Temple of God shall be opened in Heaven wherein shall be seen the Ark of his Testament And whatever Lightnings and Voices Thundrings or Earthquakes may be Coucomitant herewith to be sure the Issue must needs be Comfortable and Glorious to all that are upright in Heart Finally When the Pure and Uncorrupted Doctrin of the Grace of God in Jesus Christ shall be universally preached and all Corrupt Mixtures in Gods Worship shall be totally abolished then and not till then may we expect the Holy City New Jerusalem coming down from God out of Heaven prepared as a Bride adorned for her Husband having the Glory of God and her Light most precious clear as Christal When there shall be no more Curse But the Throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it and his Servants shall serve him In the Hope and Expectation of which day and state of Blessedness I take leave to Subscribe my self Christian Reader Thy Servant for Christ's Sake Philip Cary. PART I. Containing a Just and a Sober Reply to Mr. Flavell's Arguments by way of Answer to the forementioned Discourse SECT I. MR. Flavell tells me in the Manuscript Copy he sent me of his present Reply now in Print That his proper Province at this time is to Examine and Defend the Foundation on which our Divines have built the Right of Infants Baptism viz. Gods Covenant with Abraham Gen. 17. which saith he is the Covenant of Grace the same we are now under The Question hereon being the Articulus stantis vel Cadentis Paedobaptismi And that if I can make good my Thesis that it was not a Gospel Covenant but now abolished I have certainly destroy'd the principal Fort which defended the claim of our Infants to the priviledges of the Covenant He now tells me in his printed Reply That his proper Province is to discover that part of the Foundation meaning Abraham's Covenant whence our Divines deduce the Right of Infants Baptism So that I perceive he is not fixed in his Mind whether Abraham's Covenant be an Entire or Partial Foundation onely Sometimes it seems to him to be the sole Foundation of the Practice of Infants Sprinkling else the Question thereon cannot be the Articulus stantis vel Cadentis Paedobaptismi Otherwhile he is loath to venture it singly upon that Bottom However it be of this I am sure Every Plant which our Heavenly Father hath not planted shall in due season be rooted up And I suppose a little time will shew whether the present practice of Infants Sprinkling be not to be deservedly reckoned among that number That no small stress is and hath been laid upon the Arguments drawn from that Covenant by the Assertors of Infants Baptism for the justification of that practice cannot be denied How the Sinai Covenant came to be hooked into the Question Mr. Flavell himself hath accounted for p. 133. of his forementioned printed Reply as being occasioned by himself Accordingly he tells me in his Manuscript Copy that he is now to give his Reasons why he thinks I have not proved that the Sinai Covenant was a Covenant of Works As also why he thinks I have not proved Abraham's Covenant Gen. 17. to be a Covenant of Works nor that the New Covenant is Absolute and without Condition In his printed Reply the Expression is a little varied for there he saith that that which I affirm and he is to disprove is that the Sinai Covenant and Abraham's Covenant are no Gospel Covenants which is the same in effect with the other For if neither of them be Gospel Covenants they must needs be both a Covenant of Works He begins p. 10. of his printed Reply with the Sinai Covenant which I affirm to be a Covenant of Works the very same for substance with that made with Adam in Innocency For the clearing up of which Proposition and to prevent any further Disputes thereon as to the true state of the Question By the Sinai Covenant I understand the whole Complex Body of the Law as it was delivered on Mount Sinai The Moral part whereof contained a clear and plain manifestation of the Law written in the Heart of Man at the first The addition of the Ceremonial Precepts whereunto makes no alteration as to the true Nature or Essence of that Covenant For so long as this Rule is retained Do this and live as it was in respect of the whole Body of the Law it is still the same Covenant with Adam's for the Substance or Essence of it and is accordingly represented to us in the Scripture under the Denomination of the First or Old Covenant The whole Complex Body of the Sinai Covenant therefore is that which I affirm to be a Covenant of Works the very same for substance with that made with Adam in Paradise Now this Assertion of mine you tell me is attended with many gross Absurdities For first say you from hence it follows that either Moses and all Israel were damned there being no Salvation possible to be attained by that first Covenant or else that there was a Covenant of Grace at the same time running Paralel with the Covenant of Works And so the Elect People