Right of Believers Infant-seed to Baptism you have altogether adventured it the second time with the consent of your Partizans upon the three Hypotheses which if I mistake not I have fully confuted and baffled in my first Answer But if my brevity occasioned any obscurity in that I hope you shall find it sufficiently done here Mean time you have given and I accordingly take it for granted that our Arguments for Infants Baptism stand in their full strength against you 'till you can better discharge and free your dangerous Assertions from the Errors and Absurdities in which they are now more involved and intricated than before The weaker any thing is the more querulous it is If Scripture-Argument and clear Reason will not support the Cause I undertake I am resolved never to call in passionate Invectives and weak Evasions for my Auxiliaries as you have here done The Lord give us all clearer Light tenderer Consciences exemplary Humility and Ingenuity Vindiciarum Vindex OR A REFUTATION OF THE Weak and Impertinent Rejoinder OF Mr. PHILIP CARY Wherein he vainly attempts the defence of his Absurd Thesis to the great abuse and injury of the Laws and Covenants of God AND must I be dipt once more in the Water-Controversy 't is time for me to think of undressing my self and making ready for my approaching Rest and employ those few moments I have to spend in more Practical and Beneficial Studies for my own and the Churches greater advantage And 't is time for Mr. C. to reflect upon his past Follies which have consumed too much of his own and others time without any advantage yea to the apparent loss and injury of the Cause he undertakes to defend When I received these Sheets from him in vindication of his Solemn Call I was at a stand in my own Resolutions whether to let it pass without any Animadversions upon it as a passionate Clamor for a desperate Cause or give a short and full Answer to his confused and impertinent Rejoinder But considering that I had under hand at the same time the foregoing Treatise of the Causes and Cures of Mental Errors and that though my honest Neighbour discovers much weakness in his way of Argumentation yet it was like to meet with some interested Readers to whom for that reason it would be the more suitable and how apt such Persons are to glory in the last word but especially considering that a little time and pains would suffice as the Case stands to end the unseasonable Controversy betwixtâ— us and both clear and confirm many great and weighty Points of Religion I was upon these Considerations prevailed with against my own Inclination to cast in these few Sheets as a Mantissa to the former seasonable and necessary Discourse of Errors resolving to fill them with what should be worth the Reader 's time and pains As for the rude Insults uncomely Reflections and passionate Expressions of my discontented Friend I shall not throw back the dirt upon him when I wipe it off from my self I can easily forgive and forget them too The best men have their Passions Iam. 5. 17. even Sweet-briers and Holy-Thistles have their offensive Prickles I consider my honest Neighbour under the strength of a Temptation It disquiets him to see the Labours of many years and the raised Expectations of so great a conquest and triumph over men of Renown all frustrated by his Friend and Neighbour who had done his utmost to prevent it and often foretold him of the folly and vanity of his Attempt Every thing will live as long as it can and natura vexat a prodit seipsam But certainly it had been more for Truth 's honour and Mr. C's comfort to have confessed his Follies humbly to God and have laid his hand upon his mouth The things in controversy betwixt us are great and weighty viz. The true nature of the Sinai Laws in their complex body the quality of God's Covenant with Abraham and the dispensation of the New Covenant we are now under These are things of great weight in themselves and their due Resolutions are at this time somewhat the more weighty because my Antagonist hath adventured the whole Controversy of Infants Baptism upon them I have in my Vindiciae Legis c. stated the several Questions clearly and distinctly Shewn Mr. C. what is no part of the Controversy and what is the very hinge upon which it turns desired him if he made any Reply to keep close to the just and necessary Rules of Disputation by distinguishing limiting or denying any of my Propositions that the