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
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
a Covenant of Works in one Book and yet affirm all this concerning it in another Can you justly and truly say That the Law was not such in its first Institution as you there affirm concerning it Was the Law capable of being altered or changed in respect of its true and proper Nature and Institution by the Ignorance and Infidelity of Men Did not God himself in the first Promulgation of it pronounce a Curse upon the least transgression thereof You have told me with a great deal of Confidence That God promiseth Pardon on Repentance in the Sinai Covenant and yet you say in your forementioned Book That the Law admitted no Repentance Well how will you reconcile these two passages Why thus you have attempted the reconciling of them That as the Ignorance and Infidelity of Unregenerate Men had made it to themselves so it admitted of no Reepentance otherwise it did But Sir you know what the Apostle tells us Rom. 3. 3. What if some did not believe shall their unbelief make the Faith of God without effect So I may as justly say in our present Case What if some did not believe shall their Unbelief alter the true Nature and Property of the Law in respect of what it was in its Primitive Institution If it was a Covenant of Grace or a Life-giving Covenant a Covenant wherein God promised Pardon of Sin on Repentance as you affirm he did why then sure it is so still the ignorance or infidelity of Men cannot alter the Nature or property of God's Covenant especially so as to make it essentially different from what it was in its self The Lord deliver me from such Doctrins or Practices that naturally involve Men in such gross Absurdities But for your further conviction herein I desire you to cast your Eye upon what those worthy and learned Divines your Brethren that have set forth the second Volumn of Mr. Pool's Annotations upon the Bible who I know are Men of unquestionable credit and authority with you and those of your own Way I say I desire you to cast your Eye on what is affirmed by them upon 2. Cor. 3. 6 7. in confirmation of the Minor Proposition of my forementioned Argument Upon the 6 th vers their Note runs thus By the Letter here the Apostle understandeth the Law And the Law in opposition to the Gospel is called the Letter because it was onely a Revelation of the will of God concerning Man's Duty No Revelation of God's Grace either in pardoning Men their omissions of Duty and doing Acts contrary to Duty or assisting Men to the performance of their Duty For the Letter of the Law killeth The Law sheweth Men their Duty Accuseth Condemneth and Denounceth the wrath of God against Men for not doing their Duty but gives no strength for the doing of it But the Gospel giveth life c. Where you may observe that your Brethren come up fully to your own Notions about the Law expressed in your forementioned Book But do they give the same Reasons for all this as you do that this was onely because the Jews had Perverted it or as the Ignorance and Infidelity of unregenerate Men had made it to themselves No for that would have been the way to have overthrown all they had said before and to have contradicted themselves as well as the truth of God which lay so plainly before them in the Scripture they were now opening Nor do you your self give the least hint to this purpose in your forementioned Book For it would never have gone down with any shadow of truth or with any kind of coherence in Respect of the foregoing and following Passages you are there insisting on But I must yet further confront you with the testimony of your worthy Bretheren before mentioned in their Annotations upon vers 7. of the forementioned 2. Cor. 3. For if the ministration of Death written and ingraven in stones was glorious c. In the former verse say they He had called the Law the Letter And the Gospel in opposition to it he had called the Spirit Here he calleth the ministration of the Law the ministration of Death because it onely shewed Man his Duty or things to be done but gave no strength or help by which he should do them Onely cursing Man but shewing him no way how he should escape that curse So it did kill Men and lead them to Eternal Death and Condemnation without shewing them any means of Life and Salvation And if any Man can speak more full at home to the Point in the Description of the Law as a pure Covenant of Works let him do it if he can For my part I cannot And if according to this their Description and character by them here given of the Law as to the true and real nature of it there is yet in your opinion any Room left for such an Evasion as that of yours before mentioned is That thus it was onely as the ignorance and infidelity of unregenerate Men had made it to themselves I may justly say of such as are so minded as hath been often said upon like occasions Qui vult decipi decipiatur He that will be deceived let him be deceived I have enâ—…ured you see with all my might to undeceive you If you will not the fault shall be yours and not mine But I must remember that I have not onely to prove in the general that the Law is a Covenant of Works but that it is the same for substance with Adam's Covenant Now you your self would formerly allow me whatever you will do now that the Sinai Covenant was the same with Adam's Covenant materially considered but that intentionally it was vastly different And gave your Reasons Those Reasons I have Answered in my former Discourse where I have already proved that it was the same with Adam's Covenant in both Respects that is intentionally as well as materially considered For as much as God never designed that Adam himself should attain unto life and righteousness by his obedience to that Covenant no more than he did that the Jews should in respect of the Sinai Covenant The Argument is there plainly stated and needs not here to be repeated Nor have you returned me any the least Reply thereunto Nor indeed unto my Answers to the rest of your Arguments upon that Head where this very Point that the Law was the same for Substance with Adam's Covenant is sufficiently discussed as hath been before noted Upon the whole I shall now last of all Appeal unto the late worthy Dr. Owen that famous and Blessed Servant of Christ in his Generation who being dead his Works yet speak for him and will preserve him a Blessed Savour among all that truely fear God I say I shall now last of all Appeal unto him whom I know you and those of your way have a just Respect and Veneration for whether the Sinai Covenant was the same for substance with Adam's Covenant or not Now
this Question he hath plainly resolved in that late excellent and judicious Discourse of his Entituled The Doctrin of Justification by Imputed Righteousness p. 397. His words are these The whole entire nature of the Covenant of Works consisted in this that upon our Personal obedience unto the Law and the Rule of it we should be accepted with God and rewarded by him Herein the Essence of it did consist And whatever Covenant proceeds on these terms or hath the nature of them in it however it may be varied with Additions or Alterations is the same Covenant still and not another As in the Renovation of the Promise wherein the Essence of the Covenant of Grace was contained God did oftimes make other Additions unto it unto Abraham and David yet was it still the same Covenant for the Substance of it and not another so whatever variations may be made in or Additions unto the Dispensation of the first Covenant So long as this Rule is retained Do this and live It is still the same Covenant for the Substance and Essence of it I can add no more after so worthy a Sentence from so worthy a Person backt with so much Reason and Scripture Authority for the confirmation of the present Point And whether this was not the nature of the Sinai Covenant as the Dr. hath now stated it let all Men who have perused the Scriptures Judg. My Third Argument is this Argum. 3. That Covenant that Admitted not of Faith in the Redeemer nor Repentance of Sin since Pardon of Sin and Curse for Sin are Inconsistent could not be a Covenant of Faith but must of necessity be a Covenant of Works Yea the very same for substance and of the same stamp with that made with Adam himself But the Scripture doth assure us that such was the Nature of the Sinai Covenant Ergo That the Sinai Covenant Admitted not of Faith in the Redeemer is Evident since it Admitted not of Repentance of Sin It will be easily granted that the Doctrin of Christ was a Doctrin of Repentance This was the Doctrin of his Harbinger John the Baptist Matth. 3. 2. Repent ye for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand So Mark 1. 4. He came Preaching the Baptism of Repentance for the Remission of Sins And accordingly we are told concerning the Redeemer himself that God hath Exalted him with his own Right-hand to be a Prince and a Saviour for to give Repentance to Israel and the Forgiveness of Sins Acts 5. 31. Now that the Sinai Covenant Admitted not Repentance of Sin is as Evident since Pardon of Sin and Curse for Sin are Inconsistent For the Scripture doth Expressly assure us that as many as are of the Works of the Law are under the Curse For it is written Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the Book of the Law to do them Gal. 3. 10. which the Apostle quoteth from Deut. 27. 26. And hereunto Mr. Flavell himself gives a full Testimony in that forementioned Passage of his And if he will not stand to what he hath there Asserted but will needs shift it off by vain and groundless Distinctions his Worthy Brethren in their forementioned Annotations shall Confront him and Re-inforce the Truth which he hath there Asserted when they tell us upon 2 Cor. 3. 6. That the Law was only a Revelation of the Will of God concerning Man's Duty No Revelation of God's Grace either in Pardoning Men their Omissions of Duty doing Acts contrary to Duty or assisting Men to the Performance of their Duty So on the 7 th Verse The Law only Cursed Man shewed him no way how he should escape that Curse It Killed Men and led them to Eternal Death and Condemnation without shewing them any means of Life and Salvation The like they tell us upon Gal. 3. 10 12. where the Apostle tells us that that the Law is not of Faith but the Man that doth these things shall Live in them Their Note upon which is this The Law say they saith nothing of Faith in the Mediator Though Faith in God be commanded in the first Precept yet Faith in Christ is not commanded by the Law as that by which the Soul shall live For that which the Law saith is Do this and Live Or the Man that doth the things contained in the Law shall live in them Life in the Law is promised to those that do the things which it requireth not to them who having failed in their performances yet accept of the Lord Jesus Christ as the Redeemer which God hath sent and believe in him who justifieth the Ungodly And if all this be so that the Law admitted not of Faith in the Redeemer nor Repentance of Sin then let all Men judge whether my forementioned conclusion be not fully proved that the Law could be no other than a Covenant of Works yea the very same for Substance with Adam's Covenant Argum. 4. That Covenant that had not Christ for the Mediatour of it could never be a Covenant of Faith but of Works yea the same for Substance with Adam's Covenant But the Apostle speaking of the legal Covenant made with Israel at Mount Sinai tells us that Christ hath obtained a more excellent Ministry viz. than that of Moses by how much also he is the Mediatour of a better Testament which was established upon better Promises Heb. 8. 6 7 8 9. From whence it plainly follows that Christ was not the Mediatour of the Sinai Covenant Therefore that Covenant could never be a Covenant of Faith but of Works yea the same for Substance with that made with Adam himself Argum. 5. That Covenant that was not confirmed by the Blood of Christ which alone can cleanse us from all unrighteousness but onely by the Blood of Bulls Goats and Calves and the Ashes of an Heifer sprinkling the unclean which onely sanctified to the purifying of the Flesh and could never take away Sins nor make him that did the Service perfect as pertaining to the conscience Could not be a Covenant of Faith but of Works the same for Substance with Adam's Covenant But the Ceremonial Law was of this Nature and the Sacrifices thereof wherewith alone it was dedicated Heb. 9. 9 10 11 12 13 14. chap. 10. 1 2 3 4. c. Therefore that Covenant could not possibly be a Covenant of Faith but of Works yea the same for Substance with Adam's Covenant Argum. 6. That Covenant that was not confirmed by the Blood of Christ no nor so much as by the Blood of Bulls or Goats or Calves could never be a Covenant of Faith but of Works yea the same for Sustance with Adam's Covenant But the Law written in Stones was so far from being confirmed by the Blood of Christ that it was never that we read of dedicated with any other sort of Blood whatsoever Ergo But there are 3. Scriptures from whence you will needs conclude that the Sinai Covenant is a Gospel
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
pure Covenant By way of Answer I must tell you that Abraham was required to be Circumcised by the Command of God as a token of the Covenant of Works he was pleased to make with him vers 7 8 9 10. And that even after the establishment of the formentioned Gospel Covenant ver 2 4. which how harsh or unlikely soever it may seem unto Mens Carnal Reason as if the latter must needs make void the former as you after tell me the Apostle will give a quite contrary Resolution of the present point Gal. 3. 17. And this I say that the Covenant which was confirmed before of God in Christ the Law which was 430 years after cannot disannul that it should make the Promise of none effect The like whereunto may be as justly said in reference to the Covenant of Circumcision which God made with Abraham after the Confirmation and Establishment of the forementioned Gospel Covenant The latter doth not cannot disannul the former that it should make the Promise oâ—… none effect since the Grace of the one prevailed and did by far supersede the Force and Power of the other For so the Apostle himself resolves the Point in reference to the Law Rom. 5. 20. The Law entered saith he that Sin might abound But where Sin hath abounded Grace did much more abound Well but if there is something required as a Condition in the Covenant of Circumcision which quite alters the nature of that Covenant from the Gospel Covenant before spoken of so you should have stated the case but that I can meet with nothing but crookedness throughout the whole of your present Reasonings Tell me then say you why you say p. 223 that the Covenant made with Abraham Gen. 12. was a Gospel Covenant and yet there Abraham is obliged to walk before God and be Perfect Does not that also there alter the nature of the Covenant as well as here in the 17 th chapt Reply Something you would say though you know not what For the whole of your Reply is full of Mistakes and Mis-representations Sometimes nay twenty and twenty times over you Mis-represent my plain Words and Sense Here you mistake and Mis-represent the Scripture it self for in Genesis the Twelfth there is no such word there at all mentioned as an Obligation upon Abraham to walk before God and to be Perfect as you affirm there is nor any thing of that Nature And there being no such thing there expressed how can that alter the Nature of that Covenant from being a Gospel Covenant Which Proof failing you are so far to seek of a Material Advantage you thought you had against me Well but somewhere 't is if it be not in the 12 th of Gen. 't is in the 17 th And you also grant say you that the Covenant made with Abraham Gen. 22. was a pure Gospel Govenant Or if you deny it the Apostles proves it Heb. 6. 13. And yet there is more appearance of Respect to Abraham's Obedience in that Covenant tham is in submitting to Circumcision See Gen. 22. 16 17. By my self have I Sworn saith the Lord For because thou hast done this thing c. that in Blessing I will Bless thee and in Maltiplying I will Multiply thee Printed Reply P. 50. Reply It is Observable that the Apostle Heb. 6. 13. designing to give an Account and Commendation of the Faith and Obedience of Abraham sutable to his then present Discourse to the Hebrews calls not out that Grant of the Gospel Promise which was Preventing and Calling Antecedent unto all his Faith and Obedience and Communicative of all the Grace whereby he was enabled thereunto as it is Expressed Gen. 12. 1 2 3. But he takes it from that place where it was Renewed and Established unto him after he had given the last and greatest Evidence of his Faith Love and Obedience Gen. 22. 16 17 18. By my self have I Sworn saith the Lord For because thou hast done this thing and hast not with-held thy Son thine only Son that in Blessing I will Bless thee and in Multiplying I will Multiply thee and in thy Seed shall all the Nations of the Earth be Blessed which is a plain Rehearsal of those Absolute Gospel Promises of the same Nature that had been before made unto him Gen. 12. 2 3. In which respect it is also further Observable that even Abraham himself at the very time of his Call mentioned Gen. 12. seems to have been tainted with the common Idolatry which was then in the World This Account we have Josh. 24. 2 3. Your Fathers dwelt on the other side of the Flood in old time even Terah the Father of Abraham and the Father of Nachor and they Served other Gods And I took your Father Abraham from the other side of the Flood It is true the charge is Express against Terah only but it lying against their Fathers in general on the other side of the Flood Abraham seems to be Involved in the guilt of the same Sin whilst he was in his Fathers House and before his Call Nor is there any Account given of the least Preparation or Disposition in him unto the State and Duties which he was afterward brought into In this Condition God of his Sovereign Grace first calls him to the saving Knowledg himself and by degrees Accumulates him with all the Favours and Priviledges afterward Conferred on him From hence in the close of his whole Course he had no Cause to glory in himself neither before God nor Men Rom. 4. 2. For he had nothing but what he Gratiously Received Indeed there were distances of time in the Collation of several distinct Mercies and Blessings on him and he still through the supplies of Grace which he received under every Mercy so deported himself as that he might not be unmeet to receive succeeding Mercies Which is the constant Method of God's Communicating his Grace to Sinners His first Call and Conversion of them is Absolutely Gratious He hath no no Consideration of any thing in them that should induce him thereunto Neither is there any thing required unto a Condecency herein God takes Men as he pleaseth some in Condition and Posture of Mind some in another some in an open course of Sin and some in the execution of a particular Sin as Paul and he indeed at the Instant of his Call was under the Active Power of Two of the greatest hinderances unto Conversion that the Heart of Man is Obnoxious unto For first he was Zealous above measure of the Righteousness of the Law seeking earnestly for Life and Salvation by it and then he was Actually Engaged in the Prosecution of the Saints of God Those Two Qualifications Constant Resting in Legal Righteousness with Rage and Madness in Persecution than which there are not out of Hell more Adverse Principles unto it were all the Preparations of that Apostle unto Converting Grace But after that this Grace which in the First Discovery thereof is