of God were at the same time under the First as a Covenant of Death and Condemnation and under the Second as a Covenant of Grace and Justification And this latter you tell me I am forced upon which you say is attended with many false and absurd Conclusions For during Life they must hang mid-way betwixt Justification and Condemnation And after Death they must necessarily hang between Heaven and Hell And so at last say you we have found the Limbus Patrum which the Papists so earnestly contend for and must send Moses and all Gods People to Purgatory so your Manuscript Copyruns How to avoid these Absurdities you say you see not according to my dangerous Concession Reply By way of Answer hereunto I must tell you Sir That I should greatly admire if you your self be not sensible that the same pretended Absurdities do attend and fall full as heavily and indeed a great deal more on your Doctrine than on mine Since that which I affirm to be two distinct and essentially different Covenants to wit Perfect doing with the consequent Curse upon the Non-performance and believing in Christ unto Life and Salvation you are forced according to your Doctrin to comprise in one and the same Covenant And then I would willingly know if you or any other Man can free the present Point as it is thus stated by your selves from the very self same Absurdities you would fasten on me If you can you will with the same breath discharge me and that far more effectually than you can with any shadow of Reason do it for your selves For your Conviction therefore in this respect In the first place It cannot be denied but that the Scriptures do plainly inform us that both Moses and all Gods People during the former Administration were all of
in Stones the Covenant of Works Sir I do not make it so nor do I say so I only say that it was a Covenant of Works and I do therefore so Express my self purposely respecting what follows in the same Page where I tell you that whereas the Apostle Heb. 9. speaking of the Ceremonial Covenant which was Dedicated by Blood and Sprinkling doth represent it to us under such Characters as he doth From all this said I it plainly appears that even the Ceremonial Covenant it self could be no other than a Covenant of Works as well as that Written in Stones And accordingly I tell you in the following Page That though it is plain that the Law Written in Stones and the Book wherein the Statutes and Judgments were contained were Two distinct Covenants and delivered at distinct Seasons and in a distinct Method yet it is as clear from the Premises that they were both of the same Nature that is no other than a Covenant of Works and accordingly both now Repealed and that under the Denomination of the First or Old Covenant Now let the Candid Reader Judg upon the whole of this Discourse the substance whereof I have here truly and faithfully recited not hiding the least Syllable that might make against me in this matter whether Mr. Flavell hath any just Reason to affirm as he doth That whatsoever is Dedicated by Blood is by me confessed not to be any part of the Covenant of Works Or let such as desire further satisfaction herein take the Book it self to which this refers and see if they can there find any the least Syllable that hath any such kind of signification Which yet Mr. Flavell is pleased to make the very Foundation of his forementioned Argument and by which he endeavours to render me Ridiculous and Repugnant to my self For if Circumcision saith he be a part of the Ceremonial Law and the Ceremonial Law was Dedicated by Blood and whatsoever is so Dedicated is by you confessed not to be any part of the Covenant of Works Then Circumcision is no part of the Covenant of Works even by your own confession But saith he it is so Ergo But Sir I must tell you that after this rate of Arguing you seem to have taken a Liberty to say what you please as if there were no future Judgment to be regarded Sir 't is plain matter of Fact that we are now contending about and I appeal unto all that shall Impartially read my Discourse whether I have not here given a Faithful Account thereof so far as it relates to this matter And if upon the whole there do not appear the least shadow of pretence for you to affirm as you do what Comfort can you expect another day without Repentance now when these things that have thus passed betwixt you and me shall be again Revised and set in order before you Indeed I am weary of noteing your Miscarriages of this kind your Reply abounds with Transgressions of this nature The Lord forgive you and lay it not to your charge But whereas in the close of your Discourse upon this Head you tell me that the Truth I oppose viz. That the Book of the Ceremonial Law was sprinkled by Typical Blood and therefore confirmed by the Blood of Christ for the time it was to continue shines like a bright Sun-beam in my Eyes from Heb. 9. 