Selected quad for the lemma: end_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
end_n	law_n	sin_n	transgression_n	1,511	5	10.7998	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A97212	Caleb's inheritance in Canaan: by grace, not works, an answer to a book entituled The doctrine of baptism, and distinction of the covenants, lately published by Tho. Patient: wherein a review is taken, I. Of his four essentials, and they fully answered; ergo II. Dipping proved no gospel practice, from cleer scripture. III. His ten arguments for dipping refuted. IV. The two covenants answered, and circumcision proved a covenant of grace. V. His seven arguments to prove it a covenant of works, answered. VI. His four arguments to prove it a seale onely to Abraham, answered: and the contrary proved. VII. The seven fundamentals that he pretends to be destroyed by taking infants into covenant, cleeered; and the aspersion proved false. VIII. A reply to his answer given to our usual scriptures. For infant-subjects of the kingdom, in all which infant-baptism is cleered, and that ordinance justifyed, / by E.W. a member of the army in Ireland.	Warren, Edward, Member of the army in Ireland.	1655 (1655)	Wing W956; Thomason E856_2; ESTC R9139	117,844	134

God did so much priviledge them above others was that all his might believe but yet some did not implying that some did i. e. many of them were justifyed T●erefore ch 4. 9. he draws t●wards a result cometh this blessedness then upon the Circumcision onely or upon the uncircumcision also how was it then reckoned i. e. If Abraham was justifyed in uncircumcision then the righteousness of Faith comes not upon the Circumcision onely and ver 12. To them who are not of the Circumcision onely and ver 16. Not to that seed onely which is of the Law And then the Apostle concludes ver 23. that it was not written for Abrahams sake alone that righteousness was imputed to him but for us also i. e. Rom. and all other Gentiles if they believe to whom Abraham is as well a Father as to the Jews So that this triumphant place gives not the least continuance to his opinion either that Circumcision was a covenant of works or that it stands in direct opposition to saith or that God gave a covenant of works to Abraham to seal a covenant of Grace as he consequentially affirms p. 53. Therefore such an interpretation as he hath given of this place is most unsound The like answer is to be given to that place Ph●l 3.2 3 4. which he brings in pag. 55. as an Appendix to this second Argument the Philippians were also revolting to seek after Justification by the works of the Law the teachers of which Doctrine the Apostle calls dogs and evil-workers And if any had cause to boast of the law of Works he had more yet to him it was but dung and dogs meat all his priviledges of being a Jew a Pharisee Circumcised one that concerning the Law was blameless All this saith Paul I can boast of but what is this as to matter of justification which is by faith alone in Christ The like plain answer also is and may he given to that other place Gal. 3.3 which Church also were back sliding into the same error and therefore he calls them fools and tells them they were bewitched ch 5.1 And if they would be seeking Justification by works they should find they were mistaken For as many as sought to be justifyed by the works of the Law were under the curse And that no man by the works of the Law was ever justifyed is evident because the just shall live by Faith ver 10 11. And therefore he sends them also to Abrahams covenant For to Abraham and his seed were the promises made And ver 18. he shews them the ill-consequence that would follow if they thought to be justifyed by works For then the inheritance must be by works that is the inheritance of Abrahams promises both for the Land of Canaan and all other spiritual blessings If it were by the Law then it is no more of promises But God gave them to Abraham by promise And not by a covenant of works remember that Mr P. upon this again comes with the old Objection Wherefore then serveth the Law If a man may not be justifyed and saved by the works of the Law to what end and purpose then was it given The answer is it was added because of transgression that is to make sin look like sin and thereby to ingage Gods people then to walk close in the duties thereof and in ver 21. The Apostle directly confutes Mr. Patients Doctrine Is the Law then against the Promises or in opposition to the Promises God forbid By all which it appears that the Law was no covenant of Works nor is Circumcision or any part of the Law opposed to Faith as he would make us beheve but this was the great mistake of many in Primitive Churches by false teachers means And so of all Israel as it is also of Mr P. that the Law was given to the Church of the Jews as a covenant of works which God never intended to any such end or purpose CHAP. IX The next thing we come to is the several Arguments he brings in p. 53. to prove Circumcision onely a seal to Abraham answered I. FIrst because the righteousness of Faith which it sealed Abraham had it before the seal was given but his posterity could not be said to believe at eight days old Therefore it was a seal to him and not to them A. The seal was not annext to Abrahams Faith as Abrahams but to Gods covenant made with Abraham therefore it is called the seal of the righteousness of Faith So that what it sealed to Abraham was as he was an heir of the same Promises with Isaac and Jacob Heb. 11.9 therefore what it sealed to him as an heir it sealed to Isaac and Jacob and so to all believers as co-heirs of the same inheritance Heb. 6.17 2. If it was a seal of Abrahams Faith onely then it must be either as it was a weak faith or strong faith 1 It could not be the first because Abrahams faith is by the Apostle said not to be weak Rom. 4.19 20. 