matters in Controversy might be put to a fair and speedy issue But instead of that I meet with a flood of words rolling sometimes to this part and then to another part of my Answer and so back again without the steddy direction of Art or Reason There may for ought I know be some things of weight in Mr. Cary's Reply if a man could fee them for words but without scoff or vanity I must say of the rational part of it as the Poet said of the overdressed Woman Pars minima est ipsa Puella sui 't is the least part of it To follow him in his irregular and extravagant way of writing were to make my self guilty of the same folly I blame him for I am therefore necessitated to perstringe them and reduce all I have to say under three general Heads I. I shall clearly evince to the World That Mr. Cary hath not been able to discharge and free his own Theses from the horrid Consequents and gross Absurdities which I laid to their charge in my first Reply but instead thereof in this feeble and unsuccessful attempt to free the former he hath entangled himself in more and greater ones II. That he hath left my Arguments standing in their full strength against him III. And then I shall confirm and strengthen my three Positions which destroy the Cause he manages by some further Additions of Scripture Reason and Authorities which I hope will fully end this matter betwixt us But before I touch the Particulars two things must be premised for the Reader 's due information 1. That the Controversie about the true nature of the Sinai Laws both Moral and Ceremonial complexly considered is not that very Hinge upon which the Right of Believers Infants to Baptism depends that stands as it did before be the Sinai Laws what they will We do not derive the Right of Infants from any other Law or Covenant but that gracious Covenant which God made with Abraham which was in being 430 years before Moses his Law and was no way injured much less disannulled by the addition of it If Abraham's Covenant be the same Covenant of Grace we are now under the Right of Believers Infants to Baptism is secured whatever the Sinai Convenant prove to be Which I speak not out of the least jealousie that Mr. Cary hath or ever shall be able to prove it to be
faith consider'd and answer'd 206. Dr. Edw. Reynolds's Opinion about the Law 207 213. The Position about Abraham's Covenant being a Covenant of Grace defended 213. The first Argument for the proof of it 214. Mr. C's Reply answer'd 215. His distinction of A Covenant of Works and The Covenant of Works overthrown 217 218. The second Argument for the proof of it 220. Mr. C's Reply answer'd 221. Third Argument 222. Mr. C's Reply answer'd 223. The Covenants not made with Abraham in Gen. 17. 225 228. Circumcision did not oblige all men on whom it passed to keep the whole Law of Moses for Righteousness 230. Fourth Argument 231. Circumcision in its direct end taught them the corruption of Nature by sin and the mortification of sin by the Spirit 231. Mr. C's Reply answer'd 232. His Arguments to prove the Sinai Covenant a Covenant of Works likewise answered 233. Cutting off in Gen. 17. 14. not the same with the death threatned to Adam ibid. How faith reckon'd to Abraham for Righteousness while he was in Vncircumcision 234. How the Sinai Covenant is a Bondage Covenant 236. Dr. Crisp's Iudgment 237. Of the Conditionality of the New Covenant 242. The Question stated 243. What the word Condition signifies 245. Antecedent and consequent Conditions 246. No condition of the Covenant with respect to its first sanction with Christ 247. but hath an antecedent Condition with respect to the application of its benefits unto men 248. Which is Faith as organically consider'd 249. The Opinions of Orthodox Divines in this Question cited 250. That the Covenant is Conditional proved from M. C's own Concessions 256. Christ hath not perform'd the Condition for us 262. Tho he works Faith in us by his Spirit 263. A Condition does not imply merit 264. Arguments to prove the conditionality of the Covenant 266. First Argument 267. Second Argument 268. Third Argument ibid. Fourth Argument 270. Fifth Argument 272. Mr. Cary's Reply to it 273. The answer 274. The Reasons of my Faith and Practice in the Baptism of Infants 278. in several Theses Thes. 1. God hath dealt with his Church and People in the way of a Covenant and will do so to the end of the World 281. Thes. 2. After the Cessation of the first Covenant