absolutely Free and Sovereign is received there is an Order 't is true which for the most part God Observeth in the Communication of ensuing Graces and Priviledges namely that Faith and Obedience shall Precede the Increase and Inlargement of them Thus it was with Abraham in the Instance before us who received this last great signal Promise and Priviledg Gen. 22. upon that signal Act of his Faith and Obedience in Offering up his Son upon God's Command But yet nevertheless In the first place 't is Evident that the Gospel Covenant in the First Discovery thereof is wholly Free and Absolute So it was to Abraham Gen. 12. 2 3. where there is no such Obligation laid upon Abraham to walk before God and to be Perfect as you Affirm there was which nevertheless you Insinuate was the Condition or Qualification then required of him in order to his Participation of the Gospel Mercies there Promised him If God had indeed there told Abraham as you suggest he did That he would Bless him and make him a Blessing c. provided he walked before God and was Perfect Then it had been a Covenant of Works as much as the Covenant of Circumcision was which obliged both Him and His to do the whole Law But as I have already told you there is nothing of that Nature there to be found God only tells him Vers. 1. Get thee out of thy Country and from thy Kindred and from thy Father's House unto a Land that I will shew thee and I will make of thee a great Nation and I will Bless thee c. which is far from that Perfection which you say God there Obliged him to 'T is true afterward this charge was laid upon him Gen. 17. 1. I am the Almighty God walk before me and be thou Perfect For God requireth many things of them whom he Actually takes into Covenant and makes Partakers of the Promises and Benefits of it Of this Nature is that whole Obedience which is prescribed unto us in the Gospel in our walking before God in Uprightness There being an Order in the things that belong hereunto Some Acts Duties and Parts of our Gracious Obedience being appointed to be Means of the further Additional Supplies of the Grace and Mercies of the Covenant Of this Nature is that General Obligation here laid upon Abraham Gen. 17. 1. Walk before me and be thou Perfect and hereunto also appertaineth that famous Act of his Obedience mentioned Gen. 22. 16 17. But then it follows not that the Gospel Covenant is a Conditional Covenant For as it is wholly Free and Absolute in the First Discovery thereof so it is as Free and Absolute still From the Foundation to the Topstone thereof 't is all of the same Piece And the Reason is because whatever Duties God requireth of us in order to the Enjoyment of the full end of the Covenant in Glory yet even those Duties or Acts of Obedience which God thus requireth of us must be Performed by us if they be Performed aright in and by vertue of the First Grace of the Covenant already received Col. 2. 6 7. As ye have therefore received Christ Jesus the Lord so walk ye in him Rooted and Built up in him and stablished in the Faith as ye have been Taught So likewise Gal. 3. 2 3. This only would I Learn of you Received ye the Spirit by the Works of the Law or by the Hearing of Faith Are ye so Foolish having begun in the Spirit are ye now made Perfect by the Flesh which First Grace of the Covenant must therefore also be continued and Renewed upon us Day by Day Else we shall certainly Faint and Perish in our own Corruption at last 2 Cor. 4. 16. Psal. 36. 10. In this respect it is Evident that the Gospel Covenant is so far from being at all Conditional that it is expressed in the Nature and Form of a Promise throughout the Scripture Thus it was to our First Parents soon after the Fall a Promise that the Seed of the Woman should overcome the Devil and his Seed No Terms no Conditions added but a bare Declaration of a Way of Mercy to their Dejected Self-condemned Consciences Next when the Covenant was Revealed to Abraham Gen. 12. 2 3. It is a Formal Absolute Promise that God would Bless him and all Nations in his Seed And ever after it is called the Promise made to Abraham which Israel waited to see accomplished And so the Apostle stiles it in the forementioned Heb. 6. 13. when God made Promise to Abraham saying Surely in Blessing I will Bless thee c. And accordingly the Apostle Gal. 3. 18. affirms that the Inheritance was given to Abraham by Promise and not by Law For saith he If the Inheritance be of the Law it is no more of Promise but God gave it to Abraham by Promise which clearly Argues the Absoluteness of this Gospel Covenant For wherein differs the Law from a Free Promise but that the one is Conditional the other Absolute the one Promiseth Life upon Condition of Obedience the other without Money and without Price The like doth the same Apostle tell us Rom. 4. 13 14 15 16. For the Promise that he should be the Heir of the World was not to Abraham or to his Seed through the Law but through the Righteousness of Faith For if they which are of the Law be Heirs Faith is made void and the Promise made of none Effect And why Because the Law worketh Wrath. And how doth the Law work Wrath Why as it is a Conditional Covenant wherein alone it is opposed unto the Promise which is Free and Absolute For as the Apostle rightly adds Where no Law is there is no Transgression that is where no Conditions are added there can be no Violation or Breach of Covenant And consequently It is therefore of Faith that it might be by Grace to the end the Promise might be sure to all the Seed which else it could not be For if any Conditions be added though never so mild and gentle we are still in hazard Nay had it been so it would have rendred the Gospel Covenant worse then that made with Adam himself Since we have now no strength to Obey nor Power to fulfil these Conditions though in the least or lowest degree no not so much as to a thought So Paul acknowledgeth of himself and that even after his acquaintance with New Covenant Mercy 2 Cor. 3. 5. Not saith he that we are sufficient of our selves to think any thing as of our selves whereas Adam was furnished with a Capacity sufficient for the discharge of the most Perfect Obedience And if you say that God requireth nothing of us but what he giveth Strength and Grace to Perform having Promised to put his Laws in our Hearts c. This doth but so much the more clearly Evince the Absoluteness of the Gospel Covenant Since the Gospel Promise can depend on no Condition on our part For as I
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
the next following Words vers 11. He received the Sign of Circumcision a Seal of the Righteousness of the Faith which he had yet being uncircumcised And indeed as I have already proved at large in my former Discourse the whole foregoing and following passages of this 4 th to the Romans do strongly confirm this Interpretation Where it is plain that the Apostles whole drift is to prove that Abrahaâ—… was not justified by Works no not by hiâ—… Circumcision which was a main part thereof but by Faith onely And therefore as he letâ—… us know that Faith was not reckoned to him for Righteousness when he was in Circumcision but in uncircumcision vers 9 10. Sâ—… he doth upon the same account further assure us vers 13. That the Promise that he should bâ—… the heir of the World the same in effect with his being the Father of all them that believe was not to him or to his Seed through the Laâ—… which I have already proved must of necessity be understood of the Law of Circumcision but through the Righteousness of Faith From whence I drew another Argument to the same purpose with the former Which being not in Mood and Figure as the otherâ—… were you seem scornfully to pass by as not worth regarding And therefore since nothing else will please you I will now present it you in the following dress That which is contradistinguished or opposed unto the Righteousness of Faith could never be a Covenant of Faith But the Law or Covenant of Circumcision is by the Apostle plainly opposed or contradistinguished unto the Righteousness of Faith Therefore the Covenant of Circumcision could never be a Covenant of Faith The Minor I prove from the words before us Rom. 4. 13. compared with the foregoing passages of that chapter If it be objected that the Apostle onely speaks vers 13. of the Law in general to which the Righteousness of Faith is there opposed and doth not speak of the Covenant of Circumcision let them but consider that the Law he there speaks of and which he doth so manifestly contradistinguish or oppose unto the Righteousness of Faith cannot be cheifly understood concerning the Law given by Moses 400 Years after Abraham's time though it was of the same nature with the Law of Circumcision and was indeed built thereon but it must of necessity be understood concerning the Covenant of Circumcision which God made with Abraham himself which was extant in his own time And that this is the Law which the Apostle here intends will evidently appear if we duely attend unto the Scope of the Apostle in the foregoing part of this 4 th to the Romans Which was to shew that Abraham himself was not justified by Works no not by his Circumcision but by Faith which he had long before he was Circumcised For thus he begins vers 1 2. What shall we say then that Abraham our Father as pertaining to the flesh hath found For if Abraham were justified by Works he hath whereof to glory but not before God For what saith the Scripture Abraham believed God and it was Counted to him for Righteousness So then Abraham was not justified by Works before God but by Faith alone But how doth that appear Why thus it appears vers 9 10. Because Faith was not reckoned to him for Righteousness when he was in Circumcision but in uncircumcision the like he tells us vers 11 12 For saith he vers 13. the Promise that he should be the Heir of thâ—… World was not to Abraham or to his Seeâ—… through the Law which must needs therefore be understood of the Law of Circumcision but through the Righteousness of Faith From whence it is manifest that the Covenant oâ—… Circumcision was not a Covenant of Faith since it is here so plainly contradistinguished or opposed thereunto If you say that those words of the Apostle are to be understood concerning Moses his Law it still comes to the same reckoning at last For then it will follow that Moses his Law was not a Covenant of Faith And if Moses his Law was not then neither could the Covenant of Circumcision be such For as it is evident that the one was built on the other So it is as manifest that they were both of the same nature But before we part as to this you have one Question to ask me And that is Whether Faith was reckoned to Abraham for Righteousness by a meer Act of Soveraign Grace without respect had to any Covenant he was then under Or was it reckoned to him by vertue of some Promise or any Covenant he was then under If he say the latter say you then you shall affirm that was the the Covenant of Grace And who doubts of that say I For my own part I do not question it But yet this I must tell you by the way that what you here affirm you do as positively deny in the 95 pag. of your Answer to Mr. Cox For there you say that in those Transactions of God with Abraham mentioned Gen. 12. 2 3. He did not make or establish the Covenant of Grace with him The truth is say you there He did not then make any Covenant at all with him and consequently not the Covenant of Grace On the contrary here you affirm that it was the Covenant of Grace the same for substance with this now entred with him onely before less compleat but now fully compleated That is when the Covenant of Circumcision was made with him But who told you so say I that it was the same Covenant for Substance with this now entred with him When 't is evident that the former was absolute as your self cannot but grant in your Answer to Mr. Cox this conditional And is an absolute and a conditional Covenant the same for Substance I trow not Or was the former Covenant wherein God promised to Bless Abraham and that in him should all the Nations of the Earth be Blessed less compleat than the latter wherein God promiseth to be a God unto him and his natural Posterity onely But say you How the Institution of Circumcision could either cast Abraham out of it that is out of the Covenant of Grace that had been before made with him or alter the tenure of the Covenant so as that before he had Faith reckoned to him for Righteousness by virtue of the same Promises contained in it but after neither had nor could have Faith alike reckoned to him for Righteousness by virtue of the same Promises is say you as much above the under standing of Man as the former But Sir have you never read what the Apostle tells you Gal. 3. 17. That the Covenant that was Confirmed before of God in Christ the Law which was 430 Years after cannot disannul that it should make the Promise of none effect The like may as justly be said of the Covenant of Circumcision It could not disannul that it should make the fore established Covenant of Grace to
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
them under the Law or Sinai Covenant For with them all was that Covenant made and unâ—…er it they were Exod. 34. 27. Deut. 4 13. â—…h 27. 26. Yea they were absolutely under â—…t Gal. 5. 23. Before Faith came saith the Apostle we were kept under the Law shut up â—…nto the Faith which should afterward be revealâ—…d So Gal 4. 4 5. When the fulness of time was â—…ome God sent forth his Son made of a Woman made â—…nder the Law to redeem them that were under the Law that we might receive the Adoption of Sons And the Scriptures do equally assure us that as many as are under the Law they are under the Curse For it is written Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things that are written in the Book of the Law to do them Gal. 3. 10. unto which all the People were to say Amen Deut. 27. 26 These things you cannot but acknowledge as being no other than plain Scripture Propositions when yet at the same time you must needs grant that all Gods Elect among that People were under a pure Covenant of Gospel Grace whereby they were saved Now either it was the same or they were two different Covenants that had these essentially different Properties If they were two then â—…ou grant my main Proposition that God's People were then under two distinct and Essentially different Covenants If you say it was the same then see what follows For if the whole Body of the Israelites then were as they were under the Law and consequently under its Curse Can a Man be under the Curse of the Law and yet at the same time and as the fruit of the same Covenant be under the Blessing of the Gospel Doth the same Fountain at the same time send forth bitter Waters and sweet Or is it possible that the same Covenant should at the same time be a Covenant of Faith in Christ Jesus when both God himself Moses and Paul do plainly represent it to us as a Covenant of Works requiring strict universal and perfect Obedience under pain of the Curse Condemnation and Death Indeed I cannot but wonder how you hold and hug a Principle that runs you naturally into such gross Absurdities For do you not see what follows from hence by unavoidable Consequence For according to this Principle you must hold that Moses and all Gods Elect People in Israel who were under that Covenant and with whom it was made must during their Life hang midway between Justification and Condemnation and after Death between Heaven and Hell This you charge upon my Doctrin but do you not see that the same thundring Canon Limbus Patrum Pargatory and the like which with such a full Mouth you discharge at me comes thundring back again upon your self Yea do you not see that the very same Absurdities are far more justly and truly chargeable on your Doctrin than on mine For it may be reasonably concluded according to my Principles that how harsh or dreadful soever the Terms or Conditions of the Legal Covenant were to those that were under it as Moses and the whole Body of the Israelites then were yet the Grace of the Gospel Covenant far superseded and was by far more Victorious Powerful and Efficatious For as the Law entered that the offence might abound so saith the Apostle where Sin hath abounded Grace did much more abound And if by one man's offence death reigned by oue much more they which receive abundance of Grace and of the gift of Righteousness shall reign in life by one Jesus Christ Rom. 5. 17. 