2. If it had been given as a badge of honor to Abrahams Faith as I have seen it affirmed in a piece or C. B. as a strong faith then it should have been given to Adam and Noah who had as strong faiths as Abraham and less Gospel-light then Abraham had to work it 3. There was no necessity to have Abrahams justification sealed more then Adams Seths Noahs or any of his predecessors especially if it be considered what M. P. himself grants that he was justifyed twenty four years before this seal was given therefore 4. Had it not been a seal to Isaac as well as to Abraham and so not onely a seal of Abrahams faith it might have been given upon the birth of Ishmael and Abraham need not have staid for a son of promise for it would have sealed as much then to Abraham as it did after if it was not the covenant-seal 5. Had it not been a seal to Isaac and so a part of the covenant then Isaacs not being circumcised had been no breach of the covenant directly against that place Gen. 17.10 For a seal the Apostle calls it and a sign God calls it So that had it onely been a seal of Abrahams Faith the covenant had not come sealed to Isaac because the seal reacht onely the Faith of Abraham and when he dyed the seal was broken off Therefore 6. It is a cleer truth that as the blessings of the covenant were made to Abraham by Promise and to his seed so Gods main drift being to make those covenant-blessings sure to all the heirs of Promise Heb. 6.17 he therefore deals as a man that would be believed First he promise● secondly he swears to confirm that Promise Thirdly he seals what he hath promised So the seal becomes the covenant-seal as the oath is the Covenants oath and what God promised to Abraham he promised to his seed and what he confirmed by oath to Abraham he confirmed to his

duties inward and outward and all this but one Covenant This Covenant was confirmed First to Abraham as a publique Father Secondly to his seed i. e. all the heirs of promises to the worlds end both Jews and Gentiles 1. By Promise 2. By Oath 3. By seale So that what was promised to Abraham was promised to al his seed and what was sworn and seald to Abraham was sworn and seald to all his seed According to this definition also we shall see a twofold admission into Covenant 1. Into the outward priviledges of the Covenant 2. Into the inward grace of the Covenant Hence also we shall have light to see first how hypocrits and wicked men did then and do now get within the Covenant Secondly how such as are within the Covenant do break it As first hee that contemned or slighted or neglected the token or seale of the Covenant to his seed hath broken the Covenant which being outward they might keep Secondly The breach of any part of the Morall Law was a breach of the Covenant and this also might have been externally kept by all that were externally within the Covenant Thirdly All those typicall Church rites might have been kept and the neglect or breach of any one in the due order or manner required was a breach of the Covenant for neglect of the first Gods wrath was so kindled against Moses that he would have kild him for breach of the second and third Israel was also punisht with death many instances thereof might be given Hence also we shall be led to an answere how the ●ovenant is call'd 1. Old and so vanisht away 2. New and so remaines 3. An administration This being briefly premised I now come to give in the Answer to the place by him quoted Jer. 31.32 which he brings to prove that there are two Covenants but grossely mistaken yet so far as we may goe without breach of faith to the truth of Christ in acknowledging two Covenants shall not deny him friendship as namely First That there hath been two Covenants made with man the one of workes before the fall in which man stood alone without a mediator under which covenant al mankind by nature lies to this day which is also materially the same with that righteous Law Morall given to Israel from mount Sinah though upon other tearmes Secondly The other of Grace made since the fall and tendred to Adam in the promise of Christ since which the Law in any part of it is not given as a covenant of workes but as the Law of Christ put in the hands of a mediator therefore Thirdly It was never intended by God either in giving circumcision to Abraham or the Law to Israel that ever Abrahams seed should enjoy Canaan by the law as a Covenant of works but only as hath been laid down in the Analysis as mans part of the covenant of grace Quest But if that was not a covenant of works given to Israel when God took them by the hand in order to bring them into Canaan what then can be the meaning of that place where the holy Ghost speaks of an old new Covenant tells us the new Covenant which he will make after those days shall not be according to the old c. The clearing of this with a Questian or two more will take in all those scriptures brought to this and therefore I further answer First The Covenant there mentioned is call'd new as the Law of love Iohn 13.34.1 Iohn 2.8 is call'd a new Commandment or Law which yet is not new in it self but the same Command as was given to Israel of old Lev. 19.18 And as the new heavens and new earth are call'd new Re. 21.1 And as the new Creature is call'd new which is not the annihilating the old and creating new but the putting of the old heavens and old earth into a new frame of Government and the old creature into a new state of grace so the new Covenant is the same that brought Israel out of Egypt and contained remission of sins and eternall life in Christ by faith with all the blessings of this life but so call'd new Secondly Because those typicall ceremonies and ordinances which were mans part of the Covenant of grace then and related to his dutie in Gods worship were by Christs coming abolisht and new ordinances under the Gospell establisht in room thereof for the promising part of the Covenant of grace from the beginning hath ever been cloathed with the preceptive Conditional part to bind up man to his dutie and walking close with God in his Ordinances of worship And therefore when Christ was held forth in the first promise immediatly sacrifices were instituted a distinction made betwixt clean and unclean creatures the Law of tithes and first fruits observed blood forbidden familie-duties required all which a diligent reader of Scriptures may easily observe from Adam to Moses before there was a publishing the Law from Sinay and so to Christ Track it from Christ again to the worlds end you have the first abolisht a second instituted and as then so still to bind man to his dutie in walking with God but not as in a distinct Covenant of works but as the terms of grace to which man is bound by the Covenant and thus those typicall ce emonies were as old clothes and are called beggerly Rudiments or Rags in which the promising part was clothed and drest The Apostle in Heb. 10. calls the exhibition of Christ in flesh in offering up his blood by once dying and such manner of institutions as should be written by him to be the new Covenant verse 15.16 and puts it in opposition to the Legall sacrifices verse 4. 5 therefore verse 19 20. the second is called the new and living way consecrated implying that as there is now a way to heaven consecrated by the blood of Christ and therefore new so there was a way to heaven before Christ came consecrated by the blood of Bulls and Goats called old by this then we see in what respect the Covenant is called new and old namely as relating to a new or old Church-state the first given as typicall by Moses to Israel as Christs kingdom the second as substantiall by Christ to the same kingdom but still in the same Covenant of grace for a Church state is given in order to a soules enjoying communion with God in his ordinances which is impossible to be by a Covenant of works since the fall thus then the bringing of Israel into a new Church-state under the Gospell is called a new Covenant which God will make with the house of Israel in those daies This gives us light to answer also that other place Heb. 8.6 7. by Master Patient quoted to prove two Covenants because Christ is called the Mediator of a better Covenant establisht upon better promises for if the first Testament had been faultless there would have been no place sought for the second but finding

Covenant PAg. 42. The next general head by him laid down to prove is That Circumcision is no covenant of grace but of works called a covenant in the flesh Gen. 17.13 but before he comes to his Arguments he opens the meaning of the word everlasting which is to be understood of the ever of the Law especially when it comprehends with it their seed in their generations and this he lays down as a maxim to prove which he brings Lev. 16. Num. 25.13 Exod. 40.15 ch 30.20 21. all which places speak of the Levitical Priesthood either of the line in which it should run or the way by which they were instated into their office by anointing or the manner by which they approacht constantly into the Tabernacle or of the manner of their atonement for the people all which should remain as an everlasting statute in their generations A. That by everlasting we are to understand the ever of the Law onely is no sound maxim for though it be so to be understood in the places quoted because it related to the Priesthood and Tabernacle worship yet if that covenant in Gen. 17. Which Circumcision sealed then upon which God promised the Land of Canaan as a type of heaven remains still as an everlasting covenant then his maxim is broken see therefore that parallel Text Psal 105.6 to Gen. 17. O ye seed of ●braham his servant he is the Lord our God he hath remembred his covenant for ever the word which he commanded to a thousand generations which covenant he made with Abraham and his oath with Isaac and confirmed the same to Jacob for a Law and to Israel for an everlasting covenant saying To thee will I give the Land of Canaan c. From which it appear that the word everlasting is to be understood to a thousand generations i. e. to the worlds end because the giving Israel Canaan was a type of heaven and from Abrahams days to Christ was but forty two Generations Therefore this difference is to be observed that when he speaks of statutes everlasting to be observed in their generations 'T is meant of those