Selected quad for the lemma: grace_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
grace_n	adam_n	covenant_n	fall_n	2,656	5	9.6090	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A39697	Vindiciæ legis & fœderis: or, A reply to Mr. Philip Cary's Solemn call Wherein he pretends to answer all the arguments of Mr. Allen, Mr. Baxter, Mr. Sydenham, Mr. Sedgwick, Mr. Roberts, and Dr. Burthogge, for the right of believers infants to baptism, by proving the law at Sinai, and the covenant of circumcision with Abraham, were the very same with Adam's covenant of works, and that because the gospel-covenant is absolute. By John Flavel minister of the gospel in Dartmouth	Flavel, John, 1630?-1691.	1690 (1690)	Wing F1205A; ESTC R218689	64,584	175

a Righteousness of his own in the way of doing was pleased to revive the Law of Nature as to its matter in the Sinai Dispensation which was 430 Years after the first Promise had been renewed and further opened unto Abraham of whose Seed Christ should come and this he did not in opposition to the Promise but in subserviency thereto Gal. 3. 21. And though the matter and substance of the Law of Nature be found in the Sinai Covenant strictly taken for the Ten Commandments yet the Ends and Intentions of God in that terrible Sinai Dispensation were two-fold 1. To convince Fallen Man of the sinfulness and impotency of his Nature and the impossibility of obtaining Righteousness by the Law and so by a blessed necessity to shut him up to Christ his only Remedy And 2. To be a standing Rule of Duty both towards God and Man to the end of the World But if we take the Sinai Covenant more largely as inclusive of the Ceremonial with the Moral Law as it is often taken and is so by you in the New Testament then it did not only serve for a Conviction of Impotency and a Rule of Duty but exhibited and taught much of Christ and the Mysteries of the New Covenant in those its Ceremonies wherein he was prefigured to them 5. Whence it evidently appear that the Sinai Covenant was neither repugnant to the New Covenant in its scope and aim The law is not against the promise Gal. 3. 21. nor yet set up as co-ordinate with it with a design to open two different ways of Salvation to Fallen Man but was added to the Promise in respect of its Evangelical purposes and designs on which account it is call'd by some a Covenant of Faith or Grace in respect of its subserviency unto Christ who is the end of the Law for righteousness Rom. 10. 4. and by others a Subservient Covenant according to Gal. 3. 23 24. and accordingly we find both Tables of the Law put into the Ark Heb. 9. 4. which shews their Consistency and Subordination with and to the method of Salvation by Christ in the New Covenant 6. This design and intention of God was fatally mistaken by the Jews ever since God promulg'd that Law at Sinai and was by them notoriously perverted to a quite contrary end to that which God promulged it for even to give Righteousness and Life in the way of personal and perfect Obedience Rom. 10. 3. for they being ignorant of Gods righteousness and going about to establish their own righteousness have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God Hence Christ came to be slighted by them and his righteousness rejected for they rested in the Law Rom. 2. 17. were married to the Law as an Husband Rom. 7. 2 3. and so might have no Conjugal Communion with Christ. However Moses Abraham and all the Elect discerned Christ as the end of the Law for righteousness and were led to him thereby 7ly This fatal Mistake of the Use and Intent of the Law is the ground of those seeming Contradictions in Paul's Epistles Sometimes he magnifies the Law when he speaks of it according to Gods end and purpose in its Promulgation Rom. 7. 12 14 16. but as it was fatally mistaken by the Jews and set in opposition to Christ so he thunders against it calls it a ministration of Death and Condemnation and all its appendent Ceremonies weak and beggarly elements and by this distinction whatsoever seems repugnant in Paul's Epistles may be sweetly reconciled and 't is a distinction of his own making 1 Tim. 1. 8. We know that the Law is good if we use it lawfully There is a good and an evil use of the Law Had you attended these things you had not so confidently and inconsiderately pronounced it a pure Covenant of Works II Position Secondly you affirm with like Confidence That the Covenant of Circumcision is also the same viz. The Covenant of Works made with Adam in Paradise This I utterly deny and will try whether you have any better Success in the Proof of your second than you had in your first Position and to convince you of your mistake let us consider what the general nature of this Ordinance of Circumcision was what its ends were and then prove that it cannot be what you affirm it to be the very same Covenant God made with Adam before the Fall but must needs be a Covenant of Grace 1. Circumcision in its general Nature was 1. an Ordinance of God's own Institution in the 99th year of Abraham's Age at which time of its Institution God renewed the Covenant with him Gen. 17. 9 10. 2. That it consisted as all Sacraments do of an external Sign and a Spiritual Mystery signified thereby The external part of it which we call the Sign was the cutting off the Foreskin of the Genital part of the Hebrew Males on the eighth Day from their Birth The Spiritual Mystery thereby signified and represented was the cutting off the Filth and Guilt of Sin from their Souls by Regeneration and Justification called the Circumcision of the heart Deut. 10. 16. And though this was laid upon them by the Command as their Duty yet a gracious Promise of Power from God to perform that Duty was added to the Command Deut. 30. 6. The Lord thy God will circumcise thy heart to love him c. just as Promises of Grace in the New Testament are added to commands of Duty 3. Betwixt this outward visible Sign and Spiritual Mystery there was a Sacramental Relation from which Relation it is called the Token of the Covenant Gen. 17. 