of receiving Doctriâ—es so destructive to the great Truths of the Gospel as these are And I do solemnly profess I have not designedly strained them to cast reproach upon him that publish'd them But the matters are so plain that if Mr. Cary will maintain his Positions not only my self but every intelligent Reader will be easily able to fasten all those odious Consequents upon him after all his Apologies Sir in a word I dare not say but you are a good Man but since I read your two Books you have made me Think more than once of what one said of Ionah after he had read his History that he was a strange Man of a good Man yet as strange a good Man as you are I hope to meet you with a sounder Head and better Spirit in Heaven The Second APPENDIX Giving a brief Account of the Rise and Growth of ANTINOMIANISM the deduction of the principal Errors of that Sect With modest and seasonable Reflections upon them THE Design of the following Sheets cast in as a Mantissa to the foregoing Discourse of Errors is principally to discharge and free the Free-grace of God from those dangerour Errors which fight against it under its own Colours partly to prevent the seduction of some that stagger and lastly though least of all to vindicate my own Doctrine the scope and current whereof hath always been and shall ever be to exalt the Free-grace of God in Christ to draw the vilest of Sinnersâ— to him and relieve the distressed Consciences of Sin-burthened Christians But notwithstanding my utmost care and caution some have been apt to censure it as if in some things it had a tang of Antinomianism But if my publick or private Discourses be the faithful Messengers of my Judgment and Heart as I hope they are nothing can be found in any of them casting a friendly aspect upon any of their Principles which I here justly censure as erroneous Three things I principally aim at in this short Appendix 1. To give the Reader the most probable Rise of Antinomianism 2. An Account of the principal Errors of that Sect. 3. To confirm and establish Christians against them by sound Reasons back'd with Scripture-authority And I. Of the Rise of Antinomianism The Scriptures foreseeing there would arise such a sort of Men in the Church as would wax wanton against Christ and turn his Grace into lasciviousness hath not only precautioned us in general to beware of such Opinions as corrupt the Doctrine of Free-grace Rom. 6. 1 2. Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound God forbid but hath particularly indigitated and marked those very Opinions by which it would be abused and made abundant provision against them as namely 1. All slighting and vilifying Opinions or Expressions of the Holy Law of God Rom. 7. 7 12. 2. All Opinions and Principles inclining men to a careless disregard and neglect of the Duties of Obedience under pretence of Free-grace and Liberty by Christ Iam. 2. Matth. 25. 3. All Opinions neglecting or slighting Sanctification as the evidence of our Justification and rendring it needless or sinful to try the state of our Souls by the Graces of the Spirit wrought in us which is the principal scope of the First Epistle of Iohn Notwithstanding such is the wickedness of some and weakness of others that in all Ages especially the last past and present men have audaciously broken in upon the Doctrine of Free-grace and notoriously violated and corrupted it to the great reproach of Christ scandal of the World and hardning of the Enemies of Reformation Behold saith Contzen the Iesuit on Matth. 24. the fruit of Protestantism and their Gospel-preaching Nothing is more opposite to looseness than the Free-grace of God which teacheth us That denying all ungodliness and worldly lusts we should live soberly righteously and godly in this present world Nor can it without manifest violence be made pliable to such wicked purposes And therefore the Apostle tells us Iude 4. That this is done by turning the Grace of our Lord into lasciviousness 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 transferring it scil foedâ interpretatione by a corrupt abusive interpretation to such uses and purposes as it abhors No such wanton licentious Conclusions can be inferr'd from the Gospel-doctrines of Grace and Liberty but by wresting them against their true scope and intent by the wicked Arts and Practices of Deceivers upon them The Gospel makes Sin more odious than ever the Law did and discovers the punishment of it in a more severe and dreadful manner than ever it was discovered before Heb. 2. 2 3. For if the word spoken by Angels were stedfast and every transgression and disobedience received a just recompence of reward How shall we escape if we neglect so great salvation It shews our obligations to duty to be stronger than ever and our encouragements to holiness greater than ever 2 Cor. 7. 1. and yet corrupt Nature will be still tempting men to corrupt and abuse it The more luscious the Food is the more men are apt to surfeit upon it This perversion and abuse of Free-grace and Christian-liberty is justly chargeable though upon different accounts both upon wicked and good Men. Wicked Men corrupt it designedly that by entitling God to their Sins they might sin the more quietly and securely So the Devil instigated the Heathens to sin against the Light and Law of Nature by representing their gods to them as drunken and lascivious Deities So the Nicolaitans and School of Simon and after them the Gnosticks and other Hereticks in the very dawning of Gospel Light and Liberty began presently to loose the bond of restraint from their Lusts under pretence of Grace and Liberty The Aetiani blushed not to teach That Sin and perseverance in Sin could hurt the Salvation of none so that they would embrace their Principles How vile and abominable Inferences the Manichaeans Valentinians and Cerdonites drew from the Grace and Liberty of the Gospel in the following Ages I had rather mourn over than recite And if we come down to the 15 th Century we shall find the Libertines of those days as deeply drenched in this Sin as most that went before them Calvin mournfully observes That under pretence of Christian-liberty they trampled all Godliness under foot The vile Courses their loose Opinions soon carried them into plainly discovered for what intents and purposes they were projected and calculated and he that reads the Preface to that Grave and Learned Mr. Thomas Gataker's Book entituled God's Eye upon Israel will find That some Antinomians of our days are not much behind the worst and vilest of them One of them cries out Away with the Law away with the Law it cuts off a man's Legs and thâ—n bids him walk Another saith T is as possible for Christ himself to sin as for a Child of God to sin That if a man by the Spirit know himself to be in the state of grace though he be drunk
They tell us That by God's laying our Iniquities upon Christ he became as compleatly sinful as we and we as compleatly righteous as Christ. That not only the guilt and punishment of sin was laid upon Christ but simply the very faults that men commit the transgression it self became the transgression of Christ Iniquity it self not in any figure but plainly sin it self was laid on Christ and that Christ himself was not more righteous than this Person is and this Person is not more sinful than Christ was Refutation These two Propositions will never go down with sound and Orthodox Christians The first sinks and debases Christ too low the other exalts the sinful Creature too high The one represents the pure and spotless Lord Jesus as sinful the other represents the sinful Creature as pure and perfect and both these Propositions seem evidently to be built upon these two Hypotheses 1. That the righteousness of Christ is subjectively and inherently in us in the same fulness and Perfection it is in Christ grant that and then it will follow indeed That Christ himself is not more righteous than the Believer is 2. That not only the guilt and punishment of sin was laid on Christ by way of imputation but sin it self the very transgression or sinfulness it self was transferr'd from the Elect to Christ and that by God's laying it on him the sinfulness or fault it self was essentially transfused into him and so sin it self did transire à subjecto in subjectum Grant but this and it can never be denied but Christ became as compleatly sinful as we But both these Hypotheses are not only notoriously false but utterly impossible as will be manifested by and by But before I come to the Refutation of them it will be necessary to lay down some Concessions to clear the Orthodox Doctrine in this Controversie and narrow the matter under debate as much as may be 1. And first we thankfully acknowledge the Lord Jesus Christ to be the Surety of the New Testament Heb. 7. 