Selected quad for the lemma: law_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
law_n	apostle_n	covenant_n	faith_n	4,318	5	5.7426	4	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

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-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

further to clear this Point the Apostle tells us Rom. 10. 4. That Christ is the end of the Law for righteousness to every one that believeth Whence I argue That if Adam's Covenant had one End namely the Justification of Men by their own personal Obedience and the Law at Sinai had a quite contrary End namely To bring Sinners to Christ by Faith for their Righteousness the one to keep him within himself the other to take him quite out of himself and bring him for his Justification to the Righteousness of another even that of Christ then the Sinai Law cannot possibly be the same thing with Adam's Covenant of Works but the Antecedent is true and plain in the forecited Text therefore so is the Consequent Christ is the end of the Law for Righteousness Take the Law here either more strictly for the Moral Law or more largely as it comprehends the Ceremonial Law still Christ is the end of the Law The Moral Law shuts up every Man to Christ for Righteousness by convincing him according to Gods design in the Publication of it of the impossibility of obtaining Justification in the way of Works And the Ceremonial Law many ways prefigured Christ his Death and Satisfaction by Blood in our room and so led Men to Christ their true Propitiation and all its Types were fulfilled and ended in Christ. Was there any such thing in Adam's Covenant You must prove there was else you will never be able to make them one and the same Covenant 6ly It seems exceeding probable from Acts 7. 37 38. That the Sinai Covenant was delivered to Moses by Jesus Christ there called the Angel This is he that was in the Church in the Wilderness with the Angel that spake to him in the Mount Sinai and with our Fathers who received the lively Oracles to give unto us Now if Christ himself were the Angel and the Precepts of the Law delivered by him to Moses were the Lively Oracles of God as they are there expresly affirm'd to be then the Law delivered on Mount Sinai cannot be a pure Adam's Covenant of Works For it is never to be imagined that Jesus Christ himself should deliver to Moses such a Covenant directly opposite to all the ends of his future Incarnation and that those Precepts which if they were of the same nature and revived to the same end at which Adam's Covenant directly aimed should be called the Lively Oracles of God When contrarywise upon your Supposition they could be no other than a Ministration of Condemnation and Death But that they were Lively Oracles viz. in their Design and Intention is plain in the Text and that they were delivered to Moses by Jesus Christ the Angel of the Covenant seems more than probable by comparing it with the former Verses 7ly Neither is it easie to imagin how such a Covenant which by the Fall of Adam had utterly lost all its Promises Priviledges and Blessings and could retain nothing but the Curses and Punishments annexed to it in case of the least Failure could possibly be numbred among the chief Priviledges in which Gods Israel gloried as it apparently was Rom. 9. 4. Who are Israelites to whom pertaineth the adoption and the glory and the covenants and the giving of the law and the service of God and the promises These things considered with many more which the intended Brevity of this Discourse will not now admit I am fully satisfy'd of the Falsity of your Position and so may you too when you shall review the many gross and palpable Absurdities with which I have clogg'd and loaded it with many more regularly and fairly deducible from it which I could easily produce did I not suspect these I have produced have already pressed your Patience a littly too far But if ever I shall see which I never expect a fair and Scriptural Solution of these weighty Objections you may expect from me more Arguments against your unsound Position which at the present I judge needless to add To conclude Those Premises as before I noted can never be true from whence such and so many gross and notorious Absurdities are regularly and unavoidably deducible For Ex veris nil nisi verum from true Premises nothing but Truth can regularly follow Had you minded those things which I seasonably sent you you had avoided all those Boggs into which you are now sunk and been able fairly to reconcile all those seeming Contradictions in Paul's Epistles with respect to the Law at Sinai But however by what hath been said your first Position That the Sinai Covenant is the same Covenant of Works with Adam 's in Paradise vanishes before the Evidence of Scripture-truth and sound Reason But yet though what I have said destroys your false Position I am not willing to leave you or the Reader ignorant wherein the Truth lies in this controverted Point betwixt us and that will appear by a due consideration of the following Particulars 1. 