14 23. I must tell you for a Close That I do not oppose but acknowledge that the Ceremonial Law was sprinkled by Typical Blood But I utterly deny that it was therefore also confirmed by the Blood of Christ Typified thereby For if it had it would have made the Comers thereunto Perfect as pertaining to the Conscience which the Apostle expresly affirms it could not vers 9. and chap. 10. 1. I need say no more as to that and shall now therefore proceed to the Examination of your Second Argument Argum. 2. If Circumcision was a Seal of the Righteousness of Faith it did not pertain to the Covenant of Works for the Righteousness of Faith and Works are opposites and belong to two contrary Covenants But Cricumcision was the Seal of the Righteousness of Faith Rom. 4. 11. He that is Abraham received the sign of Circumcision a Seal of the Righteousness of Faith Therefore it pertains not the Covenant of Works but Grace Printed Reply p. 45. Reply Sir by way of Answer hereunto I must tell you That when the Apostle tells us of Abraham Rom. 4. 11. That he received the Sign of Circumcision a Seal of the Righteousness of the Faith which he had yet being uncircumcised from thence to infer That the Covenant of Circumcision was a Covenant of Faith and consequently that Circucision did not pertain to the Covenant of Works would be point blank to contradict the whole scope and design of the Apostle in the foregoing Passages of that Chapter Which as it was in the general to prove That Abraham was not justified by Works but by Faith onely vers 2 3. 4 5. So in particular to assure us That Faith was not reckoned to him for Righteousness when he was in Circumcision but in Uncircumcision Vers. 9 10. And what more convincing Testimony or Evidence can we desire that the Covenant of Circumcision was not a Covenant of Faith but of Works The Sign of Circumcision was indeed a Seal unto Abraham of the Righteousness of the Faith which he had in respect of the Promises made him yet being Uncircumcised But it doth not therefore follow that the Promises Gen. 17. 7 8. That God would be a God unto him and his Seed after him in their Generations c. upon Condition that He and His were Circumcised were any part of the Covenant of Faith For otherwise the Apostle would never have told us as he doth That Faith was not reckoned to him for Righteousness when he was in Circumcision but in Uncircumcision The Argument hence resulting therefore as I have already told you is Irresistible That Covenant in which Faith was not reckoned to Abraham for Righteousness could never be a Covenant of Faith and therefore must of necessity be a Covenant of Works But the Scripture is express That Faith was not reckoned to Abraham for Righteousness when he was in Circumcision but in Uncircumcision Therefore the Covenant of Circumcision must needs be a Covenant of Works Mr. Whiston's Cavils against which Argument I have answered in its proper place Besides it is evident that long before his Circumcision God had promised Abraham to Bless him to make his Name great that he should be a Blessing that in him should all the Families of the Earth be Blessed that he should be the Father of many Nations or as the Apostle explains it That he should be the Father of all them that believe according to that which was spoken so shall thy Seed be Gen 12. 2 3. Gen. 15. 5. And it is evident that these were the Promises upon the account of which we
Conradiction betwixt those two Passages as Mr. Flavel supposes there is I do indeed acknowledge that the Law even as it is a Covenant of Works hath a blessed subserviency toward the establishment of the Promise in the sense before expressed when yet I deny that it is a Covenant of Life or that the Scriptures do any where give it the title of a Subservient Covenant of Grace For if it be a Covenant of Gospel Grace as Mr. Flavell affirms it is how is it Subservient thereunto as to another thing To call it a Subservient Covenant that is neither of Works nor of Grace is wholly preposterous and alien to the Scriptures Either therefore it must be a Covenant of Works or a Covenant of Grace there being no medium betwixt these two If it be a Covenant of Grace then it cannot be a Subservient Covenant thereunto for it is the thing it self which in this respect it is pretended to be Subservient unto If it be a Covenant of Works then you grant my main Position And indeed in no other respect can it be Subservient unto the Gospel Covenant but as it is a Covenant of Works For so it convinceth Men of their Sin and Misery without Christ and their Necessity therefore of a Saviour It shews Men as in a glass the Purity and Holiness of God's nature together with their own defilement and impurity where by it effectually promotes the Design of the Gospel Covenant For in as much as it requires Perfect sinless obedience under the Penalty of the Curse it convinceth Men that this is no way for Sinners to seek for Life and Salvation by and consequently forceth them to Christ their onely Remedy Mr. Flavell therefore doth greatly mistake his measures and widely misses the mark he aims at when he thinks to find a contradiction betwixt these two forementioned Passages which are in themselves so perfectly harmonious and so agreable withal to the whole scope of the Scriptures And as greatly is he mistaken when he tells me as he doth in the following part of his Discourse that the Law was added as an Appendix to the Covenant of Grace or Gospel Promise from what the Apostle speaks Gal. 3 19. That the Law was added because of transgressions till the Seed should come to whom the Promise was made When the Apostle had told us just before That if the Inheritance be of the Law it is no more of Promise But God gave it to Abraham by Promise And if so How was the Law added as an Appendix to the Promise Why might it not be added as an Appendix rather to the First Covenant of Works to re-inforce that it being as your self confess materially considered of the same stamp the more effectually thereby to convince Men of their need of a Saviour It is wholly Preposterous therefore to affirm that the Law was of the same Peice Complexion with the Promise or that God did publish it as you say he did with Evangelical Purposes as if it were of the same nature with the Promise The Promise saith the Apostle giveth Life For Abraham's inheritance was by that very means derived unto him But the Law could not give Life Abraham's Inheritance was not derived unto him through the Law but the Promise vers 18 21. And how was the Law then of the same Nature with the Promise Wherefore then serveth the Law It was added because of transgreossins that is either to restrain Sin and set some Bounds thereunto 1. Tim. 1. 9. Or to shew and discover Sin Rom. 7. 13. But then it follows not that it had any affinity with the Promise For if it had it would have given Life as the Promise did But this it could not do therefore it was essentially different from the Promise For saith he vers 21. If there had been a Law given which could have given Life verily Righteousness should have been by the Law But the Scripture hath concluded all under Sin that the Promise by Faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that Believe But then there is another grand Absurdity which Mr. Flavell will needs Endeavor if he can to fasten upon me and that is for speaking as I do P. 134. of my former Discourse That according to the plain and clear scope of the Apostles Reasoning in the forementioned Gal. 3. the Law is so far from being a Covenant of Faith that it is quite another thing For if it had been a Covenant of Faith it would have given Life as the Covenant of Faith doth But it could not give Life therefore it could be no other than a Covenant of Works But is the Law then against the Promises God forbid saith Paul and so say we For supposing the Law to be as it is indeed a Pure Covenant of Works yet through the satisfaction of Christ there is no Repugnancy betwixt the Law and the Promises or between the Law and Faith which hath Respect to the Promises There is only a Difference of Deficiency in respect of that strength that there is in the one to what there was in the other the one being weak through the flesh the other strong and powerful But what the Law could not do through our Weakness that Christ hath performed by fulfilling its Commands and submitting to its Curse on our behalf whereby God's Justice is satisfied and Everlasting Righteousness obtained for the Relief of Sinners c. Now what of Absurdity or Self-Contradiction can any Ingenuous or Impartial Reader find in this Passage Yes saith Mr. Flavell because you here say there is only a Difference of Deficiency betwixt the Law and the Gospel the one being strong and powerful the other weak and unable to Relieve us When yet you elsewhere Affirm that there is a Specifical Difference between them Reply Sir It should seem by this that you have a mighty Itch to find out some Absurdity or some Contradiction or other in my Discourse which Argues no over-friendly Humour whatever you may pretend But suppose there be no real Contradiction betwixt these two Passages but in your Imagination only from an over sollicitous desire to make it appear to be such if you cannot find it such And that it is so I beseech you once more to consider that when I Affiâ—…rm that there is a Specifical Difference betwixt the Law and the Gospel I am there speaking of the terms of Life contained in either For in this respect they are Specificaly Different The one saith Do this and Live The other Believe and thou shalt be saved In the former Passage I am not speaking of the terms of either Covenant or the true and proper Nature of either in that respect but only concerning the seeming Repugnancy that there is between them from the forementioned Objection Is the Law then against the Promises And what is the ground of this Objection The Apostle had said before that if the Inheritance be of the Law it is no more