20. But what shall relieve when those two opposite and quite contrary conditions Faith and Works and the consequent fruits of either Justification and Condemnation shall be compriz'd or rather confounded together in one and the same Covenant Shall they fly from one part of the Covenant to the other from the Bitter Waters to the sweet Waters of the same Fountain for Relief This sounds harsh Is it not therefore much more congruous and suitable to Reason as well as also to the constant Analogy of the Christian Faith and Doctrin to affirm as Paul doth that these are the two Covenants and that the Sinner being scared with the dread and terrors of the Legal Covenant is forced thereby to have recourse unto the Gospel Covenant for succour which the Spirit of God hath assured us is of such a superabounding Nature for Comfort and Salvation above what the other contained for Death and Condemnation Besides God doth plainly tell the Israelites that he would remember his Covenant with them in the days of their youth I say His Covenant in opposition and contradistinction to their own before spoken of And then saith he thou shalt remember thy ways and be ashamed when thou shalt receive thy Sisters and I will give them to thee for Daughters but not by thy Covenant and I will establish my Covenant with thee and thou shalt know that I am the Lord Ezek. 16. 60 61. Now what may we infer from hence but plainly this that there was a two fold Covenant betwixt God and Israel the one called theirs the other Gods yet both Gods Covenants the first was called theirs because they were required to perform the Conditions of it the one a Covenant of Works whereof Moses was the Mediatour wherein themselves were immediately concerned to procure their own Salvation by their own Duties of Obedience which was impossible which was the true nature of the Sinai Covenant Rom. 10. 5. Gal. 3. 10 12. The other a Covenant of Gospel Grace which is wholly free and absolute whereof Christ is the only Mediatour and Surety Rom. 10. 6 7 8 c. Heb. 8. 6 7 c. This is properly Gods Covenant and this is the Covenant saith God that I will establish In short the Scriptures do plainly assure us of two Covenants the Legal and the Gospel and that these two are essentially different in respect of the terms of Life propounded in either And the Scriptures do equally assure us that no man is justified by the Law in the sight of God This is evident saith the Apostle and why For the just shall live by Faith and the Law is not of Faith but the man that doth them shall livein them On the contrary you affirm that the Law is of Faith yea that it is a Covenant of Faith in Christ Jesus Now whomshall we believe whether Paul or you You affirm that the Sinai Covenant was purposely so dispensed as to tender Life and Happiness upon two opposite and contrary Conditions Works and Faith Perfect doing and believing The Apostle Paul on the other hand affirms That if it be by Grace then is it no more of Works otherwise Grace is no more Grace and if it be of Works then is it no more Grace otherwise Work is no more Work So that we see the Scripture allows of no such mixture and shews us it is impossible that the same Covenant should
of Promise but God gave it to Abraham by Promise Is the Law then against the Promise God forbid For saith he if there had been a Law which could have given Life verily Righteousness should have been by the Law So then the Law would but could not give Life and why could it not give Life but through our Weakness we were not able to perform it nor could the Law furnish us with power to Enable us thereunto But what the Law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh that Christ hath performed and by his Death and Sufferings made up the Breach between God and us And so in this respect there is only a Difference of Deficiency between the Law and the Gospel the one being strong and powerful the other weak and unable to Relieve us But yet say I this Difference notwithstanding through the satisfaction of Christ there is no Repugnancy or Hostile Contrariety betwixt the Law and the Promises or between the Law and Faith which hath respect to the Promises c. This you account strange Doctrin The Reason you give say you is as strange that this comes to pass through the satisfaction of Christ. Good Sir say you Enlighten us in this Rare Notion Did Christ Die to purchase a Reconciliation betwixt the Covenant of Works as such and the Covenant of Grace And I pray Sir why not Did not Christ satisfie the Law on our behalf Was he not made of a Woman made under the Law to Redeem them that were under the Law that we might receive the Adoption of Sons Doth or can the Law it self Impeach those for whom Christ Died and whom God himself pronounceth Righteous Doth not the Law it self that was before our Enemy against us and contrary to us stand up as our Friend through the Mediation of Christ And hath not God for this very purpose set forth his Son Christ unto us a Propitiation through Faith in his Blood to declare unto us his Righteousness that he might be Just and the Justifier of him that Believeth in Jesus And were not the Two Tables accordingly put into the Ark to shew their subserviency to Christ and in this sense its Consistency with him Typically demonstrating that though the Covenant of Works could not be kept or performed by us yet it should be perfectly fulfilled in Christ for us Is there not here a Perfect Reconciliation betwixt the Two Covenants Are not Mercy and Truth here met together And do not Righteousness and Peace sweetly Kiss and Embrace each other through the satisfaction of Christ And yet it follows not that to be Justified by Works and by Faith should after Christ's Death make no odds of Difference between them according to the Corrupt Inference which you unjustly draw from the Premises For though 't is true in a sense we may be said to be Justified by Works rightly and truly enough that is as Christ in his own Person hath fulfilled the Law for us yet your Inference is far enough from being truly deducible from the Premises according to the common and proper sense of Justification by Works Since as all our own Works are throughout the Scripture perfectly Excluded from any concern in that matter viz. as the meritorious or procuring cause of our Justification So they are according to the tenour of the foregoing Discourse also For if Christ hath satisfied the Law for us hence it follows that our Justification is only the fruit of Gods meer free Grace alone through the Redemption that is in Christ Jesus Thus much may suffice to have been spoken concerning the Absurdities or Self-contradictions which Mr. Flavell chargeth on on me Which so far as they have been already Examined the Reader may easily perceive that they do all of them return upon himself There is only one Passage more which doth more nearly touch the Heart of the Controversie betwixt us which is necessary also to be considered before we proceed unto what follows And that is this Whereas I have Affirmed and do still Affirm that there was no Promise of Pardon on Repentance in Moses's Covenant Mr. Flavell thinks he hath a mighty Advantage against me and supposes I do therein plainly contradict my self because I do yet grant that God promiseth Pardon on Repentance Lev. 26. which Mr. Flavell Affirms to belong to the Dispensation of the Law at Mount Sinai where the Jews are directed to the Covenant which God had made with Jacob Isaac and Abraham for their Relief in this respect For that is the Covenant saith God there that I will remember Well Be it so saith Mr. Flavell if you will needs have it so that the Promise mentioned Lev. 26. refers to Abraham's Covenant yet still it follows that the Covenant made with Abraham must be a Conditional Covenant of Grace For so it s made by this very Text If they accept the Punishment of their Iniquities and their Uncircumcised Hearts be humbled then will I remember my Covenant with Abraham c. You see then that no Unhumbled or Impenitent Person could have Relief from it till Confession and Contrition were wrought in him when you in the mean time stoutly deny that there are any Conditions required in a Gospel Covenant M. S. P. 5. Printed Reply P. 20. But then Mr. Flavell should have considered that this Contrition and Gospel Humiliation can by no means be Effected or Expressed till the Heart be first soundly wrought upon by the Grace of that Covenant which God hath made with Sinners in Jesus Christ. And accordingly this is one main Branch of that Covenant Deut. 30. 6. which I have already proved to be a Gospel Covenant and Essentially Different from that of the Law The Lord thy God will Circumcise thy Heart and the Heart of thy Seed to Love the Lord thy God with all thy Heart and with all thy Soul that thou mayst Live Compare this with the forementioned Text in Leviticus If their Uncircumcised Hearts be humbled c. The Sinner might Reply But Lord this we cannot do of our selves we cannot break our hard and flinty Hearts nor will it ever be performed until thou takest the Work into thine own Hand This therefore the Lord himself undertakes The Lord thy God will Circumcise thy Heart c. And what Condition can there be of that but that of the good Pleasure of God's own Goodness and Grace For whatever is Antecedent thereunto being only a Work or Act of Corrupted Nature can be no Condition whereon the Dispensation of Spiritual Grace is superadded From whence as I have already told you it plainly follows that I the Covenant of Grace is wholly Free and Absolute Eor as much as there is nothing that can be supposed as the Condition thereof whether it be Faith Repentance or new Obedience which is not therein Absolutely Promised Thus God himself is pleased to Represent unto us the Nature of that New and Evangelical Covenant which he Promised to make
with the House of Israel and Judah after those Days Not saith he according to the Covenant which I made with their Fathers at Sinai which was a Conditional Covenant For I will put my Laws into their Minds and Write them in their Hearts that is I will make such a Covenant with them as shall be wholly Free and Absolute Wherein as I do faithfully Engage that I will not Depart from them so neither shall they Depart from me For let Men talk what they will of an Universal Conditional Covenant of Grace If there be any such thing I am sure it is not that here intended For as there are no Conditions expressed whether in Jeremy or in Ezekiel or in the Apostle's Repetition thereof Hebrews the Eighth so they are all Actually Pardoned with whom this Covenant is made For this is all the Reason which God himself alledges why he would become their God and make them his People give them the knowledg of himself a New Heart and a New Spirit For saith he I will be Merciful to their Unrighteousness and their Sins and Iniquities will I remember no more Thus the New Covenant is a Promise of Pardon and Grace and of all those things which are contended to be the Conditions of it Nor is there any Condition implied which may alter the the nature of an Absolute Promise For in Jer. 31. whence the Form of this Covenant is taken all Objections are prevented Verse 36. For whereas it might have been said They for their Sins should be destroyed and so this Promise should not profit them it is added That they should be Restored and so the Promise is made good as sure as the Ordinances of Heaven the Course of Day and Night or the Tides of the Sea which I am sure depend upon no Conditions to be Performed by Men. When God tells them in Leviticus therefore If they Accept the Punishment of their Iniquities and their Uncircumcised Hearts be humbled c. It must of necessity be thus understood For if God should require this to be performed by us as an Antecedent Condition on our Parts without which we may expect no Mercy or Favour at his Hands we are like Eternally to fall short thereof It being as impossible for us to Humble our selves or to change the Temper of our own Hearts as for the Ethiopian to change his Skin or the Leopard his Spots Yea as for a Dead Man to Raise himself to Life And if none of these things can be done of our selves but they must be wrought in us by the Grace of the Covenant then how doth it appear that the New Covenant is a Conditional Covenant or that Faith and Repentance are required of us in point of Duty Antecedently to the Benefit of the Promise I know O Lord saith Jeremy that the Way of Man is not in himself It is not in Man that walketh to direct his steps So Ephraim Turn thou me and I shall be turned And then saith God shalt thou remember and be Ashamed and Confounded and never open thy Mouth any more because of thy Shame when thou shalt know that I am Pacified toward thee for all that thou hast done Ezek. 16. 60 61. c. So that God always prevents the Sinner with the Blessings of his Goodness and instead of expecting any Antecedent Conditions or Qualifications that should render us meet for his Grace 't is the Sovereign Fruit and Effect of his Free Grace alone which he hath expressed in his Holy Covenant that can make us Meet for himself or any Mercy he hath to bestow upon us I must tell you therefore Sir that you do exceedingly injure and wrong the Free Grace of God to Sinners in Jesus Christ when you tell me as you do in your following Discourse That there is something as an Act required of us in point of Duty which is Antecedent to the Benefit of the Promise If you mean that those things whether it be Faith Repentance or Gospel Humiliation though Absolutely Promised in the Covenant and wrought in us by the Grace of God are yet Duties indispensibly required of us in order unto the Participation or Enjoyment of the full end of the Covenant in Glory it is unquestionably true But if you intend that they are such a Condition of the Covenant as to be by us Performed Antecedently unto the Participation of any Grace Mercy or Benefit of it as your Words imply it is most untrue and not only contrary to Express Testimony of Scripture but Destructive of the Nature of the Covenant it self For if so Men must do all these things before they receive the Remission of Sins Yes then must Men Repent and Believe and Turn to God and yield Obedience to the Gospel whilst they are as yet Dead in Trespasses and in Sins Yes then must they do them whilst they are under the Law and the Curse of it For so are All Men whose Sins are not Pardoned But this is to make Obedience unto the Law and that to be performed by Men whilst under the Curse of it to be a Condition of Gospel Mercy which is to overthrow both the Law and the Gospel You will tell me it may be that on the other hand it will follow that Men are Pardoned before they do Believe But then you ought to consider First That the Communication and Donation of Faith unto us is an Effect of the same Grace whereby our Sins are Pardoned and they are both bestowed on us by vertue of the same Covenant Secondly That though the Application of Pardoning Mercy unto our Souls is in order of Nature consequent unto Believing yet in time they go together Thirdly That Faith is not required as a Condition in order to the Procuring of the Pardon of our Sins but only as a Necessary Means in order to the Receiving of it A Condition as a procuring cause plainly implies something of Merit by way of Condignity or Congruity whether it be more or less perfect or imperfect call it what you will But Faith comes under neither of these Notions being only a Necessary Means or as an Instrument which also must be wrought in us by the Grace of the Covenant whereby we Receive and Apply but cannot Procure the Mercy Promised In the next place then avoiding any further Discourses concerning the Pretended Absurdities and Self-contradictions which upon a diligent search Mr. Flavell supposes he hath found out in my forementioned Discourse which upon a due trial may be easily perceived to have been the bare Fiction of his own Imagination only I shall immediately Apply my self to what is more Substantial and will certainly tend far more to the Edification of the Intelligent Reader if any Light may be hereby struck out for his illumination and Instruction concerning the Three Grand Points we are now contending about And that is First Whether the Sinai Covenant was a Covenant of Works or a Covenant of Faith Secondly Whether the Covenant