Statute Laws that God gave to Israel for worship and so as Mr Patient observes it is to be understood for the ever of the Law But when the Holy Ghost speaks of a covenant everlasting as in Gen. 1● 15 'T is such a covenant that is to continue so long as the heavens and earth shall continue so Paul calls it Heb. 13.20 The blood of the everlasting covenant And this in Gal. 3.17 was that covenant that Christ confirmed to Abraham and his seed 430 yeers before the Law and called everlasting in that place of Genesis befo e quoted which everlasting covenant ●o●k in an everlasting seed and is called a Gospel-preaching to Abraham Gal. 3.8 and by John Rev. 14.6 is also explained to be an eve●lasting Gospel from hence also it is that Paul in Heb. 6. when ●e speaks of Gods blessing Abraham and multiplying his seed which he c lls ●he h●rs of promise calls it his immutable Counsel as relating to both the covenant and the seed of the covenant Now if there be an everlastingness in the covenant which takes in such a seed as it did to Abraham then must it continue longer then the Law or else there must be a mutability So again if the persons row covenant ng were changed i. e. If God were not the same to believers and their seed now as ●e was t●en or if believers should now covenant onely for themselves and leave out their seed then there is a mutation of the covenant therefore David in Psal 102.26 27 28. before quoted speaking of the infant seed of the Church tells us that though the heavens and earth should wax old and perish as a garment which words are qu●ted by Paul Heb. ● 1 to a Gospel-●h rch yet that Church s●ed should continue so also Psal 103.17 18. from everlasting to everlasting and that by vertue of t at everlasting covenant therefore what feeble maxin s this new Doctor teacheth and how ill he compares Texts we may here see Pag 4● The next thing he opens is these words I will be thy God and thy seeds God and that two ways the o●e b a covenant of Grace the other by a cov●nant of Works the first absolute the second conditional and so God gave himself to be Abrahams God by a conditional c●v●nant of Works A. That this is strange Divinity that God should be a peoples God by a Covenant of Works since the fall I doubt not but it will appear to sound Ch istians from what hath been already said I shall therefore pass it to come to his confused Arguments some of which I have contracted into form to take the better prospect thereof P. H●s first Argument runs thus That covenant that runs upon conditions is a covenant of Works but so doth Circumcision therefore A. To which I answer The first proposition is denyed and d●sproved and it is by him confest that faith and repentance is a condition of the covenant So that by this he affirms pro and con and may as well say plainly that the covenant of grace is a covenant of works because it hath conditions therefore his foundation is too weak and rotten for such a building P. In pag. 45. he would prove the land of Canaan to be given to Abraham and his seed by a covenant of works and so would be their God and then his Argument runs thus If God g●ve the Land of Canaan to Abraham and his seed upon the condition of Circumcision and keeping the Law then he gave the land of Canaan by a covenant of works but God gave the land to Abraham upon condition he would circumcise his seed Therefore A. This hath been already cleared that circumcision and keep●ng of the law was mans part of the covenant of Grace in which the Church was to walk with God being bound up to visible duties then as it is now and that Canaan was not g ven Israel by works my answer to the preceding head makes clear to which I refer the Read●r yea it is directly against these Scriptures before quoted Deut. 9.4 5 6 7 8 ch 10 11 12 13 16. Exod. 3.24 Heb 3.18 ch 4.1 2. ch 11. 8 9 10. yea so to affirm is to put an affront upon God himself and to make him ashamed of that title of being Abrahams God Heb. 11.16 See also the twelve Scripture-considerations before mentioned P. In pag 45 46. he brings several Scriptures to prove that Circumcision bound to the keeping of the Law But not one of all those places by him quoted speaks that they were bound to keep it as a covenant of works but as the Law of Christ and so Israels Gospel in which Justification was conveyed and therefore when we read of the Primitive revoltings from Gospel-Ordinances to Circumcision and the works of the law as the Church at Rome and Galatia

seed and what God therefore sealed to Abraham he sealed also to his seed All which was to shew the immutability of his Counsel to the heirs of Promise not only to such as were heirs under the Law but to the worlds end as the Apostle tells us before in the place quoted II. His next reason or Argument why it sealed onely to Abraham is because it is said he received it that he might be the Father of all that believe Which could not be said of Isaac because he was but a child A. Though Abraham was made the Father of the faithful by having that seal given him yet he could not have been such a father without such a son because they are relatives not onely in the natural relation but in the promise for though Ishmael was born thirteen yeers before Isaac was promised yet had God given him circumcision then Abraham had not been the Father of the faithful because Ishmael was not a faithful child So that that which was required to make