Sinners to be their God in a way of special Interest but it being upon such hard terms that it is utterly impossible that way to attain unto Life he hath therefore been pleased to abolish that and to make a New Covenant which is not like or not according to the former which was Conditional but that which is wholly Free and Absolute wherein he hath promised to put his Laws into our Minds and to write them in our Hearts and that he will be to us a God and we shall be to him a People Ezek. 36. Jer. 31. Heb. 8. And this is a Covenant of Grace indeed sure and certain a Covenant truly Evangelical and not of the same Building as the Apostle speaks with the Sinai Covenant Heb. 9. 11. The like may be as justly said in reference to the Covenant of Circumcision as hath been now spoken in Reference to the Sinai Covenant For though there were Promises in it that were full and glorious enough I will be a God to thee and to thy Seed after thee all the Land of Canaan for an everlasting possession and I will be their God yet all these Promises though good enough in themselves being Conditional they were therefore failable and still liable to forfeiture as they were contained in that Covenant It being evident that it obliged all that were under it to perfect and universal Obedience as the Condition of obtaining the Mercies therein contained Gal. 5. 3. From whence as it is manifest that it could be no other than a Covenant of Works so it is as evident that it is not the Greatness or Goodness of the Promises contained therein that can excuse it from being such if Works be the Condition of obtaining the Mercies therein promised For as I have already told you what else maketh or wherein else consisteth the true Form or Nature of a Covenant of Works but that Works be the Condition of it This was the whole entire Nature of the first Covenant which alone renders the it Essentially or Specifically Different from the Promise of Grace or the Gospel Covenant But all this notwithstanding you are pleased to tell me That it is so clear that none can doubt or deny what you have asserted that understands the Nature of the two Covenants And now Sir say you what course do you take to avoid this Argument Such a one sure as no Man that ever I met with took before you and that is 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 Promisory part to the 9 th verse And the Restipulation to be as pure a Covenant of Works What a hard shift will some Men make to maintain their Opinions You say truly say you p. 205. that at the 7 th and 8 th verses was their Restipulation why then do you say p. 224. that at the 7 th verse he proceeds to speak of another Covenant than what he had been speaking of before Does the Promise and the Restipulation make two Covenants Or are they just and necessary parts of one and the same Covenant Sir all this I have answered before and there have plainly shewed you how greatly you do here abuse me and your self too by a gross misrepresention of my plain words and sense The like you do in that which follows You also tell us say you that the Covenant Gen. 17. 1 2 3 4. was a plain Transcript of several Free Promises of the Gospel under the Denomination of a Covenant but why then don 't you take the Restipulation vers 7 8 9 10. to be a part of it The Nonsense of which Question I have already also shewen you But to this you make answer on my behalf Oh no say you there is something required on Abraham's and his Posterities Part and that spoiles all Well after you have laughed in your Sleeve at my Answer of your own forming you thus proceed Why but Sir If the requiring of Circumcision alters the Case so greatly as to make it a quite contrary Covenant how come it to pass that the Covenant to Abraham himself was a pure Gospel Covenant and yet Abraham himself was first required to be Circumcised Thus runs this Passage in your Manuscript Copy By way of Reply hereunto I must tell you Sir That whether the requiring of Circumcision alters the Case or no I am sure you have quite altered the Scope of my Discourse in reference hereunto For as I do no where boldly cut the Covenant of Circumcision Gen. 17. into two parts and make the first to be a pure Covenant of Grace which is the Promisory part to the 9 th verse and the Restipulation to be as pure a Covenant of Works as you would make the World believe I do So yet nevertheless I do plainly tell you that though the Promse and the Restipulation mentioned vers 7 8 9. make but one and the same Covenant of Circumcision yet there are two Covenants mentioned in that Context The first between God and Abraham himself as I have already proved vers 2 4. which could be made with no other The other between God and Abraham and his natural Posterity also vers 7 8 9 10. The former I call a Covenant of Grace or a Gospel Covenant wherein the Believing Gentiles are concerned For saith God ver 5. A Father