assure us that the Law is not of Faith And accordingly whatever Subordination or Tndency the Law hath to drive us to the Covenant of Faith for Relief and Shelter to be sure the Law it self gives us no Relief For neither chiefly nor ultimately doth it propound Faith as the condition of Life but doing only and consequently is another Covenant and Essentially different from the Covenant of Faith to which it drives us The Law saith Moses requireth doing unto Life The Gospel saith Paul requireth Faith And these saith he Gal. 4. 24 25 26. are the two Covenants the one from Mount Sinai in Arabia and answereth to Jerusalem that now is the other to Jerusalem that is above the one gendereth to Bondage the other to Liberty the one a ministration of Death and Condemnation the other a ministration of Life and Righteousness 2 Cor. 3. 7 8. 9. Now whom shall we believe Paul or you Whether shall we believe the Blessed Apostle who affirms that the Law is not of Faith but of Works and that these are the two Covenants and who in effect also affirms that these two Covenants are essentially or specifically different in respect of the terms of Life propounded in either or those that affirm that the Law is of Faith yea that it is a Covenant of Faith in Christ Jesus These things being thus premised my fourth Proposition roundly and naturally follows For first If it is evident that there can be no medium betwixt these two Faith and Works And if it is as evident that neither will they admit of any mixture And if it be also as evident that the Law is not of Faith since neither chiefly nor ultimately was it propounded or intended thereby then it will unavoidably follow that the Sinai Covenant is a Covenant of Works Yea the very same for substance with that made with Adam It cannot be supposed that Adam's Covenant was a Covenant of Faith and I have now plainly proved that the Sinai Covenant was not the down right consequence of which is that they were both of the same stamp for the substance of them Argum. 2. That Covenant which saith Do this and Live or requireth perfect sinless Obedience in order to the obtainment of Life and Happiness and pronounceth a Curse upon the least failing must needs be a Covenant of Works the same for substance and of the very self same stamp with Adam's Covenant But such is the nature of the Sinai Covenant Ergo. The minor onely needing Proof hath it abundantly from Rom. 10. 5. Moses saith the Apostle Describeth the Righteousness which is of the Law that the man which doth these things shall live by them which he citeth from Lev. 18. 5. Ye shall therefore keep my Statutes and Judgments which if a man do he shall live in them And what can be a more plain Description of a Covenant of Works and that not in the way of a Partial Imperfect Obedience But as it is written Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the Book of the Law to do them Gal. 3. 10. which the Apostle quotes from Deut. 27. 26. Cursed be he that confirmeth not all the words of this Law to do them And all the People shall say Amen And therefore when it evidently appears that this was the nature of the Sinai Covenant in the very first Sanction of it as the fruit of God's special Designation and Appointment and when it is also as manifest that from hence it is that the Apostle calls it as he doth A ministration of Death and Condemnation and therefore now took out of the way being nailed to the Cross of Christ It is the greatest Violation and Perverting of Scripture that can lightly be met with to affirm that all this is uttered and declared by Paul yea by Moses and God himself onely because the Jews had perverted it and not as God intended it For how could the Jews have perverted it before it was Instituted Is there any Scripture that gives the least ground for such a Supposition May we not make any thing or nothing of the Scripture after this rate of Reasoning Would not the Apostle 2 Cor. 3. and Col. 3. have given some hint or other that this had been the meaning when he thunders against the Law as there he doth that he meant it was so and so onely as the Ignorance and Infidelity of unregenerate Men had made it to themselves and not as God intended it And so when he tells us Gal. 3. That the Law requires Perfect Obedience under the pain of a Curse would he not have giuen some hint or other that this was onely because the Jews had perverted it and that it was not so in it self But can we think that Men of Reason will be so easily baffled Or can we believe that Men that have any regard to the Judgment of another day will be content to have their Eyes blinded so as to receive such Doctrines as these The Apostle was careful not to handle the word of God deceitfully but by manifestation of the Truth conmmending our selves saith he to every man's Conscience in the sight of God 2 Cor. 4. 2. So again We are not as many which corrupt the word of God but as of Sincerity but as of God in the sight of God so speak we in Christ 2 Cor. 2. 17. It would have been well if this Rule had been duly observed in our present case The want of this hath been often charged on those that plead for the right of Believers onely to Baptism I shall only pray that neither we nor those that oppose us herein may be found guilty of such a Transgression in the Great Day I shall add for the proof of the minor Proposition of the forementioned Argument what you your self have asserted p. 326 of your Book entituled The Method of Grace The Law say you there requires perfect working under the pain of a Curse Accepted of no short endeavours admitted no Repentance gaveno strength And if any Man can give a fuller Testimony concerning the Law as a Covenant of Works let him if he can I have alledged this to you in order to your Conviction upon this account and your Answer is That this was as the Ignorance and Infidelity of Unregenerate Men had made it to themselves and not as God intended it So say you it was a Covenant of Works a ministration of Death and Condemnation And so say you it requires perfect working under pain of a Curse accepts no short endeavours admitted no Repentance and gave no strength But Sir can you indeed upon second thoughts think this to be a fit or proper Answer Is this by manifestation of the Truth to commend your self to every Man's Conscience in the sight of God Do you indeed think this to be a good and sound Scripture Distinction to save you from the guilt of Self-contradiction when you deny the Law to be
Covenant and consequently that it could not be a Covenant of Works Printed Reply p. 27 28 29 30. The First is Rom. 10. 4. where the Apostle tells us that Christ is the end of the Law for righteousness to every one that Believeth Which I have sufficiently Answered and cleared in my former Discours pag. 169. to pag. 172. from the corrupt Interpretation by you fastened thereon which needs not here to be Repeated The Second is Act. 7. 8. Where Stephens expression of the lively Oracles which you say is to be under stood concerning the Law delivered on Mount Sinai doth no way prove that Covenant to be a Gospel Covenant or that it was not therefore a Covenant of Works For as much as Paul expressly affirms concerning the same Covenant Rom. 7. 10. That the Commandment which was Ordained to Life he found to be unto Death 'T is true the Apostle tells us Rom. 10. 5. That Moses describeth the Righteousness which is of the Law that the Man which doth these things shall live by them But though the Law was ordained to life and promiseth life upon condition of perfect obedience yet since it cannot perform what it promiseth in that it is Weak through the Flesh it is far enough from being a Life giving Covenant or a Covenant of Gospel Grace as you affirm it is And accordingly the Apostle sets it rather in direct opposition to the Righteousness of Faith or the Gospel Covenant in the following verses And not onely so but 2. Cor. 3 6 7. He expressly calls it a Ministration of Death and Condemnation by way of opposition to the Gospel which is a Ministration of Life and Righteousness So that Stephens forementioned expression of the Lively Oracles no way serves your turn at all No more doth the third Scripture by you insisted on Rom. 9. 4. Where the Law is numbred among the chief Priviledges in which God's Israel gloried For though the Law is reckoned among their Chief Priviledges since God had shewed his Word unto Jacob his Statutes and Judgments unto Israel which all other Nations wanted yet this no way proves the Law to be therefore a Gospel Covenant for as much as the Law even as it is a Covenant of Works was a Priviledg inestimable beyond what all others enjoyed And the Reason is plain because the very Curses and Punishments annexed thereunto in case of the least Failure were of excellent use to convince them of their Sin and Misery without Christ and their necessity therefore of a Saviour which was the proper Work of the Law as a Covenant of Works Which advantage all other Nations wanting it might well be numbred among the Chief Priviledges the Israelites were Invested with Your following Particulars being a Repetition of what you sent me formerly in Writing have been already sufficiently Answered in my former Discourse from P. 164. to P. 174. Thus much for the Sinai Covenant SECT III. IN the next place then As to what concerns the Covenant of Circumcision I shall first lay down some Scripture Arguments plainly proving that it was also a Covenant of Works and of the same stamp with that at Sinai and then shall attend unto Mr. Flavell's Arguments whereby he now attempts the Proof of the contrary viz. That it was a Gospel Covenant In the first place then Though I do acknowledg that God did indeed make a Covenant of Grace with Believing Abraham which is the great Charter by which Believing Gentiles always did and do claim both Heaven and Earth and all the Promises they have Title to yet that the Covenant of Circumcision which God made with Abraham Gen. 17. 7 8 9 10. though there was Grace in it as there was in all the Covenants that God ever made with Men is not a Covenant of Grace properly so called nor a Gospel Covenant whereof Christ is the Mediator and consequenrly that the Gentiles are not concerned therein is thus proved Argum. 1. If that Covenant was as much a Covenant of Works as the Sinai Covenant before mentioned yea as much as the Covenant made with Adam in Innocency Then it is not a Gospel Covenant whereof Christ is the Mediator But it was as much a Covenant of works as either of the forementioned Covenants were Ergo That Adam's Covenant was a Covenant of Works cannot rationally be denied For as much as Life was Implicitly Promised unto him upon his Obedience and Death was Explicitly Threatned in case of his Disobedience And upon these Terms he was to stand or fall Which was plainly and undeniably a Covenant of Works whereof Christ was not the Mediator That the Sinai Covenant was of the same Nature I have before fully proved since it admitted not of Faith in the Redeemer nor Repentance of Sin it required Perfect Working under the pain of a Curse accepted no short Endeavors and gave no Strength This I have already proved from Express Testimonies of Scripture and the concurring Suffrage of many Worthy Divines from whence it is Evident that the Sinai Covenant was the same for substance with that made with Adam and is frequently therefore in the Scripture represented to us under the Denomination of the First or Old Covenant There being therein a plain Manifestation of the Law written in the Heart of Man at the First Now that the Covenant of Circumcision is of the same stamp is as Evident For though God promiseth to be a God to Abraham and to his Seed Vers. 7 8. as he did also in the Sinai Covenant to the same People in the Wilderness yet still it was upon Condition of Obedience with an Answerable Threatning in case of Disobedience Vers. 9. TThou shalt keep my Covenant therefore thou and thy Seed after thee in their Generations Vers. 10. This is my Covenant which ye shall keep between me and you and thy Seed after thee every Man-child among you shall be Circumcised And Vers. 14. The Uncircumcised Man-child whose Flesh of his fore-skin is not Circumcised that Soul shall be Cut off from his People he hath broken my Covenant The same Terms with the former Besides it is Evident that Circumcision Indispensibly Obliged all that were under it to a Perfect Universal Obedience to the whole Revealed Will and Law of God Gal. 5. 3. For I Testifie to every Man that is Circumcised that he is a Debtor to do the whole Law And if the Sinai Covenant was a Covenant of Works as the Apostle doth plainly Affirm it is Rom. 10. 5. why not that made with Abraham also since the Terms are the same as well as the Promises were the same If Mr. Flavell shall endeavour to shift off the Force of this Argument from Gal. 5. 3. as 't is like he will by telling me that the Law was misinterpreted and misunderstood by the Jews and that Circumcision Obliged to a Perfect fulfilling of the whole Law only as the Ignorance and Infidelity of Unregenerate Men make it to themselves and not as God intended
it He may so do if he pleases though he must know that Men of Reason will not suffer their Eyes to be blinded at so easie a rate But for a further Answer hereunto I must refer him to my Reply to Mr. Whiston upon the same subject as also to what I have already said unto himself in reference hereunto in my foregoing Discourse about the Sinai Covenant and shall accordingly proceed unto my Second Argument which together with the rest that follow I shall but mention in this place lest I should Anticipate the necessary Confirmation of them which I am obliged to produce in my Reply to Mr. Whiston in the latter part of this Discourse Argum. 2. That Covenant in which Faith was not reckoned to Abraham for Righteousness could never be a Covenant of Faith But the Scripture is Express that Faith was not reckoned to Abraham for Righteousness when he was in Circumcision but in Uncircumcision Rom. 4. 9 10. Ergo Argum. 3. That which is Contradistinguished or Opposed unto the Rigteousness of Faith could never be a Covenant of Faith But the Law or Covenant of Circumcision is by the Apostle plainly Opposed or Contradistinguished unto the Righteousness of Faith Rom. 4. 13. Ergo By the way let it be Observed in reference to the Two foregoing Arguments that I have already proved that that Covenant that is not of Faith must needs be a Covenant of Works there being no Medium betwixt them and consequently must needs be the same for substance with that made with Israel at Mount Sinai and that made with Adam also Argum. 4. That Covenant that is plainly represented to us in Scripture as a Bondage Covenant in and by which there was Imposed such a Yoak upon the Neck of the Jews which neither those in the Apostles time nor their Fathers were able to bear could be no other than a Covenant of Works the same for substance with the Sinai Covenant But the Scriptures do plainly declare that such was the Nature of the Covenant of Circumcision Acts 15. 10. Gal. 5. 1 2 3. Ergo In the next place though it might reasonably have been expected that Mr. Flavell should have Answered these forementioned Arguments contained in my forementioned Discourse so plainly proving that the Covenant of Circumcision could be no other than a Covenant of Works before he had produced any contrary Arguments for the proof of his Assertion That the Covenant to which Circumcision belonged neither was nor can be any other than a Covenant of Grace the same we are now under yet I shall not refuse to Cope with him in his own Method His First Argument then runs thus Printed Reply P. 42. Argum. 1. If Circumcision be a part of the Ceremonial Law and the Ceremonial Law was Dedicated by Blood and whatsoever is so Dedicated is by you confessed 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 it is so Ergo Reply But Sir what if it be not so that is what if I do no where Confess as you here say I do that whatsoever is Dedicated by Blood is not any part of the Covenant of Works what must the Conclusion be then You know what was said of Levy of Old The Law of Truth was in his Mouth Mal. 2. 6. It had been well if you had written after his Copy in this respect For then you had not been guilty of Abusing your Neighbour after so gross a Rate as you have in the present Point as well as in many other Passages of your Book For the Readers satisfaction therefore in our present Case it is absolutely necessary that I give him a true and a naked Account of those several Passages in my Book which you refer to when you come to the Proof of what you here Assert concerning my own Confession Mr. Sedgwick having Affirmed as the Reader will find his Objection stated P. 146. of my Discourse That that Covenant which was Confirmed by Blood and Sprinkling which Typified the Blood of Christ Confirming and Ratifying the Covenant was no Covenant of Works c. I tell him by way of Reply P. 147. First That it is Evident that the Covenant the Blood whereof Moses Sprinkled on the People mentioned Exod. 24. 7 8. to which Mr. Sedgwick Refers could not possibly be the Law Written in Stones And accordingly I prove it down along that Page toward the latter end whereof I conclude that the Law Written in Stones therefore could not possibly be the Covenant the Blood whereof was so Sprinkled but was indeed another Covenant and delivered at a distinct Season and in a distinct Method c. Accordingly P. 148. I blame Mr. Sedgwick for making no distinction between the Ceremonial Covenant that was Dedicated with Blood and the Law Written in Stones that was not so Dedicated For First say I he seems to take it for granted that there was no other Covenant made with Israel at Sinai but what was Confirmed by Blood And Secondly That that Covenant which was so Confirmed must of necessity have been Confirmed also by the Blood of Christ Typified thereby and therefore not a Covenant of Works But both these said I are no other than ungrounded Suppositions that want a Foundation For First as I there tell him It hath been already proved that the Law Written in Stones had not been so much as Received from God when the Ceremonial Covenant was so Confirmed And accordingly it was so far from being Confirmed by the Blood of Christ that we do not Read that it was ever Dedicated with any other sort of Blood whatsoever Which I do further confirm from thence to the end of P. 149. And in the beginning of P. 150. I thence conclude that it is therefore a great Mistake for any to affirm That the Law Written in Stones was not a Covenant of Works because Confirmed by Blood and Sprinkling whereas when it comes to be duly Examined there appears no such matter Where by the way it may be Observed that I do not say the Covenant of Works But that it is a great Mistake for any to affirm that the Law Written in Stones was not a Covenant of Works Mr. Flavell tells me indeed that I make the Law Written in Stones to be the Covenant of Works And he knew well enough that that was an Emphatical Expression plainly Intimating that the Ceremonial Covenant was no Covenant oâ—… Works and that this alone was it But Mr. Flavell doth herein greatly Abuse me and himself too which he could no other way Accomplish with any shadow of pretence but by varying my Expression And so as I have before Noted the alteration sometimes of one Letter or Syllable in a Sentence shall render that to be Odd and Improper which in it self is never so sound or substantial Just thus Mr. Flavell deals with me in the present Case You make saith me the Law Written