22. and that as such all the Guilt and Punishment of our Sins was laid upon him Isa. 53. 5 6. That is God imputed and he bare it in our room and stead God the Father as Supreme Law-giver and Judge of all upon the Transgression of the Law admitted the Sponsion or Suretiship of Christ to answer for the sins of men Heb. 10. 5 6 7. And for this very end he was made under the Law Gal. 4. 4 5. And that Christ voluntarily took it upon him to answer as our Surety whatsoever the Law could lay to our charge whence it became just and righteous that he should suffer 2. We say That God by laying upon or imputing the Guilt of our Sins to Christ thereby our Sins became legally his as the Debt is legally the Sureties Debt tho he never borrowed one farthing of it Thus God laid and Christ took our Sins upon him tho in him was no sin 2 Cor. 5. 21. He hath made him to be sin for us who knew no sin i. e. who was clean and altogether void of sin 3. We thankfully acknowledg that Christ hath so fully satisfied the Law for the sins of all that are his that the Debts of Believers are fully discharg'd and the very last mite paid by Christ. His Payment is full and so therefore is our Discharge and Acquittance Rom. 8. 1 31. And that by virtue hereof the Guilt of Believers is so perfectly abolished that it shall never more bring them under Condemnation Iohn 5. 24. And so in Christ they are without fault before God 4. We likewise grant That as the Guilt of our Sins was by God's Imputation laid upon Christ so the Righteousness of Christ is by God imputed to Believers by virtue of their Union with Christ and becomes thereby as truly and fully theirs for the justification of their particular Persons before God as if they themselves had in their own Persons fulfilled all that the Law requires or suffered all that it threatned No inherent Righteousness in our own Persons is or can be more truly our own for this end and purpose than Christ's imputed Righteousness is our own He is the Lord our Righteousness Jer. 23. 6. We are made the righteousness of God in him 1 Cor. 5. 21. Yea the righteousness of the Law is fulfilled in them that believe Rom. 8. 4. But notwithstanding all this we cannot say 1. That Christ became as compleatly sinful as we Or 2. That we are as compleatly righteous as Christ and that over and above the Guilt and Punishment of Sin which we grant was laid upon Christ Sin it self simply considered or the very Transgression it self became the Sin or Transgression of Christ and consequently that we are as compleatly Righteous as Christ and Christ as compleatly Sinful as we are 1. We dare not say That Sin simply consider'd as the very Transgression of the Law it self as well as the Guilt and Punishment became the very Sin and Transgression of Christ For two things are distinctly to be considered and differenced With respect to the Law and unto Sin As to the Law we are to consider in it 1. It s Preceptive part 2. It s Sanction 1. The preceptive part of the Law which gives Sin its formal Nature 1 Ioh. 3. 4. For sin is the transgression of the law All Transgression arises from the Preceptive part of the Law of God He that transgresseth the Precepts sinneth and under this consideration sin can never be communicated from one to another The Personal sin of one cannot be in this respect the Personal sin of another There is no Physical Transfusion of the Transgression of the Precept from one subject into another This is utterly impossible even Adam's personal sins consider'd in his single private capacity are not communicable to his Posterity 2. Besides the Transgression of the Preceptive part of the Law there is an obnoxiousness unto Punishment arising from the Sanction of the Law which we call the Guilt of Sin and this as Judicious Dr. Owen observes is separable from sin And if it were not separable from the former no sinner in the world could either be pardoned or sav'd Guilt may be made another's by Imputation and yet that other not rendred formally a sinner thereby Upon this ground we say the Guilt and Punishment of our Sin was that only which was imputed unto Christ but the very Transgression of the Law it self or Sin formally and essentially consider'd could never be communicated or transfused from us into him I know but two ways in the world by which one man's sins can be imagined to become another's viz. Either by Imputation which is Legal and what we affirm or by Essential Transfusion from subject to subject as our Adversaries fancy which is utterly impossible and we have as good ground to believe the absurd Doctrine of Transubstantiation as this wild notion of the Essential Transfusion of Sin Guilt arising from
the Sanction of the Law may and did pass from us to Christ by Legal Imputation but sin it self the very Transgression it self arising from the very Preceptive part of the Law cannot so pass from us to Christ For if we should once imagine that the very acts and habits of sin with the odious deformity thereof should pass from our Persons to Christ and subjectively to inhere in him as they do in us then it would follow First That our Salvation would thereby be rendred utterly impossible For such an inhesion of Sin in the Person of Christ is absolutely inconsistent with the Hypostatical Vnion which Union is the very Foundation of his Satisfaction and our Salvation Tho the Divine Nature can and doth dwell in Union with the pure and Sinless human Nature of Christ yet it cannot dwell in Union with Sin Secondly This Supposition would render the Blood of the Cross altogether unable to satisfie for us He could not have been the Lamb of God to take away the Sins of the World if he had not been perfectly pure and spotless 1 Pet. 1. 19. Thirdly Had our Sins thus been essentially transfus'd into Christ the Law had had a just and valid Exception against him for it accepts of nothing but what is absolutely pure and perfect I admire therefore how any good Man dares to call our Doctrine which teaches the Imputation of our Guilt and Punishment to Christ a simple Doctrine and assert that the Transgression it self became Christ's and that thereby Christ became as compleatly sinful as we And Fourthly If the way of making our Sins Christ's by imputation be thus rejected and derided and Christ asserted by some other way to become as compleatly sinful as we then I cannot see which way to avoid it but that the very same Acts and Habits of Sin must inhere both in Christ and in Believers also For I suppose our Adversaries will not deny that notwithstanding God's laying the Sins of Believers upon Christ there remain in all Believers after their Justification sinful Inclinations and Aversations a Law of Sin in their Members a Body of Sin and Death Did these things pass from them to Christ and yet do they still inhere in them Why do they complain and groan of in-dwelling Sin as Rom. 7. If Sin it self be so transferr'd from them to Christ Sure unless Men will dare to say the same Acts and Habits of Sin which they feel in themselves are as truly in Christ as in themselves they have no ground to say that by God's laying their Iniquities upon Christ he became as compleatly sinful as they are and if they should so affirm that Affirmation would undermine the very Foundation of their own Salvation I therefore heartily subscribe to that sound and holy Sentence of a clear and learned Divine Nothing is more absolutely true nothing more sacredly and assuredly believ'd by us than that nothing which Christ did or suffer'd nothing that he undertook or underwent did or could constitute him subjectively inherently and thereupon personally a Sinner or guilty of any Sin of his own To bear the Guilt or Blame of other Mens Faults to be alienae culpae reus makes no Man a Sinner unless he did unwisely or irregularly undertake it So then this Proposition that by God's laying our Sins upon Christ in some other way than by Imputation of Guilt and Punishment he became as compleatly sinful as we will not ought not to be receiv'd as the sound Doctrine of the Gospel Nor yet this Second Proposition That we are as compleatly Righteous as Christ is or that Christ is not more Righteous than a Believer I cannot imagine what should induce any Man so to express himself unless it be a groundless conceit and fancy that there is an essential Transfusion of Christ's justifying Righteousness into Believers whereby it becomes theirs by way of subjective inhesion and is in them in the very same manner it is in him And so every individual Believer becomes as compleatly Righteous as Christ. And this conceit they would fain establish upon that Text 1 Ioh. 3. 