of many Nations have I made thee Or as the Apostle explains it The Father of all them that believe that is both Jews and Gentiles The latter I call a Covenant of Works which was made betwixt God and Abraham and his natural Posterity onely who were all of them by Vertue thereof to be Circumcised as a token of their Obedience to the whole Law which Ordinance of Circumcision doth not concern the Gentiles at all So that when you ask me How comes it to pass that the Covenant to Abraham himself was a pure Gospel Covenant and yet Abraham himself was first required to be Circumcised I must tell you That your Question confounds the true state of the Question between us For you know well enough that I had made a Distinction of a twofold Covenant there mentioned the one a Gospel the other a Legal Covenant And therefore this is no other than to turn things upside down your general practice throughout your whole Reply How comes it to pass say you that the Covenant to Abraham himself was a pure Gospel Covenant I will tell you Sir how it came to pass if you rightly understand what you should Question me about If by the pure Gospel Covenant you mean the Covenant mentioned vers 2 4. I Answer It came to pass as the fruit of Gods own Free Grace and Mercy and that both unto Abraham himself and to the Believing Gentiles also that are concerned therein But then say you How comes it to pass that Abraham himself was first required to be Circumcised if the Covenant to Abraham himself was a
hath also freely promised to write his Laws in our Minds and put them into our Hearts that we might thereby be made meet for himself and the enjoment of himself in Glory Where lies the ground of your Inference thrt those persons that are under those absolute Promises must and shall enjoy the Mercies of Pardon and Salvation whether they Repent or Repent not Believe or Believe not Obey or Obey not May you take to your self a liberty think you to say what you please right or wrong so you may render odious the Principles of such a Diffent from you Will you make the Promises of God to be of none effect Hath he spoken it and will he not peaform it Or will he alter the thing that is gone out of his Lips that he will write his Laws in the Hearts of those whose Sins he pardoneth But say you the Absoluteness of the Promises cuts off their relation to a Covenant And this no Man can deny that understands the difference betwixt a Covenant and an Absolute Promise Reply Sir to this Opinion of yours I shall only oppose the Judgment of that Accute and Learned Divine whom I know you greatly Respect and Reverence the late worthy Dr. Owen in his Third Volume upon the Epistle to the Hebrews p. 267 268. The words he insisteth on are these Heb. 8. 10. For this is the Covenant that I will make with the House of Israel after those days saith the Lord I will give my Laws into their Mind and write them upon their Hearts And I will be to them a God and they shall be to me a People The thing promised in the Prophet saith the Dr. is a Covenant We render the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in this place by a Covenant though afterward the same word is translated by a Testament A Covenant properly is a Compact or Agreement on certain terms mutually stipulated by two or more Parties As Promises are the Foundation and Rise of it as it is between God and Man so it compriseth also Precepts or Laws of Obedience which are prescribed unto Man on his part to be observed But in the Description of the Covenant here annexed there is no mention of any Condition on the part of Man or any terms of Obedience which are prescribed unto him but the whole consists in free gratuitous Promises as we shall see in the Explication of it First The Word Berith used by the Prophet doth not only signifie a Covenant or Compact properly so called but a Free Gratuitous Promise also Yea sometimes it is used for such a Free Purpose of God with respect unto other things which in their own Nature are uncapable of being obliged by any Moral Condition Such is God's Covenant with Day and Night Jer. 33. 20 25. And so he says that he made his Covenant not to Destroy the World by Water any more with every living Creature Gen. 9. 10 11. Nothing therefore can be Argued for the Necessity of Conditions to belong unto this Covenant from the Name or Term whereby it is expressed in the Prophet A Covenant properly is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But there is no Word in the whole Hebrew Language of that Precise Signification The making of this Covenant is declared by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But yet neither doth this require a mutual stipulation upon Terms and Conditions prescribed unto an entrance into Covenant For it refers unto the Sacrifices wherewith Covenants were confirmed and it is applied unto a meer Gratuitous Promise Gen. 15. 