are told That he believed in the Lord and he counted it to him for Righteousness Gen. 15. 6. Circumcision therefore was a Seal onely to Abraham and that of the Righteousness of the Faith which he had in respect of those peculiar Promises made him long before his Circumcision and that for this very purpose that he might be the Father of all them that Believe which was his Prerogative alone For none besides him had ever before their Circumcision such a Faith which entituled them to such singular Promises So that though it must be acknowledged that the forementioned Argument seems at first very plausible How can it be but that the Covenant of Circumcision must needs be a Covenant of Faith since Abraham is said to have received the Sign of Circumcision a Seal of the Righteousness of Faith Yet we see when it comes to be duly examined there appears no such matter For as this now mentioned Argument could be no way plausible unless the following words Which he had yet being Uncircumcised were cut off from those that go before So the onely Argument fairly resulting from Rom. 4. 11. can be no other than this That Covenant or those Promises in respect of which Abraham is said to have received the Sign of Circumcision a Seal of the Righteousness of Faith must needs be a Covenant of Faith But the Scripture is express That Abraham received the Sign of Circumcision a Seal of the Righteousness of the Faith which he had yet being Uncircumcised which must of necessity be understood in respect of the forementioned Promises that had been made him long before his Circumcision and upon the account of which we are expresly told That he believed in the Lord and he counted to him for Righteousness Gen. 15. 6. Therefore that Covenant or those Promises must needs be a Covenant of Faith But then as hath been already observed it follows not that the Promises made unto him and his Seed after him in their Generations upon Condition of his and their Circumcision mentioned Gen. 17. 7 8 9 10. were any part of the Covenant of Faith since the Apostle is express That Faith was not reckaned to him for Righteousness when he was in Circumcision but in Uncircumcision Circumcision therefore was a Seal onely to Abraham and that in respect of the Promises made him yet being Uncircumcised whereby he was confirmed in the assurance of that peculiar Prerogative that had been before conferred on him and which the Apostle here expresly mentioneth He received saith he the Sign of Circumcision a Seal of the Righteousness of the Faith which he had yet being Uncircumcised that he might be the Father of all them that believe In which respect it is evident that Circumcision was that to the Father of the Faithful in its extraordinary Institution and in his extraordinary Circumstances that it could not be to any of his natural Progeny in its ordinary use You tell me indeed that this was Bellarmine's Invention and that Dr. Ames hath fully confuted it Unto which you add That for me to restrain the publick Seal of a Covenant that comprehended and equally concerned the whole Church and People of God to one single Person so that neither Isaac the Type of Christ nor Jacob a Prince with God who were by name enrolled in that great Charter should have any right to the Seal of it is such a Conceit as amazes an Intelligent Reader But Sir I pray consider can you justly or truly say that Isaac or Jaâ—…ob either are ever in Scripture called the Fathers of all them that Believe as Abraham was Or was it possible for them so to be since this was Abraham's peculiar Prerogative to be so entituled And doth the Apostle expresly tell you of Abraham That he received the Sign of Circumcision a Seal of the Righteousness of the Faith which he had while Uncircumcised that he might be the Father of all them that believe which therefore could be the Priviledge of none else Indeed there is nothing that can be more evident than this For as it is absurd to say that Circumcision was a Seal to all its Subjects of the Righteousness of the Faith which they had while Uncircumcised as 't is here said of Abraham since many of them were never partakers of that Saving Grace whether before or after So it is equally absurd to affirm that it was the Seal of a Paternal Relation to all Believers unto any that received it as it was to Abraham since neither Isaac nor Jacob nor any besides were ever or could ever be so dignified as Abraham was And indeed Circumcision was so far from being a Seal of the Righteousness of Faith to the rest that were under it that it was rather unto them a token of Servitude and Bondage and such a Yoke that as the Apostles tell the Jews in their time Neither they nor their Fathers were able to bear it Acts 15. 10 24. Gal. 5. 2 3. which yet it had not been had it been to them a Seal of the Righteousness of Faith or of the Gospel Covenant For that brings with it true Christian Liberty and Freedom And so much by way of Answer to your second Argument Your third follows Argum. 3. In the Covenant of Circumcision Gen. 17. God makes over himself to Abraham and his Seed to be their God and to give them a special Interest in himself But in the Covenant of Works God doth not since the Fall make over himself to any to be their God by way of special Interest Therefore the Covenant of Circumcision cannot be the Covenant of Works Reply Sir you are pleased to tell me that this is so plain and so clear that none can doubt or deny it that understands the nature of the two Covenants But can you indeed upon second thoughts justly affirm that God doth not in the Covenant of Works since the Fall make over himself to any to be their God by way of special Interest How comes it then to pass that in the Sinai Covenant which I have already proved could be no other than a Covenant of Works and which you your self have acknowledged to be materially such the Lord doth expresly tell that People in the Wilderness Exod. 20. 2. I am the Lord thy God which have brought thee out of the Land of Egypt out of the House of Bondage This was the very Introduction to that part of the Law which was written in Stones which the Apostle doth yet nevertheless expresly call A ministration of Death and Condemnation 2 Cor. 3. 7 8 9. And why but because it required perfect Obedience as the Condition of obtaining the Mercy how Glorious or Comfortable soever in it self considered therein promised which was impossible to be performed by Man in his lapsed state Gal. 3. 10 11 12. Rom. 3. 20. So that it is too apparent to be justly denied but that God doth indeed in the Covenant of Works make over himself to
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
have already told you in reference to the first Discovery of New Covenant Mercy whatever is Antecedent thereunto being only a Work or Act of Corrupted Nature can be no Condition whereon the Dispensation of Spiritual Grace is superadded And indeed so it is also even in reference to the after Discoveries thereof Since in us that is in our Flesh there dwelleth no good thing So Paul himself acknowledgeth concerning himself even after his Conversion unto God Rom. 7. 18. For to will saith he is present with me but how to perform that which is good I find not So that as it was at first with us so it is still further than the Free Sovereign and Absolute Grace of the Covenant is still set at Work for our Relief Thus it was with Paul himself He could find no Condition or Pre-disposition in himself to Plead it out with God why the further Dispensations of Spiritual Grace should be afforded unto him Our sufficiency saith he is not of our selves In me that is in my Flesh dwelleth no good thing How to perform that which is good I find not The good that I would I do not but the evil which I would not that I do and when I would do good evil is present with me In respect whereof let who will betake themselves to the Pharisees Plea God I thank thee I am not as other Men. For my own part I am resolved to make use of none other but that of the poor Publican Lord be Merciful to me a Sinner Upon the whole you see that the Apostle expressly Affirms that the Inheritance was given to Abraham by Promise not by Law And you can Assign no other Difference betwixt the Law and the Promise but that the one was Conditional the other Absolute From whence it unavoidably follows that the Gospel Covenant made with Abraham was wholly Free and Absolute So it was at first and so it is at last Rom. 4. 1 2 3 4 5. But I have so far anticipated what I have to offer by way of opposition to your following Arguments concerning the conditionality of the Gospel Covenant which I intend Anon to take distinctly to task In the mean Season you tell me you 'il trouble me on this Head but with one Query more and that is this If the four first verses of the 17 th Gen. contain a pure Gospel Covenant and the Restipulation in the following verses make a Covenant of Works because it thereby becomes conditional still crookedness For is there nothing but Restipulation in the following verses Do not the 7 th and 8 th vers contain the Promises of the Covenant of Circumcision distinct from the Restipulation mentioned vers 9 10 Well but what then Then tell me say you if you please Whether what God granted to Abraham in the former verses be not all nulled and made void again by their â—…estipulation No say I if the Question be stated a right The Gospel Covenant mentioned ves 2. 4 5 6. cannot be nulled or made void by the Covenant of Circumcision that followed after and is accordingly mentioned vers 7 8 9. 10. And my Reason is the same the Apostle gives in Reference to the Law Gal. 3. 17. The Covenant which was Confirmed before of God in Christ the Law which was 430 Years after cannot Disannul that it should make the Promise of none effect The like may be said in reference to the Covenant of Circumcision as I have already told you And therefore how harsh soever it may seem unto you as you say it doth withal telling me that I have brought Abraham Isaac and Jacob and all the Believers of Abraham's Race just into the same case I brought Moses and all the Israelites before under two opposite Covenants where one cut 's off all that the other granted Yet as I have already detected the vanity of this Notion of yours that the one of these Covenants cut 's off all that the other granted And as I have already also plainly and justly Returned the same Absurdity which without cause you charge on my Doctrin on your own in respect of Moses So I may as justly and for the same Reason in respect of Abraham also But say you There is a stronger reason urged than the conditionality of the Covenant to prove it a Covenant of Works and that is Circumcision is made the condition of Abraham's Covenant and that 's the worst of all conditions for it obliges a Man to keep the whole Law Gal. 5. 3. 't is the yoke of Bondage and to whatsoever Covenant it be so annexed it makes it become a Bondage Legal Covenant If we be Circumcised Christ shall proffit us nothing Printed Reply pag. 51. Reply Sir you seem to Express your self in this Paragraph at a scoffing rate Circumcision say you is made the Condition of Abraham 's Covenant and that 's the worst of all Conditions But as I have already told you however you deal with me you must withall remember God's truth will not be so mocked Great use you tell me is made of those Scriptures by you now mentioned in many parts of my Discourse but that I am greatly miâ—…aken in applying those texts to the purposes 〈◊〉 do for that the Apostle all along in the Epiâ—…tle to the Galathians argues against the false Teachers who taught and pressed the necessiâ—…y of Circumcision as a bond obliging them to the strict and perfect obedience of the Law in order to their Justification thereby And withal you tell me of the Circumcision of Timothy which had not been in case Circumâ—…ision had bound Men to keep the Law for â—…ustification Reply As for Paul's compliance with the â—…ews in the Circumcision of Timothy however â—…e case stood in that respect This is certain â—…hat the Blessed Apostle would never have expressed himself with that vehemency as he doth Gal. 5. 2 3. For I testify again to every Man that is Circumcised that he is a Debtour to do the whole Law If this had been onely the â—…ense of the Jewish Teachers or the Opinion â—…at they had concerning the nature of Cirâ—…umcision as you would have it It being plain that he expresseth it as his own Sense â—…n reference to the true nature of that Covenant No way contradicting theirs which yet without doubt he would have done had not this been the true state of the Case From whence therefore the conclusion is evident that it could be no other than a Covenant of Works as that at Sinai was You are pleased to tell me indeed that Circumcision in its own nature did not oblige to the keeping of the whole Law but from the intention of the Agent But the Apostle saith not so This is onely your corrupt Gloss upon thaâ—… Text. The Apostle tells us expressly If yâ—… be Circumcised you are Debtours to do the wholâ—… Law Plainly shewing that let Men desigâ—… what they will this is the true nature of thâ—… thing in it self Had Paul expressed
himselâ—… as you do the Case had been clear on your part but for you to impose your Conceits as of equal validity with Scripture Dictates 't is not to be endured If the Work-man'â—… hand were his Rule 't is certain he could never Erre in Working And if your Glosseâ—… were as Authentick as the Text you coulâ—… never Erre in the Interpretation But ' tiâ—… well we have a more sure word of Prophesy to Rely upon than your bare Ipse dixits oâ—… Arbitrary Dictates I now come to your fourth and last Argument whereby you pretend to prove that the Covenant of Circumcision could be no Covenant of Works which I find thus formed Printed Reply pag. 55. Argum. 4. That which 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 that in the direct and Primary end of it Ergo. Reply By way of Answer hereunto I shall need onely to tell you that you must first prove the Law or Sinai Covenant to be no Covenant of Works but a Gospel Covenant before you can prove the Covenant of Circumcision to be such by this Argument Since there were many things belonging to the Law as the Passeover and several other Sacrifices wherewith that Covenant was dedicated besides many other Types which were annexed as Appendages unto the Legal Administration under which were vailed many Spiritual Mysteries relating to Christ the true and onely Sacrifice as also concerning the Mortification of Sin by the Grace and Spirit of Christ Which yet do not therefore prove it to be a Gospel Covenant as hath been already declared and made Evident in my foregoing Discourse upon that Subject which when I see Substantially refuted I will then grant with you that the present Argument is convincing to the end for which it is Designed SECT IV. I Shall in the next place therefore proceed unto the third Point and that is concerning the Conditionality of the New Covenant In reference whereunto that Notion of yours that there is in it something as an Act required of us in point of Duty which is Antecedent to the Benefit of the Promese I have already Examined and Discussed in my foregoing Discourse which needs not here to be repeated Your first Argument for the proof whereof runs thus Printed Reply p. 65. Argum. 1. If we cannot be Justified or Saved till we believe then Faith is the Condition on which these consequent Benefits are suspended But we cannot be Justified or Saved till we believe Ergo. Reply Before I give a direct Answer to the present Argument there are some things necessary to be Premised in order thereunto In the first place then as to what concerns the Quality of the New Covenant whereof we are now to treat whether it is wholly Free and Absolute or Conditional It ought to be duely observed that in the Account or Description that is given us thereof both by Jeremy and the Author to the Hebrews Jer. 31. Heb. 8. it is too evident to be justly deny'd but that the whole of the New Covenant is there expressed For if it were otherwise it could not be proved thence that this Covenat was more excellent than the former especially as to Security that the Covenant Relation between God and that People should not be broken or disannulled For this is the principal thing which the Apostle designs to prove Heb. 8. where the New Covenant is for this very purpose industriously and punctually recited and compared with the Old The want of a due observation whereof hath led many out of the way in their Exposition of it If therefore this be not an entire Description of the Covenant there might yet be something reserved essentially belonging thereunto which might frustrate the End For some such Conditions might yet be required in it as we are not able to observe or could have no security that we should abide in the observation of them and thereon this Covenant might be frustrated of its End as well as the former which is directly contrary unto God's Declaration of his Design in it Secondly It is evident that there can be no Codition previously required unto our entring into our participation of the Benefits of this Covenant Antecedent unto the making of it with us For none think there can be any such with respect unto its Original Constitution nor can there be so in respect of its making with us For first this would render this Covenant Inferiour in a way of Grace unto that which God made with the People at Sinai For he declares that there was not any thing in them that moved him either to make that Covenant or to take them into it with himself Every where he asserts this to be an Act of his meer Grace and Favour Yea he frequently declares that he took them into that Covenant not onely without Respect unto any thing of good in them but although they were evil and stubborn See Deut. 7. 7 8. chap. 9. 4 5. Secondly It is contrary unto the Nature Ends and Express Properties of this New Covenant for there is nothing that can be thought or supposed to be such a Condition but it is comprehended in the Promise of the Covenant it self For all that God requireth in us is proposed as that which himself will effect by vertue of this Covenant Thirdly Though there is nothing that can be thought or supposed to be such a Condition of the Covenant but it is comprehended in the Promise of the Covenant it self yet it is certain that in the outward Dispensation thereof wherein the Grace and Mercy of it is proposed unto us many things are required of us in order unto a Participation or Enjoyment of the full End of the Covenant in Glory For God hath ordained that the full extent of that Grace and Mercy that is prepared in it shall be communicated unto us ordinarily in the use of outward means wherewith a Compliance is required of us in a way of Duty To this end hath he appointed all the Ordinances of the Gospel his Word and positive Institutions with all those Duties publick and private which are needful to render them effectual to us For he expects the Service of the Rational Faculties of our Natures that he may be glorified in them and by them which yet cannot be properly called Conditions of the Covenant For Frst God doth work the Grace of the Covenant and communicate the Mercy of it antecedently unto all Ability for the performance of any such Duty Secondly Amongst those who are equally diligent in the performance of the Duties intended he makes a Discrimination preferring one before another Many are called but few are chosen And what hath any Man that he hath not received Thirdly He actually takes some into the Grace of the Covenant whilst they are engaged in an opposition unto the outward dispensation of it An Example of
