apostle doth plainly Affirm it is Rom. 10. 5. why not that made with Abraham also since the Terms are the same as well as the Promises were the same If Mr. Flavell shall endeavour to shift off the Force of this Argument from Gal. 5. 3. as 't is like he will by telling me that the Law was misinterpreted and misunderstood by the Jews and that Circumcision Obliged to a Perfect fulfilling of the whole Law only as the Ignorance and Infidelity of Unregenerate Men make it to themselves and not as God intended