12. The Sign and Seal of the Covenant Rom. 4. 11. yea the Covenant it self Acts 7. 8. 2. Next let us consider the ends for which Circumcision was instituted and ordained of God of which these were the Principal 1. It was instituted to be a convictive Sign of their natural Corruption propagated by the way of natural Generation For which reason this natural Corruption goes in Scripture under the name of the Uncircumcision of the heart 〈◊〉 9. 26. 2. It also signified the putting off of this Body of Sin in the vertue of Christ's Death Col. 2. 11. 3. It was appointed to be the initiating Sign of the Covenant or a token of their Matriculation and Admission into the Church and Covenant of God Gen. 17. 9 10 11. 4. It was ordained to be a discriminating Mark betwixt God's Covenanted People and the Pagan World who were Strangers to the Covenant and without God in the World And accordingly both Parties were from this Ordinance denominated the Circumcision and the Uncircumcision Col. 3. 11. 5. It was also an obliging Sign to Abraham and his Seed to walk with God in the Uprightness and Sincerity of their Hearts in the performance of all covenanted Duties in which Duties Abraham and the Faithful wa●…ked Obedientially with God looking to Christ for Righteousness but the carnal Jews resting in and trusting to

condition of the Covenant of works or being a sign of the same Covenant of Grace we are now under it be not suc●…eeded by the new Gospel-sign which is Baptism Mr. Cary affirms that it was 〈◊〉 it self a condition of the Covenant of Works and being annexed to Gods Covenant with Abraham Gen. 17. it made ●…hat a true Adam's Covenant of works ●…lso This I utterly deny and say A●…raham's Covenant was a true Covenant ●…f Grace 2. That Circumcision was Seal of the righteousness of Faith and therefore could not possibly belong to the Covenant of Works 3. That as it was applied both to the ordinary and extraordinary Infant-seed of Abraham during that administration of the Covenant so it is the will of Christ that Baptism should take its place under the Gospel and be applyed now to the Infant-seed of all Abraham's Spiritual Children These are the things wherein we differ about the second Position And lastly as to the III Position That neither Moses's Law Exod. 2●… nor God's Covenant with Abraham Ge●… 17. can be any other than an Adam's Cov●…nant of Works because they have each 〈◊〉 them conditions in them on Man's part 〈◊〉 the Gospel-Covenant hath none at all but 〈◊〉 altogether free and absolute The Controversie here betwixt us 〈◊〉 not 1. Whether the Gospel-Covenan●… requires no duties at all of them tha●… are under it nor 2. Whether it requires any such conditions as were 〈◊〉 Adam's Covenant namely perfect personal and perpetual obedience unde●… the severest Penalty of a Curse and admitting no place of Repentance Nor 3. Whether any condition required by it on our part have any thing in its own nature Meritorious of the Benefits promised Nor 4. Whether we be able in our own Strength and by the Power of our Free Will without the preventing as well as the assisting Grace of God to perform any such Work or Duty as we call a Condition In these things we have no Controversie but the only Question betwixt us is Whether in the New Covenant some act of ours though it have no Merit in it nor can be done in our own single Strength be not required to be performed by us antecedently to a Blessing or Priviledge consequent by vertue of a Promise And whether such an Act or Duty being of a Suspending Nature to the Blessing promised it have not the true and proper Nature of a Gospel Condition This I affirm and he positively denies These three Positions being confuted and the contrary well confirmed viz. That the Law at Sinai was not set up by God as an Adam's Covenant to open the old way of Righteousness and Life by works but was added to the promise as subservient to Christ in its design and use and consequently can never be a pure Adam's Covenant of Works And secondly That Abraham's Covenant Gen. 17. is the very same Covenant of Grace we are now under and 2ly that Circumcision in the nature of the act did not oblige all men to keep the whole Law for Righteousness And 3ly That the New Covenant is not absolute and wholly unconditional though notwithstanding a most free and gracious Covenant the Pillars on which Mr. Cary sets his new Structure sink under it and the building falls into ruins I have not here taken Mr. Cary's two Syllogisms proving Abraham's Covenant to be a Covenant of Works because I find my self therein prevented by that ingenuous and learned man Mr. Whiston in his late Answer to Mr. Grantham Neither have I particularly spoken to his 23 Arguments to prove the Sinai Law to be a pure Adam's Covenant because frustra sit per plura quod sieri potest per pauciora I have overthrown them all together at one blow by evincing every Argument to have four terms in it and so proves nothing But I have spoken to all those Scriptures which concern our four Positions and fully vindicated them from the injurious senses to which Mr. Cary following Mr. Tombes had wrested them These things premised I shall only further add that if Mr. Cary shall attempt a Reply to my Answer and free his own Theses from the gross absurdities with which I have loaded them he must plainly and substantially prove against me 1. That the Sinai Law according to its true scope and end was promulged by God for man's Justification and Happiness in the way of personal Obedience and that the Jews that did accordingly endeavour after Righteousness by the works of the Law did not mistake its true end and meaning or if they did and thereby made it what God never intended it to be a Covenant of works to themselves that the Sinai Law ought rather to be denominated from their mistake and abuse of it than from its primary and proper use and God's design in its promulgation 2. He must prove against me with like evidence of truth that Circumcision discovered no more of Man's Native Corruption nor any more of