'T is plain and uncontroverted That Adam's Covenant in Paradise contained in it a perfect Law and Rule of natural Righteousness founded both in God's Nature and in Mans which in its perfect state of Innocency was every way enabled perfectly to comply therewith For the Scripture tells us Eccles. 7. 29. That God made Man upright and his punctual complying therewith was the Righteousness by which he stood 2. This Covenant of Works being once broken can never more be available to the Justification and Salvation of any Fallen Man There was not now a Law found that could give Righteousness the broken Covenant of Works lost immediately all the Blessings and Priviledges which before it contain'd and retain'd only the Curse and Punishment in token whereof Cherubims with flaming Swords turning every way were set to keep the way of the Tree of Life Gen. 3. 24. 3. Soon after the Violation of the Covenant of Works God was graciously pleased to publish for the relief of Mankind now miserable and hopeless the Second Covenant which we call the Covenant of Grace Gen. 3. 15. which is the first opening of the Grace of God in Christ to Fallen Man and though this first Promise of Christ was but short and obscure yet it was in every Age to be opened clearer and clearer until the promised Seed should come After the first opening of this new Covenant in the first Promise of Christ the first Covenant is shut up for ever as a Covenant of Life and Salvation and all the World are shut up to the only way of Salvation by Christ Gal. 3. 23. it being contrary to the Will of God that two ways of Salvation should stand open to Man at once and they so opposite one to another as the way of Works and the way of Faith are Acts 4. 12. John 14. 6. Gal. 2. 21. 4. 'T is evident however that after the first opening of the Promise of Christ Gen. 3. 15. God foreseeing the Pride of Fallen Man who naturally inclines to

those Duties and Ordinances for Righteousness and Justification made it a Covenant of Works to themselves and Circumcision it self a Bond of that Covenant 6. Now for as much as Circumcision prefigured Christ who was to come of this Holy circumcised Seed of Abraham and his Death also was pointed at therein Heb. 2. 16. Col. 2. 11. of necessity this Ordinance must vanish at the Death of Christ and accordingly did so These things duly pondered how irrational is it to imagine this Covenant of Circumcision to be the very same with the Paradisical Covenant Did that Covenant discover native Corruption and direct to its remedy in Christ as this did Surely it gave not the least glimps of any such thing Did that Covenant separate and distinguish one Person from another as this did No no it left all under equal and common Misery Eph. 2. 3. Had Adam's Covenant a Seal of the Righteousness of Faith annexed to it as this had Rom. 4. 11. He received Circumcision a Seal of the Righteousness of Faith The Righteousness of Faith is Evangelical Righteousness and this Circumcision sealed Say not it was to Abraham only that it sealed it for 't is an injurious Restriction put upon the Seal of a Covenant which extended to the Fathers as well as to Abraham Luke 1. 