this Grace he gave in Paul From all which it is evident that the principal Grace of the Covenant or God's putting his Laws in our Hearts which is influential to all the rest can depend on no condition on our Part. These things then being thus premised the Answer which I shall return unto the forementioned Argument is this First That it is evident that unto a full and compleat enjoyment of all the Promises of the Covenant Faith on our part from which Evangelical Repentance is inseparable is required But then it must withal be considered that these also are wrought in us given to us and bestowed upon us by vertue of that Promise and Grace of the Covenant that depends on no Condition in us which renders it wholly free and absolute from the Foundation to the Topstone thereof Whereas therefore you are pleased to tell me That there is something as an Act required of us in point of Duty which is Antecedent to the Benefit of the Promise If you intend hereby that Faith from which Evangelical Repentance and Good Works are inseparable is such a Condition of the Covenant as to be by us performed Antecedently unto the participation of any Grace Mercy or Benefit of it as your words imply for you admit of no Benefit from the Covenant till this be performed It is most untrue and as I have already told you 't is not onely contrary to the express Testimonies of Scripture but destructive of the Nature of the Covenant it self For if so Men must do all those things before they receive the Remission of Sins Yea while they are as yet dead in Trespasses and Sins Yea then must they do them whilst they are under the Law and the Curse of it For so are all Men whose Sins are not pardoned But this is to make Obedience unto the Law and that to be performed by Men whilst under the Curse of it to be a Condition of Gospel Mercy which is to overthrow both the Law and the Gospel How notoriously false and absurd is that Doctrin which asserteth the possibility of Believing without the efficacy of Supernatural Grace saith Mr. Flavell himself p. 395. of his forementioned Book entituled The method of Grace the desire of Self-sufficiency saith he was the ruin of Aadam and the conceit of Self-sufficiency is the ruin of multitudes of his Posterity This Doctrin saith he is not only contradictory to the current stream of Scripture Phil. 2. 13. 1 Jo. 1. 13. with many other Scriptures but it is also contradictory to the common Sense and Experience of Believers yet saith he the Pride of Nature will strive to maintain what Scripture and Experience plainly contradict and overthrow I shall need to make no other Descant upon these words of his but this If that Doctrin is notoriously false and absurd which asserteth the possibility of Believing without the efficacy of Supernatural Grace Then so is that Doctrin which asserteth that Faith is required of us in point of Duty antecedent to the benefit of the Promise Secondly If Jesus Christ fulfilled the Law and purchased Heaven and Happiness for Men as all true Protestants hitherto have taught then nothing can remain but to declare this to them to incline them to believe and accept it and to prescribe in what way and by what means they shall finally come to inherit Eternal Life To affirm therefore that Faith and Repentance are the Conditions of the New Covenant required of us in point of Duty antecedent to any Benefit of the Promise doth necessarily suppose that Christ hath not done all for us nor purchased a right to Life for any but onely made way that they may have it upon certain terms or as some say He hath merited that we might merit But the Conditions of the Covenant are not to be performed by the Head and Members both The Scriptures do assure us That when the fulness of time was come God sent forth his Son made of a Woman made under the Law to redeem them that were under the Law that we might receive the Adoption of Sons Gal. 4. 4. Christ therefore having in our stead performed the Conditions of Life there remains nothing but a Promise and the Obedience of Children as the Fruit and Effect thereof to them that believe in him together with means of obtaining the full possession which here we want Well but as under the Old Covenant Man was bid to do this and live So under this New Covenant he is commanded to Believe and live And as Death was threatened to the failure of Obedience to the Law So it is now threatened to the want of Faith under the Gospel Faith being the Condition on which the consequent Benefits of Life and Salvation are suspended Mar. 16. 15 16. Go preach the Gospel He that believeth and is Baptized shall be saved He that believeth not shall be damned Jo. 3. 36. He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting Life and he that believeth not shall not see Life Where Faith seemeth to be put into the room of perfect Obedience and therfore to be as proper a Condition of Life as that was So Rom. 10. 9. That if thou shalt consess with thy Mouth and believe in thine Heart thou shalt be saved Mat. 18. 3. Except ye be converted and become as little Children ye shall not enter into the Kingdom of Heaven Mar. 11. 26. But if ye forgive not neither will your Heavenly Father forgive you With multitudes more saith Mr. Flavell of such kind of Expressions which are all Conditional Particles inserted into the Grants of Benefits it being not possible to put words into a frame more lively expressive of a Condition than these are Reply First whereas it is supposed that Faith under the Gospel seemeth to be put into the room of Perfect Obedience unto the Law and therefore to be as proper a Condition of Life as that was This cannot be for as much as it is Christ's Perfect Obedience onely which is put into the room of ours to justify and save us as our own should have done had we been able to perform it And so his Sufferings take away the Curse which our Disobedience brought upon us Secondly It must also be observed that God having promised Salvation upon the account of his Sons satisfaction to all that come to him or believe in him Faith is therefore no other than a Coming Believing or Trusting in this Promise of God and so in the Righteousness of Christ exhibited in the Promise whereby it is applied unto us Wherefore Faith is not properly put into the room of Perfect Obedience nor doth it what Perfect Obedience was to do which was to be the Condition of Life For though that was to be our Righteousness under the Law yet it is evident that Faith on the other hand is appointed onely as an Instrument to receive and apply the Righteousness of Christ which is the alone matter of our Justification before God
For indeed Faith it self is not our Righteousness as it would be if it were as you affirm it is the Condition of the New Covenant and that as an Act or Work required of us in point of Duty antecedent to the Benefit of the Promise For that would be to make an Act or Work of our own to be the formal matter of our Justification before God but this it is not it being only designed as an Instrument to receive and apply the Righteousness of another Even that wrought in the person of Christ for us which is wholly distinct from our own or any thing wrought in us or done by us Phil. 3. 9. Tit. 3. 5. You tell us indeed in your forementioned Book Entitled The Method of Grace P. 133 134. That though Faith is a Condition of the Covenant yet you cannot allow that it Justifies as a Condition And why Because as you there also tell us you cannot see according to this Opinion any Reason why Repentance may not as properly be said to Justifie as well as Faith For say you there Repentance is a Condition of the New Covenant as much as Faith And say you If Faith justify as a Condition then not onely Repentance but every other Grace that is a Condition must justify as well as Faith And say I 't is very true If Faith is a Condition of the New Covenant Repentance is a Condition as much as that and so are all other Graces Conditions of the New Covenant as well as Faith and Repentance This cannot be avoided And if all these are the Conditions of the New Covenant why they should not justify as Conditions I see not nor I think you nor any Man else For you give no other Reason why you cannot allow that Faith justifies as a Condition but that this will necessarily bring in Repentance and all other Graces to justify as Conditions also as well as Faith as indeed it doth Since whatsoever is the Condition of the New Covenant must needs be the Condition of our Justification For this is too evident to be justly denied but that as Perfect Obedience under the Law being the Condition of that Covenant was to have been the Condition of our justification before God had we been able to Perform it So after this Reckoning it is noless evident in reference to Faith Repentance and good Works under the Gospel also If therefore these must be ackdowledged to be the Conditions of the New Covenant the consequence is unavoidable that they are also the Conditions nay the very matter and ground of our acceptation before God And so at last in stead of making the Gospel Covenant to be a Covenant of Faith free and absolute we shall make it a plain Covenant of Works For what else maketh or wherein else consisteth the true Form or Nature of a a Covenant of Works but that Works whether perfect or imperfect be the Condition of it This being that alone that renders it essentially different from the Promise of Grace or the Gospel Covenant Thirdly It is true that Believing is Obedience to the Command of Believing that is it is the Act or thing Commanded and that in order to Salvation He that Believeth shall be saved He that Believeth not shall be Damned He that Believeth on the Son hath Life He that Believeth not shall not see Life But then it follows not that it is the Condition of the new Covenant A Physitian bids his Patient to trust himself with him and he will Cure him The Patient by trusting in him doth what is Required yet this is not the condition of his Cure but the means of accepting and using the Physitians Care and kindness We bid a poor Man hold forth his hand and we will give him an Alms. His holding out the hand is a Means to receive the Alms and so required by us not a Condition of our giving it though in so doing he doth what we bid him If one should say to a hungry Man there is Meat which shall be yours to live by it if you will eat it and digest it else not Who will call this a Condition Since it is the very Partaking of the Meat it self whereby a Man makes it his own If a Man redeem a Captive from Slavery and lays down the Price will any Man call his bare acceptance of Liberty the Condition of his Ransom True it is that if he do not accept thereof he will never be freed But this is not therefore the Condition of his Ransom for that was performed by another hand So for a Father to say to one that he bestows his Daughter upon in Marriage Lo she is your Wife take her and Marry her This is not a Condition of her being his Wife as external to it but it is that very intrinsecal and essential Act whereby she becomes his and he her Husband Additional unto all which it ought to be duely observed that in all those foregoing instances there is to be supposed a Power or capacity in the Poor Sick or Hungry Man to receive the Alms make use of the Food or accept of the Physitians kindness and so in the rest But so there is not in us to believe being by nature Dead in Trespasses and in Sins and therefore utterly uncapeable to perform this supposed Condition unless the Power and and Vertue of the New Covenant Mercy be first set at Work to accomplish it in us From whence it is manifest that the New Covenant is wholly free and absolute Since Faith it self is the Fruit and therefore cannot be the Condition thereof As for that Scripture Mark 11. 26. But if ye for give not Men their Trespasses against you neither will your Heavenly Father forgive you with many other Scriptures that seem to require Repentance and good Works as the Conditions of Life and Salvation To this I Answer That it is true that the immediate causes of Salvation are those things which do prepare and dispose for the Possession of Heaven and the state of Happyness which is Sanctification For this is that that makes us meet to be Partarkers of the Inheritance of the Saints in Light And without Holyness no Man shall see God But then it doth not therefore follow that the New Covenant is a Conditional Covenant It is the Law of the Land and the Fathers love that Entitles an Heir to the Inheritance Consequently these are not the Prime but remote Causes of his actual enjoying the inheritance when he comes of Age But the Immediate Causes of his Possession are his being of full Age and being of capacity to use it these giving Jus in Re the other Jus ad Rem Doth it therefore follow that the full Age and capacity of the Heir are Causes or Antecedent Conditions of his Title to the Estate Without these 't is true if he live not or lack understanding he cannot Inherit the Estate or come to the full enjoyment thereof though never so Absolutely
to Christ's Authority But as for such as profess that they are not without Law to God but under the Law to Christ as Paul did and accordingly make it their business to walk Holily and Unblameably in Obedience to all God's Commands it must needs proceed from Satan's Influence for any of their Brethren to Slur them as Antinomians But the comfort is it is not their Lot alone The Blessed Apostle Paul himself was so stigmatized by those he had then to do with as evidently appears from Rom. 3. 8 31. 6. 1 2. And if he was so reproached no wonder if the Followers of him and of Christ in respect of that truly Evangelical Doctrin by them Preached be so served also I come now to your Fifth and Last Argument whereby you pretend to prove the Conditionality of the New Covenant which I find thus formed Printed Reply P. 78. Arg. 5. If the Covenant of Grace be altogether Absolute and Unconditional requiring nothing to be done on our part to Entitle us to its Benefits then it cannot be Man's Duty in entring Covenant with God to deliberate the Terms count the Cost or give his Consent by Word or Writing explicitly to the Terms of this Covenant But it is Man's Duty in entring Covenant with God to deliberate the Terms and count the Cost Luke 14. 26 to 34. and explicitly to give his Consent thereto either by Word or Writing Ergo Reply Sir By way of Answer hereunto I must tell you that the Scriptures do make a plain distinction betwixt that New and Everlasting Covenant which God hath been pleased to make with Sinners in Jesus Christ whereof we have been all this while discoursing which is the sole Foundation of all our Hopes and Blessedness and the return of that sincere and dutiful Obedience which he requireth of us by way of Answer thereunto 'T is true there are many things which though Promised in the Covenant and wrought in us by the Grace of God are yet Duties Indispensibly required of us in order to the Participation or Enjoyment of the full end of the Covenant in Glory And in respect hereof we are indeed to deliberate the Terms to sit down and count the Cost and to give up our selves solemnly to him with sincere Resolutions and Promises of all Faithful Obedience to the end of our Lives For hereunto the Scriptures by you alledged and many more do oblige us But then I thought you had understood that there is a vast difference betwixt God's Covenant with us and our Covenant with God If not the Scriptures will inform you And in this respect in the first place I beseech you to cast your Eye upon what God speaks to Israel of old Ezek. 16. 59 60 61. For thus saith the Lord God I will even deal with thee as thou hast done which hast despised the Oath in breaking the Covenant which must of necessity be understood of the Sinai Covenant nevertheless I will remember my Covenant with thee in the Days of thy Youth And I will Establish unto thee an Everlasting Covenant Then shalt thou remember thy ways and be ashamed when thou shalt receive thy Sisters thine Elder and thy Younger and I will give them unto thee for Daughters but not by thy Covenant And I will Establish my Covenant with thee and thou shalt know that I am the Lord. Here you see is a plain notice given us of a twofold Covenant betwixt God and them the one properly theirs the other Gods the one a Covenant that might be broken as it was the other that which should endure for ever the one respecting their Duty to God the other God's Promise to them And this is the Covenant saith God that I will Establish If this do not sufficiently Instruct you in this Important Point I beseech you look into the 89 Psalm and there you shall find it fully cleared up Vers. 30. If his Children forsake my Law and walk not in my Judgments if they break my Statutes and keep not my commandments then will I visit their Transgression with the Rod and their Iniquity with Stripes Nevertheless my Loving Kindness will I not utterly take from him nor suffer my Faithfulness to fail My Covenant will I not break nor alter the thing that is gone out of my Lips Where we find a plain distinction made betwixt God's Covenant with them and their Duty to God My Covenant saith God will I not break though you fail in your Duty to me Alas Sir Is it not Obvious to our most constant Experience that both you and I and all of us the more is our Misery do every Day more or less break our own Vows Covenants and Resolutions by our Daily Transgressions And what shall relieve us under the guilt of such Daily Covenant Breaches But that which the Lord himself directs us to Though it be thus and thus with you saith he though you forsake my Law and walk not in my Judgments though you break my Statutes and keep not my Commandments yet My Covenant will I not break nor alter the thing that is gone out of my Lips It shall be Established for ever as the Moon and as a Faithful Witness in Heaven And indeed this was that alone which the Sweet Singer of Israel himself found Relief in at last when he drew near unto his last Moments We know that in many places of the Psalms he doth frequently Appeal unto God concerning his Integrity and the cleanness of his Heart and Hands his Vows Resolutions and Performances But what were the last Words of the Son of Jesse Or what does he take Comfort in when he comes to the winding up of his Days Doth he insist upon his own Covenant Engagements and the Faithfulness of their Performance Not at all What then Although my House be not so with God yet he hath made with me an Everlasting Covenant ordered in all things and sure For this is all my Salvation and all my Desire although he make it not to grow 2 Sam. 23. 5. Sir I must tell you that the want of a due Observation of this plain Scripture distinction betwixt God's Free and Absolute Covenant which he hath been pleased to make with Sinners in Jesus Christ which as I have told you is the Foundation of all our Blessedness And our Covenants with God by way of return thereunto is the true reason of all your Mistakes about the true Nature of the Gospel Covenant while you Jumble and confound together that which the Scriptures do so plainly distinguish 'T is true there are many things to be Observed on our part and many Duties to be Performed But we cannot say that our Hearts or Houses our Lives or Ways are so with God as they ought to have been Were there not therefore a Free Absolute and Everlasting Covenant that God hath made with us in Jesus Christ a well ordered sure and unchangeable Covenant which cannot be broken wherein is contained all our Salvation