his remedy by Christ nor sealed to any Person whatsoever the Righteousness of Faith than Adam's Covenant in Paradise did and that it did in its own nature oblige all upon whom it passed to the same terms of Obedience that Adam's Covenant obliged him And 3. That there is not to be found in the new Covenant any such Act or Duty of ours as hath been described and limited above which is of a suspending Nature to the Benefits therein granted And 4. That the respective Expositions he gives of the several Texts by me explained and vindicated are more congruous to the Scope and Grammar than mine are and more agreeable to the current Sense of Orthodox Expositors and then he shall be sure to receive an answerable return from me else 't is but labour lost to write again A REPLY TO Mr. Philip Cary's Solemn Call THE Book I have undertaken to animadvert briefly upon bears the Title of A Solemn Call but I am not so much concerned with the Solemnity as I am with the Authority of this Call Not how it is but whose it is If it be the Call of God it must be obey'd tho it be to part not only with the Priviledges but Lives of our dearest Children but then we had need be very well assur'd it is the Call of God else we are guilty at once of the highest Folly and basest T●…eachery to part with so rich an Inheritance convey'd by God's Covenant with Abraham to us believing Gentiles and our Seed at Mr. Cary's Call You direct your Solemn Call to all that would be owned as Christs faithful Witnesses Here you are too obscure and general Do you mean all that would be owned by you or by Christ If you mean that we must not expect to be owned by you till we renounce Infants Baptism you tell us no news for you have long since turn'd your back upon our Ministry and Assemblies yet methinks 't is strange that we who were lately own'd as Christs faithful Witnesses under our late Sufferings must now be

disown'd by you when we have liberty to amplifie and confirm our Testimony in the peaceful improvement of our common Liberty But if your meaning be as I strongly suspect it is that we must not expect to be own'd by Christ except we give up Infants Baptism then I say it is the most uncharitable as well as unwarrantable and dangerous Censure that ever dropt from the Pen of a sober Christian 'T is certainly your great evil to lay Salvation it self on such a point as the proper Subject of Baptism and to make it Articulus Stantis vel cadentis Religionis the very Basis on which the whole Christian Religion and its Professors Salvation must stand I hope the rest of your Brethren are more charitable than your self but however it be I do openly profess that I ever have and still do own you and many more of your Perswasion for my Brethren in Christ and am perswaded Christ will own you too notwithstanding your many Errors and Mistakes about the lesser and lower matters of Religion Nor need your Censure much to affect us as long as we are satisfied you have neither a Faculty nor Commission thus solemnly to pronounce it upon us But what 's the condition upon which this dreadful Sentence depends why it is our attendance or non-attendance to the primitive purity of the Gospel Doctrine Sir I hope we do attend it and in some respects better than some greater Pretenders to primitive Purity who have cast off not only the initiating Sign of Gods Covenant this did not Abraham but also that most comfortable and ancient Ordinance of singing Psalms and what other primitive Ordinance of God may be cashier'd next who can tell We have a Witness in your Bosom that the Defence of Christs pure Worship and Institutions hath cost us something and as for me were I convinced by all that you have here said or any of your Friends that in baptizing the Infants of Believers we did really depart from the Primitive purity I would renounce it and turn Anabaptist the same day But really Sir this Discourse of yours hath very much convinc'd me of the weakness and sickliness of your Cause which is forc'd to seek a new Foundation and is here laid by you upon such a Foundation as must inevitably ruin it if your Party as well as your self have but resolution enough to venture it thereupon And it appears to me very probable that they intend to fight us upon the new ground you have here chosen and mark'd out for them by the high Encomiums they give your Book in their Epistles to it wherein they tell us Your Notions are of so rare a nature that you are not beholding to any other for them and it is a wonder if you should for I think it never entred into any sober Christians Head before you that Abraham's Covenant Gen. 17. was the very same with Adam's Covenant made in Paradise or that Moses Abraham and all the Elect of God in those days were absolutely under the very rigour and tyranny of the Covenant of Works and at the same time under the Covenant of Grace and all the Blessings and Priviledges thereof with many other such rare Notions of which it is pity but you should have the sole propriety I am particularly concern'd to detect your dangerous mistakes both in love to your own Soul and care of my Peoples amongst whom you have dispersed them though I foresee by M. E's Epistle to your Book what measure I am like to have for my plain and faithful dealing with you For if that Gentleman upon a meer surmise and presumption that one or other would oppose your Book dare adventure to call your unknown Answerer before ever he put Pen to Paper a Man-pleaser a Quarreller at Reformation and rank him with the Papists which opposed the Faithful for their non-conformity to their Inventions What must I expect from such rash Censurers for my sober plain and rational confutation of your Errors As to the Controversie betwixt us you truly say in your Title Page and many parts of your Book and your Brethren comprobate it in their Epistles that the main Arguments made use of by the Paedo-Baptists for the support of their practice are taken from the Covenant of God with Abraham Gen. 17. You call this the very hinge of the Controversie and therefore