7. He that doth righteousness is righteous even as he is righteous But neither this expression nor any other like it in the Scriptures gives the least countenance to such a general and unwary Position It is far from the mind of this Scripture That the righteousness of Christ is formally and inherently ours as it is his Indeed it is ours relatively not formally and inherently not the same with his for quantity though it be the same for verity His Righteousness is not ours in its Vniversal value though it be ours as to our particular use and necessity Nor is it made ours to make us so many causes of Salvation to others but it is imputed to us as to the Subjects that are to be saved by it our selves 'T is true we are justified and saved by the very Righteousness of Christ and no other but that Righteousness is formally inherent in him only and is only materially imputed to us It was actively his but passively ours He wrought it though we wear it It was wrought in the person of God-man for the whole Church and is imputed not transfused to every single Believer for his own concernment only For 1. It is most absurd to imagine that the Righteousness of Christ should formally inhere in the person of all or any Believer as it doth in the person of the Mediator The impossibility hereof appears plainly from the incapacity of the Subject The Righteousness of Christ is an Infinite Righteousness because it is the Righteousness of God-man and can therefore be subjected in no other person beside him It is capable of being imputed to a finite creature and therefore in the way of imputation we are said to be made the righteousness of God in him but though it may be imputed to a finite creature it inheres only in the person of the Son of God as in its proper subject And indeed 2. If it should be inherent in us it could not be imputed to us as it is Rom. 4. 6 23. Nor need we go out of our selves for justification as now we must Phil. 3. 9. but may justify our selves by our own inherent Righteousness And 3 dly What should hinder if this Infinite Righteousness of Christ were infused into us and should make us as compleatly righteous as Christ but that we might justify others also as Christ doth and so we might be the Saviours of the Elect as Christ is Which is most absurd to imagine And 4 thly According to Antinomian Principles What need was there that we should be justified at all Or what place is left for the justification of any sinner in the World For according to their Opinion the justification of the Elect is an immanent act of God before the World was and that Eternal act of Justification making the Elect as compleatly Righteous as Christ himself there could not possibly be
any the least guilt in the Elect to be pardoned and consequently no place or room could be left for any Justification in time And then it must follow that seeing Christ died in time for sin according to the Scriptures It must be for his own sins that he died and not for the sins of the Elect Diametrically opposite to Rom. 4. 25. and the whole current of Scripture and faith of Christians 'T is therefore very unbecoming and unworthy of a justified person after Christ hath taken all his guilt upon himself and suffer'd all the punishment due thereunto in his place and room Instead of an humble and thankful admiration of his unparallel'd grace therein to throw more than the guilt and punishment of his sins upon Christ even the transgression it self and comparing his own Righteousness with Christ's to say he is as compleatly Righteous as Christ himself This is as if a company of Bankrupt Debtors Arrested for their own Debts ready to be cast into Prison and not having one Farthing to satisfy after their Debts have been freely and fully discharg'd by another out of his immense treasure should now compare with him yea and think they honour'd him by telling him that now they are as compleatly Rich as himself I am well assur'd no good Man would embrace an Opinion so derogatory to Christ's Honour as this is did he but see the odious consequences of it doubtless he would abhor them as much as we And as for those now in Heaven who fell into such mistakes in the way thither were they now acquainted with what is transacted here below they would exceedingly rejoyce in the detection of those mistakes and Bless God for the refutation of them Error VIII They affirm That Believers need not fear their own sins nor the sins of others for as much as neither their own or others sins can do them any hurt nor must they do any duty for their own good or salvation or for eternal rewards That we need fear no hurt from sin or may not aim at our own good in Duty are two Propositions that sound harsh in the ears of Believers I shall consider them severally and refute them as briefly as I can Proposition I. Believers need not fear their own sins or the sins of others because neither our own or others sins can do us any hurt They seem to be induced into this Error by misunderstanding the Apostle in Rom. 8. 28. as if the scope of that Text were to assert the benefits of sin to justified persons whereas he speaks there of Adversities and Afflictions befalling the Saints in this Life Vniversalis restringenda est ad materiam subjectam loquitur enim de afflictionibus piorum The subject matter saith Pareus on the place restrains the Universal expression of the Apostle For when he there saith All things shall work together for good he principally intends the afflictions of the Godly of which he treats there in that context It may be extended also to all providential events Omnia quaecunque eis accedunt forinsecus tam adversa quà m prospera All adverse and prosperous events of things without us as Estius upon the place notes Nothing is spoken of sin in this Text. And the Apostle distributing this General into Particulars verse 38. plainly shews what are the things he intended by his Universal expression verse 28. as also in what respect no creature can do the Saints any hurt namely that they shall never be able to separate them from the love of God which is in Christ Iesus our Lord. And in this respect it is true that the Sins of the Elect shall not hurt them by frustrating the purpose of God concerning their Eternal Salvation or totally and finally to separate them from his Love This we grant and yet we think it a very unwary and unsound expression That Believers need not fear their own sins because they can do them no hurt 'T is too general and unguarded a Proposition to be received for truth What if their sins cannot do them that hurt to frustrate the purpose of God and Damn them to Eternity in the World to come Can it therefore do them no hurt at all in their present state of conflict with it in this World For my part I think the greatest fear of caution is due to sin the greatest evil and that Chrysostome spake more like a Christian when he said Nil nisi peccatum timeo I fear nothing but sin Though sin cannot finally ruine the Believer yet it can many ways hurt and injure the Believer and therefore ought not to be misrepresented as such an innocent and harmless thing to them In vain are so many terrible threatnings in the Scriptures against it if it can do us no hurt and it is certain nothing can do us good but that which makes us better and more Holy But Sin can never pretend to that of all things in the World But to come to an issue Sin may be consider'd three ways 1. Formally 2. Effectively 3. Reductively First Formally as a transgression of the Preceptive part of the Law of God and under that consideration it is the most formidable evil in the whole World The evil of evils at which every gracious heart trembles and ought rather to chuse Banishment Prison and Death it self in the most terrible form than Sin or that which is most tempting in Sin the pleasures of it as Moses did Heb. 11. 