be a Covenant of Works or that the Covenant of Circumcision was indeed such a Covenant as I have affirmed it to be to wit no other than a Covenant of Works I know very well that Mr. Whiston endeavours to shift off the force of Gal. 5. 3. concerning the Obligation on all that were Circumcised to do the whole Law in his Answer to one of Mr. Grantham's Arguments by telling us That the Law was mis-interpreted and mis-understood by the Jews as though it had been a Law through their meer keeping of which they should be saved without the Mediation of Christ But saith he Circumcision never bound any Man so to keep the Law No! say I doth not Moses himself describe the Righteousness of the Law unto which Circumcision was Annexed after this very sort That the Man that doth these things shall live by them and that in a way of plain Contradiction or Opposition to the Righteousness of Faith which was to believe in Christ unto Life and Salvation Rom. 10. 5 6 c. Yea doth not God himself declare unto the Jews the Nature of the Law to be such Lev. 18. 5. Ye shall therefore keep my Judgments and my Statutes which if a Man do he shall live in them So that the Jews were right enough in their Notion concerning the Law in reference to the true Nature of it as it required perfect sinless Obedience in order to Life promising Life thereon if they could perform it pronouncing a Curse upon the least Disobedience For Paul doth plainly acknowledg it to be such Gal. 3. 10 12. And God himself by the Mouth of his Servant Moses as plainly expresseth it so to be in the very first Sanction of it Lev. 18. 5. Deut. 27. 26. which could not be because the Jews had Mis-interpreted it For how could they Mis-interpret it before it had a Being or before it was Instituted 'T is evident therefore that such was the nature of that Covenant in it self considered when it was first promulged And 't is as plain that such was the true nature of the Covenant of Circumcision also For can it be rationally imagined that when the Apostle expresseth himself with that vehemence as he doth Gal. 5. 2 3. For I testify again to every Man that is Circumcised that he is a Debtor to do the whole Law That he thus expresseth himself only to shew the Sence of the Jewish Teachers or the Opinion that they had concerning the Nature of Circumcision It is plain that he expresseth it as his own Sence in reference to the true nature of that Covenant From whence therefore the Conclusion is evident that it could be no other than a Covenant of Works as that at Sinai was Proceed we then to the second Argument which Mr. Whiston saith is of a like validity with the first And if so say I we need desire no more For Mr. Whiston himself according to his own forementioned Concession unless he will shut his Eyes must needs allow the validity of the first My 2. Argument then as he states it is this That Covenant in which Faith was not reckoned to Abraham for righteousness could never be a Covenant of Faith Here Mr. Whiston stops without reciting my minor Proposition at all first or last nor the Proof supporting it Contenting himself onely to give some dark and general glances at it The Argument then as I stated it runs thus That Covenant in which Faith was not reckoned to Abraham for righteousness could never be a Covenant of Faith 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 could never be a Covenant of Faith The minor Proposition carries with it its own evidence containing onely the words of the Text to which it referres Rom. 4. 9 10. Now what doth Mr. Whiston reply in the dark without once mentioning what it is that he gives Answer to Strange Confidence saith he for Mr. Cary to take this to be an Irresistible Argument Not to spend time saith he in shewing the Insufficiency of his Proof that speaking of Circumcision when his Argument speaks of the Covenant and sure there is a wide difference between the Covenant and Circumcision the token of it But Sir If this be all you have to say by way of opposition thereunto for ought I can yet see it may prove as lusty an Argument as its fellow which together with this you have drawn forth to try your strength and valour upon His Proof say you speaks of Circumcision when his Argument speaks of the Covenant and sure there is a wide difference between the Covenant and Circumcision the token of it But Sir do you not know that in the 17 th Gen. 9. God said unto Abraham Thou shalt keep my Covenant therefore Thou and thy Seed after thee in their Generations which himself is pleased to explain vers 10. This is my Covenant which ye shall keep every Man child among you shall be Circumcised And how dare you then to say that sure there is a Wide difference between the Covenant and Circumcision the Token of it I know very well that those words This is my Covenant is as much as to say This is the Sign or Token of my Covenant And so it is afterward explained vers 11. Ye shall Circumeise the flesh of your foreskin and it shall be a Token of the Covenant betwixt me and you But you see by this that these two phrases My Covenant and the Token thereof are in God's account Convertible terms and therefore sure there can be no such wide difference as you would suppose between them Besides Doth not Stephen Act. 7. 8. Expresly call this Covenant the Covenant of Circumcision the Sign of Circumcision being that which gives the Denomination to the Covenant it self And is it therefore so ridiculous a thing as you would make it when the Apostle tells us That Faith was not reckoned to Abraham for Righteousness when he was in Circumcision but in uncircumcision To affirm that these words must needs be understood of the Covenant of Circumcision If not what was it then I ask you that Paul there means when he speaks of Abraham's being in Circumcicion You will tell me it may be that by it we are to understand his being Circumcised Very good But then I ask you again How came he to be Circumcised Or upon what account was he Circumcised Sir whatever your Answer may be the Scripture will tell you that he was Circumcised by the Command of God and that as a Token of the Covenant he then made with him and if so no wonder if we understand the words before us that Faith was not reckoned to Abraham for Righteousness when he was in Circumcision that is in or by vertue of that Covenant For he had it so reckoned to him long before his Circumcision And so the Apostle expresly tells us in
gives the appellation of a Covenant much less of the First or Old Covenant to that Covenant Transaction So that the Silence of the Scripture as to this express term of the Old Covenant in reference to the Covenant of Circumcision is no just Argument that therefore it is not So. And if no other reason can be assigned why the Sinai Covenant is called in Scripture the Frst or Old Covenant but because of its Affinity with that made with our first Parent Since it was not the first Covenant that God ever made with Men in respect of time an express Covenant having been made with Abraham and with Noah also long before why may not the Covenant of Circumcision also pass under the Denomination of the First or Old Covenant because of its Affinity with that at Sinai the same mercies being promised and the same duties commanded in the one that were in the other which hath expresly the title of the First or Old Covenant given to it in the Scripture Argum. 2. The Law or the Old Covenant was ordained by Angels in the hand of a humane Mediatour a Mediatour that was a meer Man But this Covenant established with Abraham was not ordained by Angels in the hand of a Humane Mediatour Therefore this Covenant was not the Law or the Old Covenant Reply By the same Rule and for the same Reason you may as well deny that the Covenant of Works made with our first Parent was the Old or the first Covenant because it was not ordained by Angels in the hand of a Humane Mediatour as the Sinai Covenant was Argum. 3. The Law or Old Covenant was given 430 Years after the Covenant of Grace was entred with Abraham But this Covenant entred with Abraham was not entred 430 Years after the Covenant of Grace was entred with him Therefore this Covenant cannot be the Law or Old Covenant The Major say you is evident from Gal. 3. 17. The Minor from the History of God's Covenant transactions with Abraham Reply Though the Covenant of Works which was given by Moses at Mount Sinai was 430 Years after the Covenant of Grace was entred with Abraham Gen. 12. Yet it follows not that there was therefore no other Edition thereof ever extant in the World you your self cannot but acknowledg that it was first made with Adam in innocency And if so why there might not be another Edition thereof besides that given at Sinai Neither the Scripture by you now mentioned nor any other says any thing to the contrary Argum. 4. God himself expresly denies â—…hat this Covenant established with Abraham was the Old Covenant Therefore c. That God expresly denies the Covenant established with Abraham to be the Old Covenant is evident Deut. â—… 2 3. Where saith Moses speaking by the Spirit of God The Lord our God made a Covenant with us in Horeb. The Lord made not this Covenant with our Fathers Now that under â—…his term Fathers we must necessarily include Abraham cannot be denied whence it is evident that the Covenant made in Horeb that is at Mount Sinai was not made with Abraham Reply Either the Covenant which Moses here speaks of which God made with Israel in Horeb that is at Mount Sinai was a Covenant of Grace that is a Gospel Covenant as Mr. Flavell Mr. Roberts Mr. Sedgwick and many others affirm it was or a Covenant of Works If it was a Gospel Covenant How will you resolve the Point when Moses tells you here expressly That the Lord made not this Covenant with our Fathers Will you say or can it be immagined that God never made any Gospel Covenant with Abraham Isaac or Jacob or the rest of the Fathers How then were they Saved If it was a Covenant of Works as you seem to grant it was the same difficulty occures on the other hand For can you say that God never made any Covenant of Works with Abraham and the rest of the Fathers Was there not a Covenant of Works made with our first Father and in him with all his Posterity Were not Abraham Isaac and Jacob children of wrath by nature as well as others and consequently then under the First or Old Covenant Wherefore when Moses says That the Lord made not this Covenant with our Fathers speaking of the Sinai Covenant it cannot be understood Absolutely as if therefore they had never been under the Old Covenant for it is plain that they had as being of Adam's Posterity And it is as plain that the first lines even of the Covenant at Mount Sinai were first drawn in the establishment of the Covenant of Circumcision There was the first draught thereof and then God first began to deal with even Abraham himself in order to the establishment of that Covenant he intended afterward in a more formal express manner to accomplish though it was not as yet Compleated So that Moses might justly enough say speaking of the Sinai Covenant The Lord made not this Covenant with our Fathers that is in the same manner and Circumstances as it is now made with us The Lord never appeared till now with such dreadful Majesty with such Thundrings Blackness Darkness and Tempect God never discovered himself till now with the Sound of a Trumpet and the Voice of Words which voice they that heard entreated that the Word should not be spoken to them any more It cannot be denied but that God had before made the same Covenant of Works with them in Adam for the Substance thereof And it is as plain that the first lines even of the Sinai Covenant it self had been drawn in the Covenant of Circumcision But it was not then Compleated there were many Ceremonies Statutes and Judgments to be added thereunto which the Fathers knew nothing of The same Covenant for the Substance thereof had been before made with them though not in the same manner and with such circumstances as it had been now Performed So that this Scripture makes nothing to your purpose at all No more doth that which follows when you tell us That that which may yet further confirm us is this That the Lord himself expresly distinguisheth that Covenant made with Abraham from that Covenant made at Sinai Deut. 29. 1. These are the Words of the Covenant which the Lord Commanded Moses to make with the Children of Israel in the Land of Moab beside the Covenant which he made with them in Horeb. But how doth it appear by this that the Lord himself distinguisheth the Covenant made with Abraham from that made with Abraham from that made at Mount Sinai Why yes saith Mr. Whiston because the Covenant here spoken of wich God made with Israel in the Land of Moab is Abraham's Covenant So saith he it is expresly declared vers 13. Now this Covenant is expresly declared to be another Covenant besides that made in Horeb vers 1. And therefore they could not be one and the same Covenant But then Mr. Whiston should have
considered that a Covenant may be one and the same Covenant for substance though often repeated And that thus stood the Case in respect of the Three formentioned Covenants that at Sinai that in the Land of Moab and that with Abraham is evident For first if you compare Deut. 29. vers 2 3 9. with Exod. 19. 4 5. you will find that this in the Land of Moab exactly agrees with the Sinai Covenant the Terms being exactly the same as well as also the Promises in both Covenants So that the Sense of Deut. 29. 1. can be no other than this These are the Words that is these are the Terms or Conditions upon which God hath made that is Renewed Covenant with you The Covenant at Horeb and this in the Land of Moab was but one in Substance though various in respect of the time or manner of Administration And indeed they were both the same for Substance with that made with Abraham also Gen. 17. 7. I will be a God to thee and to thy Seed after thee Thou shalt therefore keep my Covenant thou and thy Seed after thee So it was in the Sinai Covenant Ezod 19. 4 5. You have seen saith God what I did unto the Egyptians and how I bore you on Eagles Wings and brought you unto my self Now therefore if you will obey my voice indeed and keep my Covenant then ye shall be unto me a peculiar Treasure above all People So Deut. 29. 2 3 4 c. You have seen all that the Lord did before your Eyes in the land of Egypt unto Pharaoh and all his Servants and I have led you forty years in the Wilderness that ye might know that I am the Lord your God Vers. 9. Keep therefore the words of this Covenant and do them that ye may prosper in all that ye do You stand this day all of you before the Lord your God that thou shouldest enter into Covenant with the Lord thy God Vers. 12. That he may establish thee to day for a People unto himself and that he may be unto thee a God as he hath said unto thee and as he hath sworn unto thy Fathers Abraham Isaac and Jacob Vers. 13. So that here is no difference at all between the Covenant made with Abraham and that made with Israel at Mount Sinai and this with the same People in the Land of Moab also For we cannot but see that for Substance they do all of them exactly agree onely that at Mount Sinai was made with Israel at their first entrance into the Wilderness that in the Land of Moab about forty years after when they were just ready to enter Canaan For since the greatest part of the Generation were then dead with whom the Covenant was first made at Sinai God thought fit to renew it with their Successors in the Land of Moab additional unto or beside that Covenant Transaction that had passed between him and their Fathers at Sinai But say you it may be observed that the Sameness of some particular Good promised and Duties commanded in this Covenant established with Abraham and that made at Mount Sinai cannot justly be interpreted a Revelation from God that the Covenants are one and the same There may be observed say you an Indentity or Sameness both of Good promised and Duties commanded in the Covenant of Nature and the Covenant of Grace in sundry particulars and yet the Covenants are not only distinct but of quite different Natures and Tenours And who doubts say I but there may be observed an Indentity or Sameness of the Good promised in the Covenant of Nature and the Covenant of Grace and yet both these Covenants are not only distinct but of quite different Natures and Tenours the one being Absolute the other Conditional The one requiring perfect Obedience as the Condition of enjoying the Good therein contained The other promising to work that in us which before was required of us But it is evident that the forementioned Covenants did all of them exactly agree and that both in respect of the Good promised and Duties commanded also For they did all of them require Perfect Obedience as the Condition of obtaining the Mercies therein promised which may be justly interpreted as a Revelation from God that they are for the Substance of them one and the same there being no difference at all between them onely in the time and manner of their Administration And then where lies the ground of your Confidence when you say What can possibly be more plain Who can with any pretence of Divine Revelation question whether that Covenant made with Abraham Gen. 17. 