if you can but prove this to be the very same Covenant of Works with that made with Adam in Paradise we shall then see what improvements you will quickly make of it Ay Sir You are sensible of the Advantage no less than a compleat Victory you shall obtain by it and therefore being a more hardy and adventurous Man than others put desperately upon it which never any before you durst attempt to prove Abraham's Covenant which stands so much in the way of your Cause to be a meer Covenant of Works and therefore now abolished My proper Province is to discover here that part of the Foundation I mean Abraham's Covenant whence our Divines with great Strength and Evidence deduce the Right of Believers Infants to Baptism now Next to evince the Absurdity of your Assertions and Arguments you bring to destroy it And lastly To reflect briefly upon the Answers you give in the beginning of your Book to those several Texts of Scripture pleaded by the learned and judicious Divines you oppose for the Justification of Infants Baptism 1. Those that plead God's Covenant with Abraham Gen. 17. as a Scripture Foundation for Baptizing Believers Infants under the Gospel proceed generally upon these four Grounds or Principles 1. That God's Covenant with Abraham Gen. 17. was the same Covenant for substance we Gentile Believers are now under and they substantially prove it from Luke 1. from the 54. to the 74. Verse which place evidently shews the sameness of the Covenant of Grace they were and we are now under and from Matt. 21. 41 43. the same Vineyard and Kingdom the Jews then had is now let out to us Gentiles and from Rom. 11. that the Gentile-Christians are grafted into the same Olive-Tree from which the Jews were broken off for their Unbelief and that the Blessing of Abraham cometh now upon the Gentiles Gal. 3. 8 14 16. and in a word that the Partition Wall betwixt them and us is now pulled down and that we through Faith are let into the self-same Covenant and all the Priviledges they then enjoy'd Ephes. 2. 13. 2. They assert and prove That in Abraham's Covenant the Infant-Seed were taken in with their Parents and that in token thereof they were to have the Sign of the Covenant applied to them Gen. 17. 9. 3. They affirm and prove That the Promise of God to Abraham and his Seed with the Priviledges thereof to his Children do for the Substance of them descend to Believers now and their Seed Acts 2. 38 39. and though the external Sign viz. Circumcision be changed yet Baptism takes its place under

the Gospel Col. 2. 11 12. 4. They constantly affirm That none of those Grants or Priviledges made to the Infant-Seed of Abraham's Family were ever repealed or revoked by Christ or his Apostles and therefore Believers Children now are in the rightful Possession of them and that therefore there needed no new Command or Promise in Abraham's Command we find our Duty to Sign our Children with the Sign of the Covenant and in Abraham's Promise we find God's gracious Grant to our Children as well as his especially since the Apostle directs us in this very respect to the Covenant of God with Abraham Acts 2. 38 39. These Sir are the Principles on which we lay as you say great Stress and which to this day you have never been able to shake down here therefore you attempt a new Method to do it by proving this Covenant is now abolished and this is your Method in which you promise your self great Success Three things you pretend to prove 1. That the Sinai Covenant Exod. 20. 2. That Abraham's Covenant Gen. 17. are no Gospel-Covenants and that because 3. The Gospel-Covenant is Absolute and Unconditional How you come to hook in the Mosaick Covenant into this Controversie is not very evident unless you think it were easie for you to prove that to be a Covenant of Works and then Abraham's Covenant Gen. 17. being an Old Testament Covenant were the more easily proved to be of the same nature I am obliged to examine your three Positions above noted and if I evidence to the World the Falsity of them the Cause you manage is so far lost and the right of Believers Infants to Baptism stands firm upon its old and sure Foundation I begin therefore with your I Position That the Covenant made with Israel on Mount Sinai is the very same Covenant of Works made with Adam in Innocency P. 122. and divers other places of your Book the very same Now if I prove that this Assertion of yours doth naturally and regularly draw many false and absurd Consequents upon you which you are and must be forced to own then this your Position cannot be true for from true Premisses nothing but truth can naturally and regularly follow but I shall make it plain to you that this your Position regularly draws many false Conclusions and gross Absurdities upon you some of which you own expresly and others you as good as own being able to return nothing rational or satisfactory in your own defence against them 1. From this Assertion that the Sinai Covenant was a pure Covenant of Works the very same with Adam's Covenant it regularly and necessarily 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 parallel with that Covenant of Works and so the Elect People of God were at one and the same time under the first as a Covenant of Death and Condemnation and under the second as a Covenant of Grace and Justification This Dilemma pinches you to assert that Moses and all the Elect of God under that Dispensation were damned you dare not and if you had you must have expunged the 11th Chapter to the Hebrews and a great part of the New Testament together with all your hopes of sitting down with Abraham Isaac and Jacob in the Kingdom of Heaven The latter therefore seeing you cannot avoid you are forc'd upon and in plain words yield it p. 174 175. That Moses and the whole body of the Children of Israel without exception of any were under yea absolutely under the severest penalties of a dreadful Curse That the Covenant they were under could be no other than a Covenant of Works a ministration of Death and Condemnation when yet it is also evident