25. Secondly Sin may be consider'd Effectively with respect to the manifold mischiefs and calamities it produceth in the World and the Spiritual and Corporeal Evils it infers upon Believers themselves Though it cannot Damn their Souls yet it makes War against their Souls and brings them into miserable Bondage and Captivity Rom. 7. 23. It wounds their Souls under which wounds they are feeble and sore broken yea they roar by reason of the disquietness of their hearts Psal. 38. 5 8. Is War Captivity Festering painful Wounds causing them to roar no hurt to Believers It breaks their very Bones Ps. 51. 8. And is that no hurt It draws off their Minds from God interrupts their Prayers and Meditations Rom. 7. 18 19 20 21. And is there no hurt in that It causeth their Graces to decline wither and languish to that degree that the things which are in them are ready to die Rev. 3. 1. and Rev. 2. 4. And is the loss of Grace and Spiritual strength no hurt to a Believer It hides the Face of God from them Isa. 59. 2. And is there no hurt in spiritual withdrawments of God from their Souls Why then do deserted Saints so bitterly lament and bemoan it It provokes innumerable afflictions and miseries which fall upon our Bodies Relations Estates and if Sin be the cause of all these inward and outward miseries to the People of God sure then there is some hurt in Sin for which the Saints ought to be afraid of it Thirdly Sin may be consider'd Reductively
my Judgment as if I leaned sometime to one side and sometime to another I speak not here ad idem as they do in that Contest but when I call it a Condition of Justification my meaning is that no Man is justified until he believe And when I call it an Instrument my meaning is that it is the Righteousness of Christ apprehended by Faith which doth justify us when we believe And so I find the Generality of our Divines calling Faith sometimes a Condition and sometimes an Instrument of our Justification as here I do And if there be any Expression my Reader shall meet with which is less accurate and may be capable of another sense I crave that Candor from him that he interpret it according to this my declared Intention 5. Lastly I have added to the former a short plain practical Sermon to promote the Peace and Unity of the Churches of Christ and prevent their Relapse into past Follies In all the Parts of this Discourse I have sincerely aimed at the Purity and Peace of the Church of God and he greatly mistakes that takes me for a Man of Contention 'T is true I am here contending with my Brethren but pure necessity brought me in an unpleasing irksomeness hath attended me through it and an hearty desire and serious motion for Peace amongst all the professed Members of Christ shall close and finish it Let all Litigations of this nature at least in this Critical Juncture be suspended by common Consent since they waste our time hinder our Communion imbitter our Spirits impoverish practical Godliness grieve the Spirit of God and good Men make sport for our Common Enemies who warm their own Fingers at the Fire of our Contentions and place more Trust in our dividing Lusts than they do in their own feeble Arguments or castrated Penal Laws to effect our Ruin It is my grief the Lord knows to see the delightful Communion the Saints once enjoyed whilst they walked together under the same Ordinances of God now dissolved in such a sad and scandalous Degree by the Impressions of erroneous Opinions made both upon their Heads and Hearts I do therefore heartily joyn with Budaeus in his pious Wish That God would give his People as much Constancy in retaining the Truths they once received as they had Joy and Comfort at their first Reception of them I must in this occasion declare my just Jealousy that the Non-improvement of our Baptismal Covenant unto the great and solemn Ends thereof in our Mortification Vivification and regular Communion with the Church of Christ into which Society we were matriculated by it is at this day punished upon Professors in those fiery Heats and fierce Oppositions unto which God seemeth to have penally delivered us at this day For my own part it is my fixed Resolution to provoke no good man if I can help it But if their own intemperate Zeal shall provoke them in pursuit of their Errors to destroy the very nature of God's Covenant of Grace with Abraham and his Seed and I have a plain call as here I had at once to defend God's Truths and my Peoples Souls against them I will earnestly contend in the Cause of Truth whilst I can move my Tongue or make use of the Pen of the Scribe Reader I shall appeal to thee if thou be wise and impartial Whether any man that understands the Covenant of God renewed with Abraham which is the grand Charter by which we and our Children hold and enjoy the most invaluable Privileges can endure to see it dissolved and utterly destroyed by making it an abolished Adam's Covenant of Works and stand by as an unconcerned Spectator when challenged and provoked to speak in defence thereof Is there any thing found in God's Covenant with Abraham Gen. 17. to make it an abolished Covenant of Works which doth not as injuriously bear upon and strike at the very life of the Covenant of Grace in the last and best Edition of it under which the whole Church of God now stands What is that thing I would fain know in God's Covenant with Abraham Is it the Promissory part of it I will be a God unto thee and to thy Seed after thee Gen. 17. 7 God forbid for the essential and sweetest part of the New Covenant is contained in that Promise Ier. 31. 33. Heb. 8. 10. Yet thou wilt find my Antagonist here forced to assert God may become a Peoples God in a special manner by virtue of the abolished Covenant of Works and such he makes this Covenant to be Or does the Restipulation Abraham and his were here required to make unto God even to walk before him and be perfect doth this make it an Adam's Covenant of Works Surely no. For as God there requires perfection of Abraham so Christ requires the same perfection of all New-covenant Foederates now Matth. 5. 48. Be ye perfect as your Father which is in Heaven is perfect which is altogether as much as ever God required of Abraham and his in Gen. 17. 1. Take Perfection in what sense you will either for a positive Perfection consisting in truth and sincerity or a comparative Perfection consisting in the growth and more eminent degrees of Grace or a superlative Perfection which all New-covenant Foederates strive after here Phil. 3. 12 13 and shall certainly attain in Heaven Heb. 12. 23. In this also the Covenant with Abraham and with us are truly and substantially one and the same Or doth my mistaken Friend imagine that God required this Perfection of Abraham and his as in the First Covenant he required it from Adam and all his viz. to be performed and maintained in his own strength under penalty of the Curse but now though Christ command perfection yet what duty lies in any command answerable strength for it lies in the Promise Very well and was it not so then compare the Command Deuter. 10. 16. Circumcise therefore the fore-skins of your hearts with the answerable gracious Promise to enable them so to do Deut. 30. 6. The Lord thy God will circumcise thy heart and the heart of thy Seed to love the Lord thy God Or lastly Did Circumcision the Sign and Seal added to Abraham's Covenant make it an Adam's Covenant of Works That 's equally impossible with the former for no man but such a daring Man as I am concerned with will dare to say that a Seal of the righteousness of Faith as Circumcision was Rom. 4. 11. can make the Covenant to which it is affixed and which I have shewn in all the other substantial parts the very same with that we are now under to become an Adam's Covenant of Works These things I have here superadded to leave as little as is possible behind me to be an occasion of further trouble and contention Let all strife therefore in so plain a case be ended Contentious Spirits are not the most excellent Spirits among Christians Fire and so Contention is