72. But you admit however that it sealed Evangelical Righteousness to Abraham but I hope you will not say that a Seal of the Covenant of Works ever did or could Seal Evangelical Righteousness to any individual Person in the World So then turn which way you will this truth still follows you and will fasten upon you That the Covenant of Circumcision was not a pure Covenant of Works but a Gospel-Covenant which I thus prove Argument I. If Circumcision be a part of the Ceremonial Law and the Ceremonial Law was dedicated by Blood and whatsoever is so dedicated is by you confessed to be no part of the Covenant of works then Circumcision is no part of the Covenant of works even by your own confession But it is so Ergo. That it is a part of the Ceremonial Law was never doubted or denied by any Man That it was dedicated by Blood and therefore no part of the Moral Law you your self not only acknowledge but vehemently plead for it Page 148. where you blame Mr. Sedgwick with some Sharpness and unbecoming Reflection for making no distinction betwixt the Ceremonial Covenant which was dedicated by Blood and the Law written in Tables of Stone which was not so dedicated and therefore could not be the same with the Moral Law which you make the Covenant of works telling him that this Dedication by Blood ought to distinguish it from the Moral Law or Sinai Covenant of works as you say it doth and ought to do how then can Circumcision be the same with and yet quite another thing from the Sinai Covenant was the Ceremonial Law dedicated by ●…lood Yes the Apostle ●…lainly asserts it from Exod. Heb. 9. 18 19. ●…4 7 8. Moses took the Book ●…f the Covenant and read it in the audience ●…f the people and took the blood and sprink●…d it upon the people and said behold the ●…lood of the Covenant which the Lord hath ●…ade with you concerning these things But ●…hat kind of Covenant then was this Co●…enant that was sprinkled with Blood ●…ou tell us Page 147. it could not possi●…y be the Law written in Stones which ●…ou make the Covenant of works but ●…as indeed another Covenant delivered 〈◊〉 a distinct Season and in a distinct ●…ethod What Covenant then must this ●…e seeing it could not possibly as you ●…y be the Sinai Covenant written in ●…ones It must either be the Covenant ●…f Grace or none No say you that 〈◊〉 was not neither for it was of the same ●…ture with and is no other than a Co●…enant of works Page 151. it was the ●…me and yet could not possibly be the same Mr. Sedgwick that Learned-Grave Divine is check'd Page 148. for confounding the Ceremonial Law that wa●… sprinkled with Blood with the Mora●… Law which you call the Covenant o●… works that was not sprinkled wit●… Blood and say you Page 147. It coul●… not possibly be the same And then P. 151 you say It 's clear these two viz. th●… Moral and Ceremonial Law were both 〈◊〉 the same nature that is no other than 〈◊〉 Covenant of Works How doth this han●… together Pray reconcile it if you ca●… You say it is an ungrounded Supposition 〈◊〉 Mr. Sedgwick 's that that Covenant whi●… was so confirmed by Blood must of necessi●… be confirmed by the Blood of Christ als●… Page 148. But Sir the truth you oppos●… viz. That the Book of the Ceremoni●… Law was sprinkled by Typical Bloo●… and therefore confirmed by the Blo●… of Christ for the time it was to contin●… shines like a bright Sun-beam in yo●… Eyes from Heb. 9. 14 23. was not t●… Blood that sprinkled this Law the 〈◊〉 gure or Type of Christ's own Blood whose Blood was it then if not Christ'●… How dare you call this an unground●… Supposition was not that Blood Typ●… cal Blood And what I pray you was the Antitype but Christ's Blood And did not the Holy Ghost signifie the one by the other Heb. 9. 8. I stand amazed at these things You distinguish and confound all again You say it could not possibly be the same with the Law written in Stone and you say it 's clear both were of the same nature no other than a Covenant of works At this ●…ate you may say what you please for 〈◊〉 see Contradiction is no Crime in your Book Argument II. If Circumcision was the Seal of the Righteousness of Faith it did not per●…ain to the Covenant of works for the Righteousness of Faith and Works are Opposites and belong to two contrary Covenants But Circumcision was the Seal of the Righteousness of Faith Rom. 4. 11. He ●…i e. Abraham received the sign of Cir●…umcision a seal of the righteousness of Faith Therefore it pertains not to the Cove●…ant of Works but Grace A Man would think it impossible to evade so clear and Scripture an Argument as this is The Major Proposition is even self-evident and undeniable the Minor the plain words of the Apostle And what is your Reply to this certainly as strange a one as ever I met with Page 205. You say 'T is true Circumcision was a Seal of the Righteousness of Faith to Abraham but it was so to him only in his extraordinary Circumstance●… but it was not so to any of his natural S●… in its ordinary use I cannot deny but I have met with such an Assertion before in Mr. Tombes and I can tell you too that Bellarmine invented it before Mr. Tombes was born and that Dr. Ames fully confuted it in his third Tome Page 27. proving that there was no extraordinary cause o●… Abraham's account why God should justifie or seal him more than any other