from the same Holy Scriptures of Truth that at the same time both Moses and all the Elect among that People were under a pure Covenant of Gospel-grace and that these two Covenants were just opposite the one to the other but to this you have nothing to say but with the Apostle in another case O the depth Here Sir you father a pure and perfect contradiction upon the Holy Scriptures that it speaks things just opposite and contradictory the one to the other and of necessity one part or member of a contradiction must be false this all the rational World knows but so it is say you and fly to the infinite Wisdom to reconcile them for you say you know not what to say to it Just so the Papists serve us in the Controversie about Transubstantiation when they cannot reconcile one thing with another they fly to the Omnipotent Power to do it But Sir I wonder how you hold and hug a Principle that runs naturally into such gross absurdities Do you see what follows from hence by unavoidable consequence you must according to this Principle hold That Moses and all Gods peculiar elect People in Israel must during their Life hang mid-way between Justification and Condemnation and after Death between Heaven and Hell 1. During Life they must hang mid-way between Justification and Condemnation justify'd they could not be for Justification is the Souls passing from Death to Life 1 John 3. 14. John 5. 24. This they could not possibly do for the ministration of Death and Condemnation hindred He that is under Condemnation by the Law cannot during that state pass into Life And yet to be under Condemnation is as impossible on the other side for he that is justified cannot at the same time be under Condemnation Rom. 8. 1. John 5. 24. What remains then but that during Life they must stick mid-way betwixt both neither justify'd nor condemned and yet both so and so Justification is our Life and Condemnation our Death in Law Betwixt these two which are privatively oppos'd there can be no Medium of participation and yet such a Medium you here fancy 2. And then after Death they must necessarily hang betwixt Heaven and Hell to Heaven none can go that are under the very rigour and tyranny of the Law a pure Covenant of Works as you say they were To Hell they could not go being under the pure Covenant of Grace What remains then but some third state must be assigned them and so at last we have found the Limbus Patrum and your Position leads us right to Purgatory a Conclusion which I believe you your self abhor as much as I. 2ly This Hypothesis pinches you with another Dilemma viz. Either there was pardon on Repentance in Moses his Covenant and the Sinai Dispensation of the Law or there was none if you say ●…one you directly contradict Lev. 26. 40 46. If there were then it cannot be Adam's Covenant of Works You answer pag. 179. That God promiseth pardon for the Breach of Moses his Covenant and of Adam 's Covenant too but neither Adam 's Covenant nor the Jewish legal Covenant promised any

Covenant of Works whose Terms or Condition is do this and live and the Promise or Gospel whose Condition is Believe and thou shalt be saved are not specifically different but only gradually in point of Strength and Weakness and the Reason you give is as strange that this comes to pass through the satisfaction of Christ. Good Sir 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 as if both were now by the Death of Christ agreed and to be justified by Works and by Faith should after Christ's Death make no Odds or Disserence between them If it be so why have you kept such a coil to prove Moses's and Adam's Covenant yea Abraham's too being Covenant of Works can never consist or mingle with the gospel-Gospel-Covenant And then I say you contradict the Apostle who so directly opposes the Covenant of Works as such to the Covenant of Grace and tells us they are utterly inconsistent and exclusive of each other and this he spake after Christ's Death and actual satisfaction But 4. That which more amazes me is the strange Answer you give to Mr. Sedgwick Page 132 133. in your return to his Argument That if the Law and the Promise can consist then the Law cannot be set up as a Covenant of Works You answer That the Law and the Promise having divers ends it doth not thence follow that there is an inconsistence betwixt them and that the Law even as it is a Covenant of Works instead of being against the Promise tends to the Establishment of it And Page 133. That by convincing Men of the Impossibility of obtaining Rest and Peace in themselves and the necessity of betaking themselves to the Promise c. the Law is not against the Promise having so Blessed a Subserviency towards the Establishment thereof Here you own a Subserviency yea a Blessed Subserviency of the Law to the Promise which is that Mr. Sedgwick and my self have urged to prove it cannot be so as it is a pure Adam's Covenant but that therefore it must come under another Consideration only here we differ you say it hath a Blessed Subserviency to the Promise as it is the same with Adam's Covenant we say it can never be so as such but as it is either a Covenant of Grace though more obscure as he speaks or though the matter of it should be the same with Adam's Covenant yet it is subserviently a Covenant of Grace as others speak and under no other Consideration can it be reconciled to the Promise But will you stand to this that the Law hath no Hostile Contradiction to the Promise but a Blessed Subserviency to it as you speak Page 173. where you say That if we preach up the Law as a Covenant of Life or a Covenant of Faith and Grace which are equipollent Terms let us distinguish as we please between a Covenant of Grace Absolutely aud Subserviently such then we make an ill use of the Law by perverting it to such a Service as God never intended it for and are guilty of mingling Law and Gospel Life and Death together Reply Here Sir my Understanding is perfectly posed and I know not how to make any tolerable Orthodox Sense out of this Position Is the Law preached up as a pure Covenant of Works that is pressing Men to the personal and punctual Obedience of it in order to their Justification by Works no way repugnant to the Promise but altogether so when preached in Subserviency to Christ and Faith This is new Divinity with me and I believe must be so to every Intelligent Reader Don't I oppose the Promise when I preach up the Law as a pure Covenant of Works which therefore as such must be Exclusive of Christ and the Promise and do I oppose either when I tell Sinners the Terrors of the Law serve only to drive them to Christ their only Remedy who is the end of the Law for Righteousness to every one that Believeth Rom. 10. 