Analogy or proportion of Faith which is St. Paul's own Rule Rom. 12. 6. Let him that prophesieth i. e. expoundeth the Scripture in the Church do it according to the proportion of faith The Analogy or proportion of Faith is what is taught plainly and uniformly in the whole Scriptures of Old and New Testament as the rule of our Faith and Obedience Whilst we carefully and sincerely attend hereunto we are secured from sinful corrupting the word of God Admit of no sense which interfereth with this proportion of Faith If men have no regard to this but take liberty to rend off a single Text from the body of Truth to which it belongs and put a peculiar interpretation upon it which is absonous and discordant to other Scriptures what woful work will they quickly make Give but a Papist liberty to take that Scripture Iam. 2. 24. out of the frame of Scripture A man is justified by works and not by faith only and expoâ—â—d it without regard to the Tenor of the Gospel-doctrine of Iustification in Paul's Epistles to the Romans and Galatians and a gross Error starts up immediately Give but a Socinian the like liberty to practise upon Iohn 14. 28. and a gross Hâ—resie shall presently look with an Orthodox face Rule II. Never put a new sense upon words of Scripture in favour of your preconceived Notions and Opinions nor wrest it from its general and common use and sense This is not to interpret but to rack the Scriptures as that word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies 2 Pet. 3. 16. Interpretis officium est non quid ipse velit sed quid censeat ille quem interpretatur exponere as Hieron against Ruff. speaks We are not to make the Scriptures speak what we think but what the Prophet or Apostle thought whom we interpret In 1 Cor. 7. 14. we meet with the word holy applied to the Children of Believers that word is above 500 times used for a state of separation to God Therefore to make it signify in that place nothing but Legitimacy is a bold and daring practising upon the Scripture Rule III. Whenever you meet with an obscure place of Scripture let the Context of that Scripture be diligently and throughly searched for 't is usual with God to set up some light there to guide us through the obscurity of a particular Text. And there is much truth in the Observation of the Rabbines Nulla est objectio in Lege quae non habet solutionem in lâ—tere There 's no scruple or objection in the Law but it hath a solution at the side of it Rule IV. Let one Testament freely cast its light upon the other and let not men undervalue or reject an Old Testament Text as no way useful to clear and establish a New-Testament Point of Faith or Duty Each Testament reflects light upon the other The Iews reject the New-Testament and many among us sinfully slight the Old But without the help of both we can never understand the mind of Godâ— in either 'T is a good Rule in the civil-Civil-Law Turpe est de Lege judicare tota lege nondum inspectâ We must inspect the whole Law to know the sense of any particular Law Rule V. Have a due regard to that sense given of obscure places of Scripture which hath not only the current sense of Learned Expositors but also naturally agrees with the scope of the place A careless neglect and disregard to this is justly blamed by the Apostle 1 Tim. 1. 7. Cause II. A Second evil temper in the Subject disposing and inclining men to receive and suck in erroneous Doctrines and Opinions is the ABVSE of that just and due CHRISTIAN LIBERTY allowed by Christ to all his people to read examine and judge the sense of Scriptures with a private judgment of discretion This is a glorious acquisition and blessed fruit of Reformation to vindicate and recover that just Right and gracious Grant made to us by Christ and the Apostles out of the injurious hands of our Popish Enemies who had usurped and invaded it The exercise of this Liberty is at once a Duty commanded by Christ and commended in Scripture 'T is commanded by Christ Iohn 5. 39. Search the Scriptures saith Christ to the people 1 Cor. 10. 15. I speak as to wise men judge you what I say And the exercise of this private judgment of discretion by the people is highly commended by St. Paul in the Bereans Acts 17. 11. These were more noble than those in Thessalonica in that they received the Word with all readiness of mind and searched the scriptures daily whether those things were so This Liberty is not allowed in that latitude in any Religion as it is in the Christian Religion nor enjoyed in its full liberty as it is in the Reformed Religion whose glory it is that it allows its Principles and Doctrines to be critically examined and tryed of all Men by the Rule of the Word as well knowing the more it is sifted and searched by its Professors the more they will be still confirmed and satisfied in the truth of it But yet this gracious and just liberty of Christians suffers a double abuse One from the Popish Enemies who injuriously restrain and deny it to the people Another by Protestants themselves who sinfully stretch and extend it beyond the just degree and measure in which Christ allows it to them The Pope injuriously restrains it discerning the danger that must necessarily follow the concession of such a liberty to the people to compare his superstitious and erroneous Doctrines with the Rule of the Word St. Peter in 2 Pet. 1. 19. tells the people they have a more sure Word of Prophecy whereunto they do well that they take heed Certainly the Pope forgot either that he was Peter's Successour or that ever St. Peter told the people they did well to make use of that liberty which he denies them Mr. Pool tells us of a Spaniard that used this expression to an English Merchant You people of England said he are happy you have liberty to see with your own eyes and to examine the Doctrines delivered to you upon which your everlasting Life depends but we dare not say our souls are our own but are commanded to believe whatever our Teachers tell us be it never so unreasonable or ridiculous This is a most injurious and sinful restraint upon it on the one side And then Secondly 'T is too frequently abused by stretching it beyond Christ's allowance and intendment upon the other side when every ignorant and confident person shall under pretence of liberty granted by Christ rudely break in upon the Sacred Text distort violate and abuse the Scriptures at pleasure by putting such strange and â—oreign senses upon them as the Spirit of God never meant or intended How often have I heard that Scripture Micha 4. 10. They shall be brought even to Babylon confidently interpreted for almost but not full hâ—me
searched and all those parcels brought together to an interview Ex. Gr. If a Man would see the entire discovery that was made of Christ to the Fathers under the Old-Testament he shall not find it laid together in any one Prophet but shall find that one speaks to one part of it and another to another Moses gives the first general hint of it Gen. 3. 15. The seed of the woman shall break the serpents head But then if you would know more particularly of whose Seed according to the flesh he should come you must turn to Gen. 22. 18. In thy seed saith God to Abraham shall all nations of the earth be blessed And if you yet doubt what Seed God means there you must go to the Apostle Gal. 3. 16. To thy seed which is Christ. If you would further know the place of his Nativity the Prophet Micha must inform you of that Mic. 5. 2. it should be Bethlehem-Ephrata If you inquire of the quality of his Parent another Prophet gives you that Isa. 7. 14. Behold a Virgin shall conceive and bear a Son and call his name Immanuel If the time of his Birth be inquired after Moses and Daniel must inform you of that Gen. 49. 10. Dan. 9. 24. So under the New-Testament If a Man inquire about the change of the Sabbath he must not expect to find a formal repeal of the Seventh day and an express institution of the first day in its room but he is to consider First What the Evangelist speaks Mark 2. 