Believer and that Abraham had nothing to glory in before God But to restrain as you do the publick Seal of a Covenant that comprehended and equally concerned the whole Church and People of God to one single Person so tha●… neither Isaac nor Jacob who were b●… name enrolled in that great Charter ●…hould have any right to the Seal of it ●…s such a Conceit as amazes an intelligent Reader We know Abraham was the ●…rst that received it but utterly deny ●…hat he received only for himself but ●…e received it as the Father of all them ●…hat Believe whether Jews or Gentiles ●…s the very next words tell us he re●…eived it that he might be the Father of ●…ll that Believe that is for himself and ●…ll his Spiritual Children One half of his Sacrament of Circumcision you allow ●…age 205. to the rest that were under 〈◊〉 viz. to be a sign of the Covenant but ●…e other half you cut off and say it ●…as only a Seal to him What good ●…ouchers have you for this Exposition ●…f the Text Have you the Concurrence 〈◊〉 Orthodox Expositors Or is it the rash ●…d bold Adventure of your own head ●…am sure it no ways agrees with the drift ●…d scope of the Apostles Argument ●…hich evidently is to prove that both ●…ws and Gentiles are justified by Faith as ●…braham was and that the Ground of ●…stification and Blessedness is common ●…th to the uncircumcised Gentiles and ●…cumcised Jews and that Abraham and all other Believers have but one way of Justification and Salvation and that how great soever Abraham was in this case he hath found nothing whereof to Glory ver 1 2. and is not your Exposition a notable one to prove the Community of the Priviledge of Justification because the Seal of it was peculiar to Abraham alone rectifie it and better consider it Argument III. In the Covenant of Circumcision Gen. 17. God makes over himself t●… Abraham and his Seed to be their God or give them a special Interest in himself But in the Covenant of Works God doth not since the Fall make over himself to any to be their God by way o●… special Interest Therefore the Covenant of Circumcision cannot be the Covenant of Work●… This is so plain and clear that no●… can doubt or deny it that understand the nature of the two Covenants A●… now Sir what course do you take 〈◊〉 avoid this Argument such a one sure 〈◊〉 no Man that ever I met with took before you and that 's this you boldly cut Abraham's Covenant Gen. 17. into two parts and make the first to be the pure Covenant of Grace which is the promissory part to the ninth Verse and the Restipulation as you call it Page 205. ●…o be as pure a Covenant of Works What hard shift will some Men make ●…o maintain their Opinion You say ●…ruly Page 205. that at the seventh and ●…ighth Verses was their Restipulation why ●…hen do you say Page 224. that at Verse ●…he seventh he proceeds to speak of ano●…her Covenant than what he had been ●…eaking of before Does the Promise ●…nd the Restipulation make two Cove●…ants or are they just and necessary parts ●…f one and the same Covenant You ●…lso tell us that the Covenant Gen. 17. 〈◊〉 2 3 4. was a plain Transcript of ●…veral free Promises of the Gospel under ●…e denomination of a Covenant But ●…hy then don 't you take the Restipula●…on verse 7 8 9 10. to be a part of 〈◊〉 Oh no there is something required 〈◊〉 Abraham's and his Posterities part ●…ey must be circumcised and that spoils ●…l Why but Sir if the requiring of Circumcision alters the case so greatly as to make it a quite contrary Covenant how comes it to pass that in the Covenant to Abraham he himself was first required to be circumcised Why this is the reason here is somewhat required on their part as a Condition and a Condition quite alters the nature of the Covenant Very well but tell me then why you say Page 223. and in many other places that the Covenant made with Abraham in Gen. 12. was a Gospel-Covenant and yet there Abraham is obliged to walk before God and be perfect Does not that also there alter the nature of the Covenant as well as here in the seventeenth Chapter You also grant the Covenant made with Abraham Gen. 22. was a pure Gospel-Covenant or if you deny it the Apostle proves it Heb. 6. 13. and yet there is more appearance of respect to Abraham's Obedience in that Covenant than is in submitting to Circumcision see Gen. 22. 