4. are Works and Grace more consistent than Grace with Grace Explain your meaning in this Paradoxical Expression and leave not your self and others in such a Maze I read Gal. 3. 19. for what end God published the Law 430 years after the Promise was made to Abraham and find it was added because of Transgression 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it was put to not set up by it self alone as a distinct Cov●… nant but added as an Appendix to the Covenant of Grace whence it is plain that God added the Sinai Law to the Promise with Evangelical ends and Purposes If then I preach the Law to the very same Evangelical Uses and Purposes for which God added it to the Promise do I therein make an ill use of the Law and mingle Life and Death together But preaching it as a pure Covenant of Works as it holds forth Justification to Sinners by Obedience to its Precepts do I then make it blessedly subservient as you speak to the Promise or Covenant of Grace The Law was added because of Transgression that is to restrain Sin in the World and to convince Sinners under guilt of the necessity of another Righteousness than their own even that of Christ and for the same ends God added it to the Promise I always did and still shall Preach it and I am perswaded without the least danger of mingling Law and Gospel Life and Death together in your Sense 'T is plain to me that in the Publication of the Law on Sinai God did not in the least intend to give them so much 〈◊〉 a Direction how to obtain Justification ●…y their most punctual Obedience to its Precepts that being to Fallen Man utterly impossible and beside had he promulged the Law to that end and purpose he had not added it but directly opposed it to the Promise which its manifest he did not Gal. 3. 21. Is the law then against the promise of God God forbid And ver 18. makes it appear that had it been set up to that end and purpose it had utterly disannulled the Promise for if the inheritance be of the law it is no more by promise What then can be clearer than that the Law at Sinai was published with gracious Gospel-ends and purposes to lead Men to Christ which Adam's Covenant had no respect nor reference to and therefore it can never be a pure Adam's Covenant as you falsly call it neither is it capable of becoming a pure Covenant of Works to any Man but by his own Fault in rejecting the Righteousness of Christ and seeking Justification by the works of the Law as the mistaken carnal Jews did Rom. 10. 3. and other legal Justiciaries now do And upon this account only it is that Paul who so highly praises the Law in its subserviency to Christ thunders so dreadfully against it as it is thus set by ignorant mistaken Souls in direct Opposition to Christ. 5ly And

Works forasmuch as our Divines are so far from conceiting the Covenant with Abraham to be a Covenant of Works that they will not allow the Sinai Law it self to be so and to convince you of it I lent you Mr. Roberts and Mr. Sedgewick on the Covenant to enlighten and satisfie you about it But little did I think you had had Confidence enough to enter the Lists with two such learned and eminent Divines and make them to follow your triumphant Chariot shackled with the incomparable Baxter and Allen Sydenham and Burthogg like three pair of Noble Prisoners of War But whatever was the occasion setting aside your Sin I am not sorry you have given a fit opportunity to enlighten the World in that Point also 2. You seem to fancy in your Letter that I was once of your Opinion about the Moral Law because you find these Passages in a Sermon of mine upon John 8. 36. If the Son therefore shall make you free then are you free indeed viz. That the Law required perfect working under pain of the Curse accepted no short Endeavours admitted no Repentance and gave no Strength But finding me here pleading for the Law you think you find me in a Contradiction to that Doctrine The Words I own the Contradiction I positively deny for I speak not there and here ad idem For in that Sermon and in those very Words you cite I speak against the Law not as God intended it when he added it to the Promise but as the Ignorance and Infidelity of unregenerate Men make it to themselves a Covenant of Works by looking upon it as the very rule and reason of their Justification before God This was the Stumbling Stone at which all Legal Justiciaries then did and still do stumble Rom. 9. 31 32 33. In this Sense the Apostle in his Epistles to the Romans and Galatians argues against the Law and so do I in the Words you cite but vindicate the Law in the very same Sermon you mention as consistent with and subservient to Christ in the former Sense and there tell you The Law sends us to Christ to be justified and Christ sends us back to the Law to be regulated The very same double Sense of the Law you will find in this Discourse and from the mistaken end and abuse of the Law which the Apostle so vehemently opposeth I here prove against you that the Law in this Sense cannot consist with or be added to the Promise and therefore make it my Medium to prove against you That the true Nature and Denomination of the Sinai Law can never be found in this Sense of it but it must be estimated and denominated from the Purpose and Intention of God which I have proved to be Evangelical Try your skill to fasten a Contradiction betwixt my Words in that