28. That Christ is Lord of the Sabbath and so had power not only to dispense with it but to change it Secondly That on the first day of the Week Christ rose from the dead Matt. 28. 1 2. And that this is that great day foretold to be the day to be solemnized upon that account Psal. 118. 24. Thirdly That accordingly the first day of the Week is emphatically styled the Lord's day Rev. 1. 10. where you find his own name written upon it Fourthly You shall find this was the day on which the Apostles and Primitive Christians assembled together for the stated and solemn performance of Publick Worship Iohn 20. 19. and other publick Church-Acts and Duties 1 Cor. 16. 1 2. And so by putting together and considering all these Particulars we draw a just Conclusion That it is the Will of God that since the Resurrection of Christ the first day of the week should be observed as the Christian-Sabbath In like manner as for the Baptizing of Believers Infants We are not to expect it in the express words of a New-Testament-Institution or Command that Infants under the Gospel should be Baptized but God hath left us to gather satisfaction about his Will and our Duty in that point by comparing and considering the several Scriptures of the Old and New-Testament which relate to that matter which if we be impartial and considerative we may do First By considering that by God's express Command Gen. 17. 9 10. the Infant Seed of his People were taken into Covenant with their Parents and the then Sign of that Covenant commanded to be applied to them Secondly That though the Sign be altered the Promise and Covenant is still the same and runs as it did before to Believers and their Children Acts 2. 38 39. Thirdly That the foederal holiness of our Children is plainly asserted under the New-Testament 1 Cor. 7. 14. Rom. 11. 16. Fourthly We shall further find that Baptism succeeds in the room of Circumcision and that by an Argument drawn from the compleatness of our Privileges under the New-Testament no way inferiour but rather more extensive than those of the Iews Col. 2. 10 11 12. Fifthly We shall find that upon the Conversion of any Master or Parent the whole Houshold were Bapized By puting all these things with some others together we may arrive to the desired satisfaction about the Will of God in this matter But some Men want abilities and others are too sluggish and lazy to gather together compare and weigh all these and many more hints and discoveries of the Mind of God which would give much light unto this point but they take an easier and cheaper way to satisfy themselves with what lies uppermost upon the surface of Scripture and so as it were by consent let go and lose their own and their Childrens blessed and invaluable Privileges for want of a little labour and patience to search the Scriptures a folly which few would be guilty of if but a small earthly inheritance were concerned therein The Remedies To cure this Spiritual sluggishness and awaken us to the most serious and diligent search after the Will of God in such controversal and doubtful points that we may not neglect the smallest hint given us about it the following Considerations will be found of great use and weight Consideration I. The most sedate impartial and diligent inquiries after the Will of God revealed in his Word is a Duty expresly enjoyned by his Soveraign Command which immediately and indispensibly binds the Conscience of every Christian to the practice of it Remarkable is that Text to this purpose Rom. 12. 2. And be not conformed to this world but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind that ye may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God Here you find this Duty not only associated with but made the very end of our Non-conformity to the World and renovation of our minds the very things which constitute a Christian And to sweeten our pains in this work that Will of God for the discovery whereof we search is presented to us under three illustrious and alluring properties viz. Good Acceptable and Perfect Good it must needs be because the Will and Essence of God the chief Good are not two things but one and the same And Perfect it must needs be because it is the Beam and Standard by which the Actions of all reasonable Creatures ought to be weighed and tryed as to the moral good or evil of them And being both good and perfect How can it chuse but upon both accounts be highly Acceptable and grateful to an upright Soul as that Epithete 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there imports Search the Scriptures saith Christ Ioh. 5. 39. To the Law and to the Testimony faith the Prophet Isa. 8. 20. This is not matter of meer Christian Liberty but Commanded Duty and at our peril◠be it if we neglect it Consideration II. No act of ours can be good and acceptable to the Lord further than it is agreeable to his Will revealed in the Word No Man can be a Rule to himself He can be no more his own Rule than his own End One Man cannot be a Rule to another The best of Men and their Actions and Examples are only so far a rule of imitation to us as they themselves are ruled by the Divine revealed Will 1 Cor. 11. 1. uncommanded acts of Worship are abominable to
by it but to convince them of Sin and of the necessity of a Saviour and yet the Law be a Covenant of Works intentionally as well as materially considered and that in respect of God's special designation and appointment If God designed and appointed it in his Sinai dispensation to be to them an Adam's Covenant of Works then certainly they were not out as you say they were when they sought Righteousness by the works of it nor could that mistake of theirs be the ground of the Controversy betwixt the Apostle and them For it seems it was no mistake being by God's intention as well as its own primitive nature promulged at Sinai as a true Adam's Covenant Secondly You deny the Law was added to the Promise and ask me why it might not be added to the first Covenant to re-inforce that I answer Because the scope of the place will not bear it nor any good Expositor countenance such a fancy You make the Sinai Law to be the same with that first Covenant and by so expounding the Apostle you make him say either that the same thing was added to it self which must in your own Phrase be by a Correspondency of Identity or else that there are two distinct Covenants of Works when indeed there is but one and that the latter was added to the former This is your way of Expounding Scripture when driven to a streight by dint of Argument Nothing beside such a pure necessity could drive you upon such an Absurdity It was added to the promise saith Dr. Reynolds by way of subserviency and attendance the better to advance and make effectual the Covenant it self Mr. Strong upon the two Covenants saith the Apostle's meaning is that the Law was added as an Appendix to the Promise But it may be you had rather hear Dr. Crisp's Exposition than his for you say had it been added to the Promise it would have given life The Doctor will at once give you the true sense of the Text and with it a full answer to your Objection Though Life saith he be not the end of the Law yet there are other sufficient uses of it requiring the promulgation thereof It was published to be an Appendix to the Gospel Gal. 3. 19. And this supposes 1. The priority of the Gospel to the Law 2. The principality of the Promise of Life by Christ above the Law 3. The Consistence of the Law and Gospel They may well stand one by another as an House and the addition to it may That it was with such an intention added to the Promise I have met with no Man that had front enough to deny or scruple it before you And that the Iews did mistake its chief scope and use from whence we denominate it a Covenant of Grace the generality of Godly and Learned Divines constantly affirm See Mr. Anth. Burgess de Lege p. 227. Bolton's Bounds p. 160 161. Mr. Samuel Mather on the Types p. 11. with multitudes more whose citations would even weary the Reader And what you urge from Mr. Poole's Annotations on 2 Cor. 3. 