18. In that Day did God make a Covenant with Abraham saying unto thy Seed will I give this Land As unto the Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it signifies a Covenant improperly Properly it is a Testamentary Disposition and this may be without any Conditions on the part of them unto whom any thing is Bequeathed Thus far the Doctor Now say you to what Licentiousness this Doctrin leads Men is Obvious to every Eye yet this Absoluteness of the Covenant as you improperly call it is by you Asserted c. In reference whereunto I shall only mind you of one Passage more of the same Worthy Person in his forementioned Discourse upon the Hebrews P. 15. It cannot be denied saith he but that some Men may and it is justly to be feared that some Men do abuse the Doctrin of the Gospel to Countenance themselves in a vain expectation of Mercy and Pardon whilst they willingly live in a course of Sin But as this in their management is the principal means of their Ruin So in the Righteous Judgment of God it will be the greatest Aggravation of their Condemnation And whereas some have charged the Preachers of Gospel Grace as those who thereby give Countenance unto this Presumption It is an Accusation that hath more of the Hatred of Grace in it than of the Love of Holiness For none do or can press the Relinquishment of Sin and Repentance of it upon such Assured Grounds and with such Cogent Arguments as those by whom the Grace of Jesus Christ in the Gospel is fully opened and declared I shall need to say no more upon this Head and shall therefore proceed to your Fourth Argument which I find thus stated Argum. 4. If all the Promises of the New Covenant be Absolute and Unconditional having no respct nor relation to any Grace wrought in us nor Duty done by us then the Trial of our Interest in Christ by Marks and Signs of Grace is not our Duty nor can we take Comfort in Sanctification as an Evidence of Justification But it is a Christian's Duty to try his Interest in Christ by Marks and Signs and he may take Comfort in Sanctification as an Evidence of Justification Ergo Reply After this rate you may Prove Quidlibet a Quolibet For doth it follow that because the New Covenant is Absolute therefore it hath no respect nor relation to any Grace wrought in us nor Duty done by us Or doth it follow that because we may justly take comfort in Sanctification as an Evidence of Justification that therefore the New Covenant is Conditional Pray Sir make it out For as yet you have not how this conclusion is naturally deducible from such Premises May not the Grace of God in the New Covenant be wholly Free and Absolute as it is from the very Foundation to the Top-stone thereof when yet we may justly take comfort in those Gracious Operations of the Spirit in us which are brought forth as the Fruit of the Divine Grace so revealed unto us and that as an Evidence of our Interest in him As for the Antinomian Slurs which upon this occasion you are pleased so liberally to reflect upon me in the following part of your Discourse upon this Head I must tell you that I know none that deserve that Character but such as refuse to come under the sweet and easie Yoak of Christ renouncing their Duty to God in Obedience
it hath the Name of a Covenant is Evident from Peter's Words Acts 3. 25. Ye are the Children of the Prophets and of the Covenant which God made with our Fathers saying unto Abraham And in thy Seed shall all the Nations of the Earth be Blessed And if this Gospel Promise Recorded Gen. 22. 17. was a Covenant in Peter's account though Moses calls it not so Why not that Recorded Gen. 12. also since the latter is a plain repetition of the former the Word Seed only being added for the further Explanation thereof Answer to Mr. Cox P. 95. But if it have the Name where is the thing Here are 't is true saith Mr. Whiston some Absolute Promises made to Abraham Personally considered but not any to his Seed whether Natural or Spiritual conveying unto them any particular good Neither is there here any Restipulation required as there is in the Covenant of Grace as in all other Covenants where that Term is used in a proper sense Reply Some Absolute Promises Why will Mr. Whiston deny that the Scripture any where gives the Denomination of a Covenant to some Absolute Promises where no Restipulation is required What will he then say to those before mentioned Gen. 22. 16 17. which nevertheless Peter expressly calls a Covenant Nay what will he then say to God's Covenant with the Day and Night mentioned Jer. 33. 20 25. where that Term is used for such a free Purpose of God with respect unto such things which in their own Nature are uncapable of being obliged by any Moral Condition or Restipulation And so he says that he made his Covenant not to destroy the World by Water any more with every Living Creature Gen. 9. 10 11. It cannot therefore be justly infered that because there is no Restipulation required Gen. 12. it may not therefore be duly called a Covenant But for Mr. Whiston's further Conviction herein I shall refer him to Gen. 15. 