16 17. By my self have I sworn saith the Lord for because thou hast done this thing c. That in Blessing I will bless thee and in multiplying I will multiply thee I will trouble you on this Head but with one Query more If the four first Verses of the Seventeenth of Genesis contain a pure Gospel-Covenant as you say and the Restipulation in the following Verses make a Covenant of works because it thereby becomes Conditional Then tell me if you please whether what God graciously granted to Abraham in the former Verses be not all null'd and made void again by their Restipulation Does not this seem Harsh Here you have brought Abraham Isaac and Jacob and all the believers of Abraham's race just into the same case you brought Moses and all the Israelites before under two opposite Covenants where one cuts off all that the other granted But there is a stronger reason urged than the conditionality of the Covenant to prove it a Covenant of Works and that is Circumcision is made the Condition of Abraham's Covenant and that 's the worst of all conditions for it obliges a man to keep the whole Law Gal. 5. 3. 't is the yoke of bondage and to whatsoever Covenant it be so annexed it makes it become a bondage Legal Covenant If we be circumcised Christ shall profit us nothing Thus it was in the Covenant Gen. 17. Great use is made of this in many parts of your Discourse but Sir you are greatly mistaken in applying these Texts to the Purposes you do For the Apostle all along in that Epistle to the Galatians argues against the false Teachers who taught and pressed the necessity of Circumcision as a Bond obliging them to the strict and perfect Obedience of the Law in order to their Justification thereby or at least to joyn it with the Righteousness of Christ as a Con-cause of Justification see Gal. 2. 4 5. and the 3. 1. Now against this Abuse of Circumcision it is that the Apostle argues thus and tells them that in submitting to it on that account they made the Death of Christ of no Effect and obliged themselves by it to the whole Law for Circumcision did not simply and absolutely in the nature of the work or action oblige Men to the whole Law in the way of Justification by it but it did so from the Intention of the worker

and the Supposition of such an Opinion of it and design in it for in it self and with respect to Gods design in the Institution of it it was to be a Seal of the Righteousness of Faith Rom. 4. 11. and so it was an excellent useful instructive Ordinance to all Believers as long as the Ceremonial Law stood and even when it was expiring as the Gospel began to open more and more clearly there was yet some kind of Toleration of it to such as were born of Jewish Parents Thus Paul himself circumcised Timothy his Mother being a Jewess Acts 16. 1 3. but Titus being a Greek was not circumcised and that because of these false Teachers that would make an ill use of that their Liberty Gal. 2. 3 4. this Paul could never have done in case Circumcision in the nature of the act had bound Timothy to keep the Law for Justification By which it appears that the action in its own nature did not oblige to the keeping of the whole Law but from the Intention of the Agent and therefore as the Apostle rightly argues if a Man be circumcised with this design to be justified by it he would thereby bind himself to the whole Law and frustrate the Death of Christ to himself but it was now to have its Funeral with all other parts of the Ceremonial Law which vanish'd and were accomplished in the Death of Christ and it falling out that such a vile use was made of it at that time the Apostle thus thunders against it Had this been observed as also the like abuse of the Moral Law you would have known how to have reconciled the Apostles Encomiums of them both with his sharp Invectives against the one and the other But being Ignorant of these two great and necessary Distinctions of the Law according to Gods Intention in the Promulgation of it at Sinai and the carnal Jews Sense of it as a pure Covenant of works against which the Apostle so sharply inveighs in the places by you cited all your 23 Arguments from Page 183. to Page 187. fall to the Ground at one stroke your Medius Terminus having one sense in your Major Proposition and another in your Minor and so every Argument hath four Terms in it as will easily be evinced by the particular consideration of the respective places from whence