Sermon and this Discourse I know you would be glad to find the shadow of one to make some small Excuse or Attonement for the many faults of that nature you have here committed 3. Your Letter also informs me that you hear you are answered by one hand already and for ought you know many more may be employed against you and I for one and so we shall compass you about like Bees Reply I have only seen Mr. Whiston's little Book against your Brother Grantham wherein he hath baffled two of your principal Arguments but you only come in collaterally there and must not look upon it as a full Answer to your Book but only as a Lash for your Folly en passant And for our compassing you about like Bees methinks you seem to be greatned in your own Fancy by the supposition or expectation of a multitude of Opponents You know as well as I who it is that glories in this Motto Unus contra omnes Sir I think your Mind may be much at rest in that matter Of all the six famous Adversaries mentioned in your Title Page there are but two living and you know mortui non mordent and of the remaining two one of them viz. Mr. Baxter is almost in Heaven living in the daily Views and chearful Expectations of the Saints everlasting rest with God and is left for a little while among us as a great Example of the Life of Faith And it is questionable with me whether such a great and Heavenly Soul can find any leisure or disposition to attend such a weak and trivial Discourse as this And as for my self you need not much fear me I have not neither do I intend to vibrate my Sting against you unless I find you infecting or disturbing that Hive to which I belong and to which I am daily gathering and carrying Honey and then who but a Drone would not sting 4. To conclude in the Close of your Letter you fall into the former strain of Love assuring me That the ancient Friendship of so many years shall still continue on your part Reply All that I shall return to this is only to relate a short Story out of Plutarch in the Life of Alexander where he tells us That whilst he was warring in the Indies one Taxiles an Indian King came with his Company to meet him and saluting Alexander said What need you and I to fight and war one upon another if thou comest not to take away our Water and the necessaries of Life from us for which we must needs fight As for other Goods if I am richer than thee I am ready to give thee of mine and if I have less I will not think scorn to thank thee for thine Alexander highly pleased with his Words made him this Reply Thinkest thou that this meeting of ours can be without fighting no no thou hast won nothing by all thy fair words for I will fight and contend with thee in Honesty and Courtesie and thou shalt not exceed me in Bounty and Liberality I say with Taxiles I had never armed against you had you not come to take away our Water and the necessaries of Life I mean the Covenant of God with Abraham which contains the rich Charter of the Gentile Believers Children and make it an abolished Adam's Covenant and told us that we must come up to the Primitive Purity in these things that is in renouncing it as a Covenant of Grace and relinquishing Infants Baptism as grounded thereon Sir Were my one Father alive I must and would oppose him should he attempt what here you do Infant Baptism with you is not Singing of Psalms that plain and Heavenly Gospel-Ordinance with you is not and will you take away our Benjamin also What! the Covenant of God with Abraham and his Children in their Generations all these things are against us No Sir we cannot part with that Covenant as an abolish'd Adam's Covenant nor will I give it up for all the Friendship in the World And yet I will say with Alexander I will contend with you in Friendship and Courtesie even whilst I earnestly contend against you for the Truths of God which you have here opposed and I have endeavoured to vindicate One Word more before I part with you I do assure you and the whole World that in this Controversie with you I have not knowingly or advisedly misrepresented your Sense If you shall say I did so in my second Argument from the Words p. 179. I assure you both my self and others could understand you no otherwise than I did in the Papers I sent you and when you told me you meant there was no pardon in either of those Covenants but that it plainly directed to Abraham's Covenant you will find I have given you as fair a Choice as you can desire either to stand to your words in the first Sense wherin I understood them or which will be the same to me to your own Sense in which you afterwards explained it to me And whereas I blame you over and over in my Epistle and Conclusion for putting the proper Subject of Baptism among the highest things in Religion Let the Reader view your Conclusion and see whether you do or not If you say you speak of the Covenant there as well as of baptism I allow that you do so yet I hope 't is equally as bad nay indeed and truth a great Aggravation of your Fault to make this Article viz. Gods Covenant with Abraham Gen. 17 is an abolished Adam 's Covenant one of the highest concernments of a Christian the Baptism only of Adult Believers another My consequences from your Words are just and regular how startling soever they seem to you If you think fit to rejoyn to this my Answer I desire you will avoid as much as you can a tedious Harangue of Words and speak strictly and regularly to my Arguments by limiting distinguishing or denying as a Disputant ought to do If so I promise you a Reply but if I find no such thing it shall pass with me but for waste Paper nor will I wast time about it The Lord give us Unity in things necessary Liberty in things indifferent and Charity in all things FINIS Gal. 3. 18. Rom. 10. 3. Rom. 2. 17. * Conditio est suspensio alicujus dispositionis tantisper dum aliquid futurum fiat Navarr Enchirid. 482. † Est verborum adjectio in futurum suspendentium secundum quam disponens vult dispositum regulari Dr. Crispe 2d Vol. of Christ exalted Serm. 14. Infant-Baptism pag. 45 45.