18. where this Term of a Covenant is by God himself applied unto a meer Gratuitous Promise In that Day did God make a Covenant with Abraham saying unto thy Seed will I give this Land By the way I desire Mr. Flavell to take notice that what he denies his Friend Mr. Whiston here plainly grants and positively asserts viz. That the Promises mentioned Gen. 12. 2 3. are Absolute Promises without any Restipulation But saith Mr. Whiston Here are 't is true some Absolute Promises made to Abraham Personally considered but not any made to his Seed whether Natural or Spiritual conveying to them any particular good No! say I what is the meaning then of that Promise I will make of thee a great Nation How could God make of Abraham a great Nation but with reference to his Seed whether Natural or Spiritual or both And when God Promiseth to Bless him and to make him a Blessing and that in him should all the Families of the Earth be Blessed Are there not here many particular Blessings and those great enough and good enough Promised to him and them Are they not sufficiently Blessed whom God thus Promiseth to Bless Yea are they not Spiritually Blessed since we are expressly told That the Scripture foreseeing that God would Justifie the Heathen through Faith Preached before the Gospel unto Abraham saying in thee shall all Nations be Blessed Was not Justification by Faith a Spiritual as well as a Particular Blessing to those that should be the Proper Subjects thereof Argum. 2. If the Covenant of Grace were at this time entred with Abraham and this be a distinct Covenant from that mentioned Gen. 17. 7. then there were Two distinct Covenants of Grace entred with Abraham But there were not Two distinct Covenants of Grace entred with Abraham Therefore at this time the Covenant of Grace was not entred with him Reply Though the Covenant mentioned Gen. 12. 2 3. was indeed a distinct Covenant from that mentioned Gen. 17. 7. It doth not therefore follow that these were Two distinct Covenants of Grace For I have already proved that they were Essentially or Specifically different the one being a Covenant of Grace the other of Works Argum. 3. The Covenant of Grace was made with Abraham as Actually Constituted the Father of the Faithful But at the time of this Transaction of God with him he was not Actually Constituted in that Relation Therefore at that time the Covenant of Grace was not entred with him Reply Will Mr. Whiston say that because in the Renovation of the Promise Gen. 3. 15. wherein the Essence of the Covenant of Grace was contained God did oft times make other Additions to it as unto Abraham and David that therefore at that time the Covenant of Grace was not entred with our first Parent Yea was it not that which both he and all the Faithful lived upon and were saved by till Abraham's time as dark and seemingly Imperfect as it was Besides I have before proved that though the Gospel Covenant mentioned Gen. 12. 2 3. was afterward further Explained and Re-inforced yet it was then as compleat as compleat could be for the substance thereof it only needed Explanation as to the manner how the Gospel Blessings therein contained should be derived which the after Repetitions of the same Gospel Covenant do more particularly and plainly declare And in particular as to Abraham's being the Father of the Faithful Mr. Whiston himself cannot but confess P. 97. that God did indeed intimate unto Abraham Gen. 12. that he should be for the future Constituted in that Relation But saith he he did not then Actually Constitute him in it If so say I that is enough God's Intimations are sufficient Constitutions we need desire no more to Constitute a Covenant of Grace And so much for Mr. Whiston's first Proposition Proceed we then to the Examination of his Second Prop. 2. That that Covenant established with Abraham and his Seed in their Generations Gen. 17. 7. is the Covenant of Grace or that Gracious Covenant confirmed in Christ according unto which all the elect always have been still are and yet shall be saved This he saith he shall speak to both Negatively and Positively First Negatively That this Covenant was not the Old Covenant or the same with that entred with the People of Israel at Mount Sinai Argum. 1. If the Scripture continually declares that the Covenant made at Mount Sinai was the Old Covenant and no where declares that this Covenant made with Abraham was so Then that Covenant made at Sinai and not this made with Abraham was the Old Covenant But the antecedent is true therefore the consequent Reply Mr. Whiston knows well enough that the Covenant of Works made with our first Parent is generally acknowledged to be the First or Old Covenant And why is it called the First or Old Covenant but because it was the first Covenant Transaction that ever passed between God and Man Though the Scripture no where declares this in express terms or