6 7. it makes nothing at all to your purpose For it is manifest the Annotator there takes the Moral Law in it self strictly taken and as set in opposition to the Gospel which it never was since the Fall but by the ignorance and infidelity of unregenerate Men. You also labour to shelter your erroneous fancy under the authority of Dr. Owen but you manifestly abuse him in your Citation for in that very place you refer to he speaks strictly of the Covenant of Works made with Adam in Paradise and plainly distinguishes it from the Sinai Covenant which sufficiently shews his judgment in this point For these are his own words which you suppressed in the Citation As to the Sinai Covenant and the New Testament with their privileges thence emerging they belong not to our present Argument This Paragraph you wilfully omit that you might include that which his words plainly exclude In the same place he tells you that David and Abraham's Covenant was for essence the Covenant of Grace notwithstanding the variations made in it But you take and leave as best suits your design Once more in p. 16 17 c. of my Vindiciae Legis you find your self pinched with another Dilemma from Lev. 26. 40 41 46. whence I plainly proved That there is a Promise of Pardon found in the Sinai dispensation to penitent sinners That this Promise was given at Mount Sinai by the hand of Moses is undeniable from vers 46. That it contained the Relief of a gracious remission to penitent sinners is as undeniable from vers 40 41. If you say this Promise belongs to Moses his dispensation as verse 46. tells you it did then there is remission of Sins found in the Sinai Laws If you say it only refers to Abraham's Covenant of Grace then that Covenant of Grace appears to be conditional which you utterly deny Now what is your Reply to this 1. You object my own words in the Method of Grace p. 326. as if you had never read the just and fair Vindication I had before given you of them p. 134 135. of my first Reply to you At this rate Men may continue Controversies to the Worlds end Sir there are many Witnesses that you are very well acquainted with my Method of Grace 2. You say p. 31. of your Reply That that Covenant could not be conditional because a Condition implies merit either of congruity or condignity This is a further discovery of your ignorance of the nature of Conditions as well as Covenants But that Point belonging to the last Head of Controversy between us I shall refer it thither It were easie for me to instance in many more Absurdities which Mr. C. cannot eluctate and to prove them upon him as easily as to name them But I will not press him too far what hath been named and proved already is more than enough to convince the Reader that my first Argument is left standing in its full force and strength against him viz. Argument I. That Proposition can never be true which necessarily draws many and horrid gross absurdities after it by just consequence But so doth this Ergo. Argument II. My next Argument Vindiciae c. p. 27. is as secure as the first It was this If Adam's Covenant had one end namely the Happiness and Justification of Men by their own Obedience and the Law at Sinai had quite another 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 then the Sinai Law cannot possibly be the same with Adam's Covenant of Works in Paradise But so stands the Case Rom. 10. 4. Christ is the end of the Law for righteousness to every one that believeth Therefore they cannot be the same but two different Covenants All that touches this Argument is but
the whole Law for Righteousness You may ponder this Argument at your leisure and not think to refute it at so cheap a rate as by calling it a corrupt gloss of my own And thus I hope I have sufficiently fortified and confirmed my Third Argument to prove Abraham's Covenant to be a Covenant of Grace My Fourth was this Argument IV. That which in its direct and primary end teacheth Man the corruption of his Nature by sin and the mortification of sin by the Spirit of Christ cannot be a condition of the Covenant of Works But so did Circumcision in the very direct and primary end of it Therefore c. Your Reply to this is That when I have substantially proved that the Sinai Covenant as it contained the Passeover Sacrifices Types and Appendages under which were vailed many spiritual Mysteries relating to Christ and mortification of sin by his Grace and Spirit to be no Covenant of Works but a Gospel-covenant you will then grant with me that the present Argument is convincing p. 96 97. of your Reply Sir I take you for an honest man and every honest man will be as good as his word Either I have fully proved against you that the Sinai Law taken in that latitude you here express it is not an Adam's Covenant of Works or I have not If I have not doubtless you have reserved your more pertinent and strong Replies in your own breast and trust not to those weak and silly ones which you see here baffled and have only served to involve you in greater Absurdities than before But if you have brought forth all your strength as in such a desperate strait no man can imagine but you would then I have fully proved the point against you And if I have I expect you to be ingenuous and candid in making good your word That you will then grant with me that this Argument is convincing to the end for which it was designed And so I hope we have fully issued the Controversy between us relating to God's Covenant with Abraham You have indeed four Arguments p. 59 60 61 62. of your Reply to prove Abraham's Covenant a Covenant of Works of the same nature with Adam's Covenant 1. Because as life was implicitly promised to Adam upon his obedience and death explicitly threatned in case of his disobedience which made that properly a Covenant of Works so it was in the Covenant of Circumcision Gen. 17. 7 8. compared with vers 10 14. This Argument or Reason can never conclude because as God never required of Abraham and his Children personal perfect and perpetual obedience to the whole Law for life as he did of Adam so the death or cutting off spoken of here seems to be another thing from that threatned to Adam Circumcision as I told you before was appointed to be the discriminating Sign betwixt Abraham's Seed and the Heathen World and the wilful neglect thereof is here threatned with cutting off by Civil or Ecclesiastical Excommunication from the Commonwealth and Church of Israel as Luther Calvin Paraeus Musculus c. expounds not by death of Body and Soul as was threatned to Adam without place for repentance or hope of mercy 2. You say Abraham's Covenant could not be a Covenant of Faith because Faith was not reckoned to Abraham for Righteousness in Circumcision but in Uncircumcision Rom. 4. 9 10. This is weak reasoning Circumcision could not belong to a Gospel-covenant because Abraham was a Believer before he was circumcised You may as well deny the Lord's Supper to be the Seal of a Gospel-Covenant because the Partakers of it are Believers before they partake of it Beside you cannot deny but it sealed the Righteousness of â—aith to Abraham and I desired you before to prove that a Seal of the Covenant of Works iâ— capable of being applied to such an use and service which you have not done nor ever will be able to do but politickly slided by it 3. You say it cannot be a Covenant of Grace because it is contra-distinguished to the Righteousness of Faith Rom. 4. 13. The Law in that place is put strictly for the pure Law of Nature and Metaleptically signifies the Works of the Law which is a far different thing from the Law taken in that latitude wherein you take it And is not this a pretty Argument that because the promise to Abraham and his Seed was not through the Law but through the Righteousness of Faith therefore the Covenant of God made with Abraham and his Seed Gen. 17. cannot be a gracious but a legal Covenant This Promise mentioned Rom. 4. 13. was made to Abraham long before the Law was given by Moses and Free-grace not Abraham's legal Righteousness was the impulsive cause moving God to make that Promise to Abraham and to his Seed and their enjoyment of the Mercies promised was not to be through the Law but through the Righteousness of Faith By what rule of art this Scripture is alledged to prove God's Covenant with Abraham Gen. 17. to be a Covenant of Works I am utterly to seek If it be only because Circumcision was added to it that 's answered over and over before and you neither have nor can reply to it 4. Lastly It cannot say you be a Covenant of Grace because it 's represented to us in Scripture as a Bondage-covenant Acts 15. 