you draw them So in like manner in your arguing here against Circumcision as a Bond to keep the whole Law and as such vacating the Death of Christ is a stumble at the same stone not distinguishing as you ought to have done betwixt an Obligation arising out of the nature of the work and out of the end and intention of the Workers and this every learned and judicious Eye will easily discern But we proceed to Argument IV. That which in its direct and primary end teacheth Man the Corruption of his Nature by Sin and the Mortification of Sin by the Spirit of Christ cannot be a condition of the Covenant of works but so did Circumcision in the very direct and primary end of it This Ordinance supposeth the Fall of Man points to the Means and Instruments of his Sin and Misery and also to the Remedy thereof by Christ. 1. It singles out that Genital part by which original Sin was propagated Gen. 17. 11. Psalm 51. 5. to this the Sign of the Covenant is applied in Circumcision for the Remission of Sins past and the Extirpation of Sin for the future 2. Therefore it was instituted of God that Men might see both the necessity and true way of Mortifying their Lusts in the vertue of Christ's Death and Resurrection whereof Baptism that succeeds it is a Sign now as Circumcision was then as is plain from Col. 2. 11 12. In whom also ye are circumcised with the Circumcision made without hands in putting off the body of the Sins of the Flesh by the Circumcision of Christ buried with him in Baptism wherein also ye are risen with him through the Faith of the operation of God who raised him from the dead 'T is clear then that Circumcision directed Men to the Death and Resurrection of Christ as the true and only means of mortifying their Lusts and if it did so sure it was not the Covenant of Works for that gives Fallen Man no hint of a remedy 3. It was also a discriminating Sign or Token betwixt the Church and the World God's People and the Heathens who were accordingly denominated from it the Circumcision and the Uncircumcision the Holy Seed and the Gentiles And now under the New Testament the Children of Abraham by Faith and the Children of the Flesh. This also shews it cannot be the Covenant of Works for in that Covenant all are equally and alike concluded under Sin and Misery Ephes. 2. 3. and there is no difference made by that Covenant betwixt Person and Person State and State If this be not enough to evince that the Covenant of Circumcision is a Covenant of Grace I promise you many more Arguments to prove it as soon as I shall find these refuted and your contrary Assertion well discharged from the gross Absurdities with which it is clog'd and loaded You see how genuine natural and congruous to Scripture the notion of it as a Covenant of Grace is and all the World may see how harsh alien and repugnant to Scripture your Notion of Circumcision as a Covenant of Works is You see into what Boggs you are again driven in defence of your Opinion Exemp gra That Circumcision is a part of the Ceremonial Law which was dedicated with Blood and therefore could be no ●…art of the Moral Law or Ten Commandments which was say you the Co●…enant of Works and yet that it is of ●…he same nature and that it 's clear 〈◊〉 is no other than a Covenant of Works Don't you there distinguish and confound all again blame and check Mr. Sedgwick without Cause and commit a greater Absurdity presently than you charged him with Don't you question whether that Covenant that was typically sealed by Blood was sealed by Christs Blood Pray Sir consider where-ever God commands typical Blood to be applyed it relates to Christs Blood Spiritually apply'd or to nothing Are not you forced in defence of your erroneous Thesis to say with Bellarmine That Circumcision was extraordinary in its Institution and applyed as a Seal to none but Abraham himself it excluded even Isaac the Type of Christ and Jacob a Prince with God O what will not Men venture upon in defence of their darling Opinions Are you not forced for your Security from the danger of the Third Argument to cut one and the same Covenant made with Abraham just in two and of the pure promissory part to make a Covenant of Grace and of the other part which you your self call a Restipulation to make another quite opposite Covenant Don't you magnifie the Bounty and Grace of God to Abraham in the first four Verses and then destroy it

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.