Abraham a father of a faithful son was required in Isaac to make him such a son of a faithful Father Therefore that seal that was given to Abraham as a father was given to Isaac as a son III. His third Argument to prove it a seal onely to Abraham is Here is the spirit of God affirming the sealing use of Circumcision to Abraham onely upon a reason special to him therefore where the Scripture hath not a mouth to speak we must not have an ear to hear A. The spirit of God speaks no such thing but the spirit of M. P. for where is it said it was a seal to him onely no such Text is to be sound in all the Scriptures for as is before said what it sealed to him as a father it sealed to Isaac as a son of that Father for the covenant related to posterity I may therefore say of him as the Prophet said of the false Prophets who said the Lord saith it as here M P. doth when indeed the Lord hath not spoken therefore the Scripture hath a mouth to speak if he had an understanding heart to know when and what it speaks let such therefore who have ears to hear hear what the spirit speaks to the Churches IV. P. A fourth ground or reason he gives that Circumcision sealed onely to Abraham is drawn from Rom. 4.13 The promise that he should be the heir of the world was not to him and his seed through the Law i. e. saith M. P. through the covenant of Circumcision But through the righteousness of Faith For if they that be of the Law be heirs then Faith is made void A. 1. He here again supposes that which is denyed and the contrary proved i. e. That Circumcision was not a covenant of works 2. When it is said the promise of his being the heir of the world was not made to Abraham through the Law The Apostle means that it was not to be confined and shut up to the generations of the Law onely and so it was not to his seed through the Law onely but through the righteousness of Faith that is his Patrimony came upon such high tearms as would reach to a thousand generations Psal ●05 even to the Gentiles under the Gospel to the worlds end and that this is his meaning is clear by the following words For if they which are of the Law be heirs i. e. They and they onely but heirs they were Faith is made void That is the faith which Abraham had by which he did believe the multiplying of his seed in all Nations upon the grounds of the Promise that faith is quite frustrated because it went no further then the generations of the Law And therefore it is of faith that it might be by Grace to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed and then he fully explains what he said before Not sure to that seed onely which were of the Law where the word onely doth suppose it was sure to the legal seed therefore it cannot be meant of a covenant of works for so the promise was never sure to any from the Creation to this day or ever shall be 3. If the place were to be understood in his sense namely of a covenant of works Then it confutes in direct terms w●at he hath so much pleaded for in his book As that Canaan should be given by a covenant of works For the promise that he should be the heir of the world in which that land was included was not to him and his seed through the Law i e. saith Mr P not by the covenant of Circumcision but through the righteousness of faith And if the Apostle saith not by that covenant then why doth Mr P. so often affirm elsewhere it was Thus we see there is nothing in all he hath said that proves Ci●cumcision either a covenant of works or seal to Abraham onely but enough to prove it a seal to all the heirs of promise even whilst they are infants All ye therefore that belong to the covenant of Grace fear not to give your infant-seed that Ordinance which now is the seal of the covenant P. The last Scripture he here brings to prove Circumcision a covenant of works is Gal. 4. latter end where the Apostle compa es the two covenants to Sarah and Hagar the covenant of Circumcision is held forth to be the bondwoman ch 5.1.2 3. ch 6.13 wh●ch place doth prove the covenant made in the fleshly line of Abraham is a covenant of Works And that which the Gospel is set in opposition to For the covenant of Grace is I will put my Law in their hearts but the covenant of Circumcision is not in the heart but in the flesh A. The diligent Reader may easily observe the palpable contradictions that are here to be found Hagar types out the covenant of works Sarah types out the covenant of grace and the fl●shly covenant of Circumcision as he calls it which is typed out by Hagar is made in the fleshly line of Abraham which must be Ishmael And then he contradicts what he hath been all this while maintaining i e. that the fleshly line is Isaac and Jacob in which the covenant of Circumcision was to run and so also he opposeth the Apostle Gal. 4 23 But he that was born of the bondwoman was born after the flesh but he of the free-woman was by Promise so that what Paul calls the children by promise he calls the children of the flesh Thus men leaving truth making wise God leaves them to publish their own folly That place Gal. 1.2 3. is already answered they were such that were falling back from Grace to be justified by works through their gross mistake thinking as Mr P. doth that the Law had been given for a covenant of works Lastly Though God hath promised to write the new covenant in the heart yet the seals of that covenant are written in the flesh so it was then