10 c. Gal. 5. 1. 'T is time I see to make an end Your discourse runs low and dreggy Do you think it is one and the same thing to say That the Ceremonial Law was a yoke of bondage to them that were under it and to say it was an Adam's Covenant Are these two parallel distinctions in your Logick Alas Sir there is a wide difference The difficulty variety and chargeableness of those Ceremonies made them indeed burthensome and tiresome to that People but they did not make the Covenant to which they were annexed to become an Adam's Covenant of Works for in the very next breath vers 11. the Apostle will tell you they were saved yea and tells us that we shall be saved even as they So that either they that were under this yoke were saved by Faith in the way of Free-grace as we now are or we must be saved in the way of legal Obedience as they were Take which you please for one of them you must take We shall be saved even as they Acts 15. 10 11. If you can make no stronger opposition to my Arguments than such as you have here made your Cause is lost though your confidence and obstinancy remain It were easy for me to fill more Paper than I have written on this Subject with Names of principal note in the Church of God who with one voice decry your groundless Position and constantly affirm that the Law in the complex sense you take it as it comprehends the Ceremonial Rites and Ordinances whereunto Circumcision pertains is and can be no other than the
Covenant of Grace though more obscurely administred But because Latin Authors are of little use to you and among English ones the Judgment of Dr. Crisp I suppose will be instar omnium with you I will recite it faithfully out of his Sermon upon the two Covenants where he makes the Old and New Covenants to be indeed two distinct Covenants of Grace for which I see no reason at all but proves the former to be so in these words It is granted of all men That in the Covenant of Works there is no remission of Sin there is no notice of Christ but the whole business or imployment of the Priests of the old Law was altogether about remission of Sins and the exhibiting and holding forth of Christ in their fashion unto the People In the 15th of Numbers vers 28. I will give you but one Instance there you shall plainly see That the administration of that Priestly Office had remission of Sins as the main end of that Administration If a Soul sin through ignorance he shall bring a She-goat unto the Priest and he shall make an atonement for the Soul that sinneth ignorantly and it shall be forgiven him See the main end is administring forgiveness of Sins And that Christ was the main Subject of that their Ministry is plain because the Apostle saith in the Verse before my Text That all that Administration was but a Shadow of Christ and a Figure for the present to represent him as he doth express in the 9th Chapter of this Epistle And the truth is the usual general Gospel that all the Iews had was in their Sacrifices and Priestly Observations So that it 's plain the administration of their Covenant was an administration of Grace and absolutely distinct from the administration of the Covenant of Works And what can be said more absolutely and directly contradictory to your Position than this is And yet again p. 250. speaking to that Scripture Heb. 8. 8. where the Apostle distinguishes of a better and a faulty of First and Second he saith Finding fault with them The days come when I will make a new Covenant with the House of Israel and with the House of Judah not according to the Covenant I made with their Fathers when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the Land of Egypt and as Ieremiah adds it for the Apostle takes all this out of Ier. 31. 31. although I was an Husband to them and in the close of all Your Sins and Iniquities will I remember no more Here are two Covenants a new Covenant and the Covenant he made with their Fathers Some may think it was the Covenant of works at the promulgation of the Moral Law but mark well that Expression of Ieremiah and you shall see it was the Covenant of Grace For saith he not according to the Covenant I made with their Fathers although I was an Husband unto them How can God be considered as Husband to a People under the Covenant of Works which was broken by man in innocency and so became disannulled or impossible by the breach of it The Covenant of Works runs thus Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things that are written in the Book of the Law and In the day thou sinnest thou shalt die the death Man had sinned before God took him by the hand to lead him out of the Land of Egypt and Sin had separated Man from God how then can God be called an Husband in the Covenant of Works The Covenant therefore was not a Covenant of Works but such a Covenant as the Lord became an Husband in and that must be a Covenant of Grace c. How the Doctor makes good his two distinct Covenants of Grace I see not nor expect ever to see proved and is not my present concernment to enquire but once it is evident by what he hath here said That the Ceremonial Law whereof Circumcision is a branch can be no other than the Covenant of Grace And nothing is more common among our Divines than to prove not only the Sinai Law but God's Covenant with Abraham Gen. 17. to be the Covenant of Grace by this Medium That God having entred into a Covenant of Grace with Abraham before would never bring him under a Covenant of Works afterwards which must nullify and void the former And beside such a Covenant of Works as you make this was never heard of in the World wherein God promises to be a God to Abraham and his Seed in their Generations upon the rigorous and impossible Terms of Adam's Covenant By this time I presume you must feel the force of those Arguments produced against your vain and groundless notion and how little you are able to do to deliver your Thesis from them but the more you struggle the more still you are intangled Go which way you will your Absurdities follow you as your Shadow haeret lateri lethalis arundo Leaving therefore all your Absurdities upon you till God shall give you more illumination and ingenuity to discern and acknowledge them I shall pass on to the examination of your third Position which led you into these other gross Mistakes and if God shall convince you of your Error in this point I hope it may prove a means of recovering you out of the rest which in love to your Soul I heartily desire III. Your third Position is That God's Covenant with Abraham Gen. 17. can be no other than the Covenant of Works because Circumcision was the Condition of it For say you the new Covenant is altogether absolute and unconditional Of the Conditionality of the New Covenant This Question Whether the Covenant of Grace be conditionate or absolute was moved as a learned Man observes in the former Age by occasion of the Controversy about Justification betwixt the Protestants and Papists Among the Protestants some denied and others affirmed the Conditionality of the Gospel-covenant Those that denied it did so for fear of mingling Law and Gospel Christ's Righteousness and Man's as the Papists had wickedly done before Those that affirmed it did so out of fear also lest the necessity of Faith and Holiness being relaxed Libertinism should be that way introduced But if the Question were duly stated and the sense of its Terms agreed upon the Gospel-Covenant may be affirmed to be conditional to secure the People of God from Libertinism without the least diminution of the Righteousness of Christ or clouding the Free-grace of God I did in my first Answer to your Call endeavour to prevent the needless trouble you have here given your self by a succinct state of the Question telling you the Controversy betwixt us is not 1. Whether the Gospel-covenant requires no duties at all of them that are under it nor 2. Whether it requires any such Conditions as were in Adam's Covenant namely perfect personal and perpetual Obedience under the penalty of the Curse and admitting no place of Repentance nor 3.