7. be the Old Covenant or the same with that made at Sinai when the Lord himself denies that that Covenant made at Mount Sinai was made with Abraham but evidently and in plain words distinguishes the one from the other These are your groundless Triumphs And say you that which may yet further confirm us is that the Scriptures every where speak of the Covenant made with Abraham in the Singular Number and no where give the least Intimation that there were two Covenants the one of which can possibly be supposed to be the Covenant of Grace and the other the Old Covenant These Arguments say you are so plain that nothing can be rationally Reply'd No! say I doth not the Apostle plainly tell you that there were Two Covenants the one the Covenant of Grace the other the Old Covenant and that upon this very occasion and in reference to Abraham himself Gal. 4. 22. c. For it is written saith he that Abraham had two Sons the one by a Bondmaid the other by a Freewoman But he who was of the Bondwoman was born after the Flesh but he of the Freewoman was by Promise Which things are an Allegory For these are the two Covenants the one from Mount Sinai which gendereth to Bondage the other answereth to Jerusalem that is above and is free which is the Mother of us all Now I pray Sir consider Doth not the Apostle here plainly tell you that there were two Covenants the one a Legal Bondage Covenant the other a Covenant of Gospel Liberty and Freedom the one a Covenant of Works the other of Grace under the Allegory of Hagar and Sarah Ishmael and Isaac And was this Prophetical Instance brought forth in Abraham's Family shewing the Nature and Method of God's future Dispensations towards his Off-spring without any respect unto Abraham himself Had he not two Sons the one by a Bond-maid the other by a Free-woman And did not this serve to represent unto him the different Nature of the two Covenants that had been before made with Himself as well as of the two fold Covenant God intended to make with his Seed after him That God intended to make a two fold Covenant with his Seed after him is evident for what else is the meaning of the two Covenants the Apostle here speaks of the one from Mount Sinai
made to Abraham I say they were made to Abraham and to his Seed in the direct Design and Intendment of them So it is as Evident as to what concerns his Seed that those Gospel Promises can be understood as the Apostle speaks in no other sense but as of one For it is plain that it is Christ alone that is the Inheritting Seed there spoken of in whom God there Promiseth that all the Nations of the Earth should be Blessed To him therefore all the Promises of the Gospel were first made Psal. 89 27 28 29. In him they are all yea and Amen 2 Cor. 1. 20 And from him alone are they to be communicated to all his Members Isa. 49. 6 8 9. John 1. 16. 6. 27. Gal. 3. 29. And in this respect it is yet further Observable that as God Promiseth Abraham Gen. 22. 18. that in his Seed should all the Nations of the Earth be Blessed plainly speaking of Christ the Promised Seed So in the Words just before he was expressly told And thy Seed shall possess the gate of his Enemies Not their Enemies but his Enemies expressly in the Singular Whereas the Promises Gen. 17. 7 8. are all expressly in the Plural Number So that as the Apostle might justly say in reference to this Gospel Covenant that to Abraham and his Seed were the Promises made not a Single Promise only but the Promises So it is as Evident that the Seed there spoken of can be understood of none other than of Christ himself alone to whom the Promises were made And accordingly the Apostle having spoken as he doth Gal. 3 16. to give a convincing Evidence that by the Seed he there speaks of he intended Christ Personal and not Mystical as some have dreamed he doth sufficiently explain his meaning in this respect Vers. 19. where he tells us That the Law was added because of Transgressions till the Seed should come to whom the Promise was made where it is Observable that the Law that is the Mosaical Administration is said to have been before the Seed was come and was to have its Period then Now if by the Seed Christ be not to be understood Personally but Mystically for the Visible or Invisible Church take which you will then the Law could not have been before the Seed For God had his Church in the World from the beginning and more especially in Abraham's Family 400 Years at least before the Law was given by Moses of which Christ was the Head and they his Mystical Body And so by this Interpretation the Seed should have been before the Law contrary to the Apostle who makes the Law to have been before the Seed and to have its Period when the Seed to whom the Promise was made was come From all which it evidently appears that the Apostle Gal. 3. 16. could not possibly design or intend the Promises of the Covenant of Circumcision Recorded Gen. 17. 7. but must of necessity refer to the Promises of the forementioned and fore Established Gospel Covenant Secondly As it is manifest that the Promises mentioned Gen. 12. 2 3. 22. 16 17 18. were made to Abraham and to his Seed in the direct design and intendment of them So it is as Evident that there are several other Promises made to Abraham and his Seed besides those mentioned Gen. 17. 7. which are exprest in those Terms and run in that very Tenour To thee and to thy Seed So it is to this purpose plainly exprest Gen. 12. 7. 13 15. And thus having cleared these Two Points First That the Apostle Gal. 3. 16. could not possibly refer to Gen. 17. 7. but to that Evangelical Covenant before insisted on Secondly That there are several other Promises made to Abraham and his Seed besides those mentioned Gen. 17. 7. which are Exprest in those Terms and run in that Tenour To thee and to thy Seed where by Seed Christ himself is to be understood from whom alone all the Blessings in Promise are to be derived unto all his Spiritual Off spring Whereas the Promises Gen. 17. 7. are plainly made unto Abraham and his Natural Posterity only Upon the whole therefore it clearly appears that Mr. Whiston is extreamly mistaken to tell us as he doth That the Apostle Gal. 3. 16. hath Reference unto and directly intends the Promise Gen. 17. 7. And as greatly is he mistaken when he tells us That there being no other Promise Recorded in Scripture exprest in the same Words or running in the same Tenour To thee and to thy Shed that he can possibly have Reference to but only this it will hardly be questioned by any Man that is not resolved to turn away his Ears from Him that speaketh from Heaven whether that be the Promise referred unto and intended by the Apostle or no This saith he I shall be bold to say that this one Testimony of the Apostle concerning this Covenant will bear the Weight laid upon it and will Evince to the Judgment of all Men whose Minds are not blinded with Excess of Prejudice the Infallible Certainty that the Covenant Gen. 17. 7. is the Covenant of Grace let Men or Devils do their utmost to Weaken it God grant his Eyes may at last be opened to see his great Mistakes in these Respects To Conclude Having gained your Three Main Posts that is having I hope substantially Answered and shewn you the Weakness of your Three forementioned Propositions I shall not at all concern my self with the following Part of your Discourse For Debile Fundamentum fallit opus your Foundation being destroyed all the Superstructure you have built thereon must of necessity totter And so much your self acknowledg in your Epistle where you tell the World That the Main Hinge of the Paedobaptismal Controversie turns upon the Covenant of Circumcision and say you could it be proved that that Covenant was the Old Covenant it must be granted that the ground we lay to Infant 's Covenant-Interest and Baptism therein must needs fall and consequently the Claim we Bottom thereupon must be acknowledged to be Vain Which whether it be not now substantially performed I shall submit unto the Judgment and Determination of the Church of God POSTSCRIPT Though I intended here to have put a Period to this Discourse yet upon second thoughts I shall add a Word or Two in Reference to your following Argument P. 128. which you have thought fit to add unto those foregoing that you might as you say give your Opponents full measure heaped up and running over whereby you labour further to Prove that the Covenant of Circumcision is the Covenant of Grace which you draw from the Nature of that Covenant as being the Rule of Admitting Members into the Jewish Church From whence you Infer that it must needs be the Covenant of Grace forasmuch as by vertue thereof you suppose Jesus Christ and they came to have Communion and Fellowship with each other Upon the whole therefore of what you offer upon this Head I shall only need to tell you That though it is evident and undeniable that the Saints or Elect of God under the former Administration had Communion with Christ in the way of New Covenant Mercy For else how were they Saved Yet that their Communion With Christ was not derived unto them through the Channel of the Covenant of Circumcision made with Abraham or that made with Israel at Mount Sinai I thus Prove Argum. 1. If the Covenant of Circumcision and that at Sinai were of that Nature that though many were Justified that were under them yet none were ever Justified by them or by vertue of them then neither could they be the Medium of Communion with Christ in the way of New Covenant of Mercy But it is Evident from the Scriptures that though many were Justified who were under these Covenants yet none were ever Justified by them or by vertue of them Rom. 3. 20 Gal. 2. 16 5. 2 3. Ergo Argum. 2. If Abraham's Inheritance was not derived unto him or to his Seed through the Law or through the Covenant of Circumcision which in effect is the same as hath been before proved then neither could his Communion with Christ in the way of New Covenant Mercy be derived unto him or his Seed through that Channel But the Scripture is Express that the Promise that he should be the Heir of the World was not to Abraham or to his Seed through the Law but through the Righteousness of Faith Rom. 4. 13. Ergo Argum. 3. That Covenant through which had the Inheritance been conveyed would have made Faith void and the Promise to be of none effect could not possibly be the Medium of Intercourse with Christ in the way of New Covenant Mercy But the Scripture is Express that if they which are of the Law be Heirs Faith is made void and the Promise of none effect Rom. 4. 14. Ergo The END p. 7. M. S. p. 7. M. S. p. 8. Printed Reply p. 25. M. S. P. 6. Printed Reply P. 21. M. S. P. 7. Printed Reply P. 22. Printed Reply P. 61. Printed Reply p. 134 135. Together with your Letter to me on the same Subject Sol. Call pag. 164 165. Printed Reply P. 43. Printed Reply P. 44. Printed Reply P. 46. Printed Reply p. 48. Printed Reply p. 50. Printed Reply P. 51. Printed Reply P. 61. Printed Reply P. 69 70. Right Method P. 22. Pag. 24. Pag. 25. Pag. 25. Pag. 5. Pag. 6. P. 7 8 9. P. 9. P. 96. P. 96. Pag. 102. Pag. 103. Pag. 104. Pag. 104. Pag. 105. Pag. 105. P. 103. Pag. 105. Pag. 106. P. 117 118. P. 121. P. 126.
of Circumcision was not of the same Nature Thirdly Whether the Gospel Covenant is wholly Free and Absolute or Conditional SECT II. IN the first place then As to what concerns the Sinai Covenant there are two things before us and that is First to prove that it could be no other than a Covenant of Works and that as contradistinct or essentially different from the Promise of Grace or the Gospel Covenant Secondly that it is the very same for substance or for the essence of it with Adam's Covenant For the first I think I have already in my former Discourse substantially proved that the Sinai Covenant could be no other than a Covenant of Works and that as it is contradistinguished or opposed unto the Covenant of Faith or the Gospel Covenant and essentially different therefrom And this I have done by 23. Scripture Arguments founded upon plain Scripture Testimonies which one would think should be fully Convictive to all that pretend to any reverence for Scripture authority Mr. Flavell indeed tells me in his Printed Reply p. 54. that all my 23 Arguments fall to the Ground at one stroke My Medius Terminus having one Sense in my Major Proposition and another in my Minor and so every Argument hath four Terms in it as will easily saith he be evinced by the particular consideration of the respective places from whence they are drawn But why had not Mr. Flavell evinced this and so knockt them down as he saith at one Blow He onely threatens but doth not perform This is indeed an easie way of Answering Arguments if the bare affirmation that they are not rightly formed must be taken for a sufficient confutation As for the second that the Sinai Covenant was the same for substance with that made with Adam I have already also in my former Discourse Answered Mr. Flavell's four Arguments pretending to prove that the Sinai Covenant and that made with Adam in Paradise were not the same but widely different Covenants Unto which he hath not as yet thought fit to give me any Reply to Enervate the force of my contrary Reasons but onely by Cavilling at some pretended Absurdity he thinks he hath found out in my 179 pag. c. Which hath been already cleared All that Remains therefore now to be done is to subjoyn some Select Scripture Arguments plainly proving the contrary to what he hath Asserted viz. That the Sinai Covenant and that made with Adam are for substance the same My first Argument then runs thus Argum. 1. That Covenant that is not of Faith must needs be a Covenant of Works yea the very same for Substance with that made with Adam But the Scripture is express that the Law is not of Faith Ergo. c. For the confirmation hereof I shall lay down these four Propositions First that it is evident there can be no Medium betwixt these two Faith and Works Secondly That neither will they admit of any Mixture Thirdly That the Law is not of Faith Fourthly That if the Law is not of Faith it must needs be a Covenant of Works yea the same for Substance with that made with Adam My first Proposition is That it is evident there can be no Medium betwixt these two Faith and Works If there is let it be shewn what it is and wherein it doth consist And therefore to talk of a Subservient Covenant distinct from these two is a vain thing It must be one of them Either it must be a Covenant of Faith or it must be a Covenant of Works There can be no Medium betwixt them Secondly 'T is as evident that neither will they admit of any Mixture If the Law is of Faith it cannot be of Works And so on the contrary If it be of Works it cannot be of Faith If this be questioned the Apostle will soon Resolve it Rom. 4 16. Therefore it is of Faith speaking of the Gospel Covenant That it might be by Grace And Rom. 11. 6. If by Grace then is it no more of Works otherwise Grace is no more Grace And if it be of Works then it is no more Grace otherwise Work is no more Work Thirdly 'T is as evident that the Law is not of Faith This the Apostle affirmeth in express Terms Gal. 3. 12. You will tell me perhaps that the Law is not of Faith Comparatively in respect of that clear discovery thereof which the Gospel now give us Not Absolutely as if it were not of Faith at all But what plain Scripture Testimony may not be after this sort Evaded and Eluded Nay what truths of the Gospel can we be sure of if this Course be allowed Doth not the Apostle expressly designedly industriously affirm and prove it that the Law is not of Faith but on the contrary that the Man that doth these things shall live by them Doth he not bring an express Testimony from the mouth of the Law giver himself that as many as are of the Works of the Law are under the Curse c. vers 10. And doth he not also tell us that 'T is evident that no Man is justified by the Law in the sight of God vers 11. And doth he not assume from all this that the Law is not of Faith but the Man that doth them shall live in them vers 12. And shall we presume to affirm notwithstanding that the Law is of Faith yea a Covenant of Faith in Christ Jesus It may be you will yet tell me as Mr. Robert's doth that in this Sinai Covenant those opposite conditions of perfect doing under pain of Curse and Death and of Believing in Christ are very differently required and revealed Believing in Christ is revealed very sparingly and obscurely Perfect doing very frequently and plainly But saith he tho' those two conditions of perfect doing and believing be thus differently revealed and required in the Sinai Covenant yet Believing in Christ unto Life and Righteousness was therein chiefly and ultimately intended And perfect doing onely urged in Subordination and tendency to Believing But then say I If believing in Christ unto Life and Righteousness was chiefly and ultimately intended in the Sinai Covenant and perfect doing onely urged in Subordination and tendency to Believing How comes it to pass that the Apostle doth so directly oppose the Righteousness of Faith to the Righteousness of that Covenant Rom. 10. 5 6. Moses saith he describeth the Righteousness of the Law that the Man that doth these things shall live by them But the Righteousness which is of Faith speaketh on this Wise c. In a quite different strain wherein when he tells us that the Law saith Do this and live How can it be understood but that his meaning is that this is the onely Righteousness which the Law requireth in order to Life and Salvation or this is that which it ultimately intends and that it propounds no other way in order thereunto For otherwise we cannot rationally understand him especially since he doth else where