these three Principles or Positions on which the other parts of his Discourse are superstructed and these being destroyed his other Discourses are but arenae sine calce I properly therefore begin with the Foundation Next I shall shew how far we are greed in the matters here controvert●…d and where it is in each of these that ●…he Controversie indeed lies betwixt us ●…nd as to I Position viz. That the Sinai-Law is the same with A●…am's Covenant of Works made in Para●…ice The difference betwixt us here is not 〈◊〉 Whether both these be called Co●…enants in Scripture nor 2. Whether there were no Grace at all in both or either of them For we are agreed it is Grace in God to enter into Covenant with Man whatever that Covenant be nor 3. Whether the Sinai-law be not a Covenant of Works to some Men by their own fault and occasion nor 4. Whether the Scriptures do not many times speak of it in that very sense and notion wherein Carnal Justiciaries apprehend and take it and by rejecting Christ make it so to themselves nor 5. Whether the very matter of the Law of Nature be not reviv'd and represented in the Sinai Law These are not the Points we contend about But the Question is Whether the Sinai Law do in its own nature and according to Gods purpose and design in the promulgation of it revive the Law of Nature to the same ends and uses it served to in Adam's Covenant and so be properly and truly a Covenant of Works Or whether God had not gracious and evangelical ends and purposes viz. by such a dreadful representation of the severe and impracticable terms of the first Covenant instead of obliging them to the personal and punctual observance of them fo●… righteousness and life he did not rather design to convince them of the impossibility of legal righteousness humble proud Nature and shew them the necessity of betaking themselves to Christ now exhibited in the New Covenant as the only refuge to Fallen Sinners The latter I defend according to the Scriptures the former Mr. Cary seems to assert and vehemently argue for 2ly In this Controversie about the Sinai Law I do not find Mr. Cary distinguishing as he ought betwixt the Law considered more largely and complexly as containing both the Moral and Ceremonial Law for both which it is often taken in Scripture and more strictly for the Moral Law only as it is sometimes used in Scripture These two he makes one and the same Covenant of Works though there be some that doubt whether the meer Moral Law may not be a Covenant of Works yet I never met with any Man before that durst affirm the Ceremonial Law which is so full of Christ to be so and to this Law it is that Circumcision appertains 3ly The Moral Law strictly taken for the Ten Commandments is not by him distinguished as it ought to be and as the Scripture frequently doth according to Gods intention and design in the promulgation of it which was to add it as an Appendix to the promise Gal. 3. 19. and not to set it up as an opposite Covenant Gal. 3. 21. and the carnal Jews mistaking and perverting the use and 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. these things ought carefully to have been distinguished forasmuch as the whole Controversie depends on this double sense and intention of the Law yea the very denomination of that Law depends hereon For I affirm it ought not to be denominated from the abused and mistaken end of it amongst carnal men but from the true scope design and end for which God published it after the Fall And though we find such expressions as these in Scripture The man that doth them shall live in them And cursed is every one that continueth not in all things c. yet these respecting the Law not according to Gods intention but Mans corruption and abuse of it the Law is not thereby to be denominated a Covenant of Works Gods end was not to justifie them but to try them by that terrible dispensation Ezod 20. 20. whether they would still hanker after that natural way of self-righteousness for this end God propounded the terms of the first Covenant to them on Sinai not to open the way of self-justification to them but to convince them and shut them up to Christ just as our Saviour Matth. 19. 17. puts the young man upon keeping the Commandments not to drive him from but necessitate him to himself in the way of Faith The Law in both these Senses is excellently described Gal. 4. in that Allegory of Hagar and Sarah the figures of the two Covenants Hagar in her first and proper Station was but a serviceable Hand-maid to Sarah as the Law is a Schoolmaster to Christ but when Hagar the Hand-maid is taken into Sarah's Bed and brings forth Children that aspire to the Inheritance then saith the Scripture Cast out the bond-woman with her son So it is here take the Law in its primary use as God designed it as a School-master or Hand-maid to Christ and the promise so it is consistent with them and excellently subservient to them but if we marry this Hand-maid and espouse it as a Covenant of Works then are we bound to it for life Rom. 7. and must have nothing to do with Christ. The Believers of the Old Testament had true apprehensions of the right end and use of the Law which directed them to Christ and so they became Children of the Free-woman The carnal Jews trusted to the works of the Law for righteousness and so became Children of the Bond-woman but neither could be Children of both at once no more than the same Man can naturally be born of two Mothers This is the difference betwixt us about the first Position and as to the II Position That Abraham's Covenant Gen. 17. is an Adam's Covenant of Works also because Circumcision was annexed to it which obliged Men to keep the whole Law The Controversie betwixt us in this point is not whether Circumcision were an Ordinance of God annexed by him to his Covenant with Abraham nor 2. Whether Abraham's ordinary and extraordinary Seed ought to be and actually were signed by it nor 3. Whether it were a Seal of the righteousness of Faith to any individual Person for he allows ●…t to be so to Abraham nor 4. Whe●…he it pertain'd to the Ceremonial Law and so must cease at the death of Christ But the difference betwixt us is Whether ●…1 it was a Seal of the Covenant to ●…one but Abraham and 2. Whether ●…n the very nature of the Act or only from the intention of the Agent it did oblige men to keep the whole Law as Adam was obliged to keep it in inno●…ency 3. Whether it were utterly ●…bolished at the death of Christ as a