as a Covenant of Life God hath published a Second Covenant of Grace by Iesus Christ 283. When the Covenant of Grace took place 284. Thes. 3. Tho the primordial Light of this Covenant of Grace was comparatively weak and obscure yet God from the first publication of it hath been heightning its Privileges and amplifying its Glory in the after Editions and will more and more illustrate it to the end of the World 287. Thes. 4. It is past all doubt that the Infant-seed of Abraham under the second Edition of the Covenant of Grace were taken into God's gracious Covenant had the Seal of that Covenant applied to them and were thereby added to the visible Church 289. Thes. 5. That Rom. 11. 17. is a clear proof that believing Parents and their Seed are ingrafted into the room of the Jews who were broken off 290 291. Thes. 6. Suitably hereunto when a Christian Church was constituted the Children of such believing Parents were declared foederally holy 1 Cor. 7. 14. That the Promise which was seal'd to them by Circumcision is now seal'd by Baptism Act. 2. 39. 292. Thes. 7. The change of the Token and Seal of the Covenant from Circumcision to Baptism will by no means infer the change of the Covenants especially when the latter comes into the place of and serves to the same use and end with the former Col. 2. 11. p. 295. A Postscript to Mr. Cary 297. Some absurdities chargeable upon him 300. The Contents of the Second Appendix Or The Rise and Growth of Antinomianism THe rise of Antinomianism Ap. 2. 308. The Abuse of Free-grace chargable upon good as well as wicked Men 311. By what means some good Men may be drawn to such dangerous Opinions 313 314 315 316. A Catalogue of Ten Antinomian errors 318. which are all contrary to the current of the Scriptures 323. and to the experience of Saints 325. Error 1. That Iustification is an eternal Act of God and so perfectly abolishes Sin in our Persons that we are as clear from Sin as Christ himself 328. Sense of the Orthodox about it 328 329. This proved to be irrational 332. Vnscriptural 335. Injurious to Iesus Christ 338. and injurious to the Souls of Men 340. Error 2. That Iustification by Faith is only the manifestation to us of what was really and actually done before Reasons against it 341 ad 350. Error 3. That Men ought not to doubt of their Faith or question whether they believe or no. Reasons against it 351 ad 354. Error 4. That Believers are not bound to confess their Sins or pray for the Pardon of them From whence will follow either 1. That there is no Sin in Believers 355. Or 2. That Sin in them is inconsiderable 357. Or 3. That it is not the Will of God they should confess and mourn over them which is refuted 358 Error 5. That God sees no Sin in Believers 360. This proved to be injurious to God's Omniscience 361. To be inconsistent with his providential Dispensations 362. To have no foundation in Scripture 363. To clash with their other Principles 365. Error 6. That God is not angry with the Elect for their Sins 365. How the Antinomians led into this Error 366. Three Concessions about God's Corrections of his People 368. God lays his Corrections on his People 369. And for their Sins 371. These Corrections consistent with his satisfi'd Iustice 373 Error 7. That by God's laying our Iniquities upon Christ he became as sinful as we and we as compleatly righteous as he That not only the Punishment of Sin but the Sin it self was laid upon Christ 375 376. Four Concessions 377 378. Sin simply considered did not become the Sin of Christ 379. We are not as compleatly Righteous as Christ 384. Error 8. Neither Believers own Sins nor the Sins of others can do them hurt Nor must they do any Duty for their own Good Salvation or eternal Reward 389. That Believers sins do them no hurt refuted ibid. Sin consider'd formally 392. Effectively 392. Reductively 393. That Believers ought to do no Duty for their own good or with an Eye to their reward refuted 395. Self-ends either Corrupt or Spiritual 397. This Error injurious to the Souls of Men ibid. Error 9. The new Covenant is not made with us but Christ for us The Covenant is wholly a promise without any Condition on our parts That Faith Repentance Obedience are Conditions on Christ's part and that he performs them for us 398. Refuted 399. The Covenant of Redemption and of Grace distinguished ibid. Christ did not believe and repent for us 401. Error 10. They deny Sanctification to be the evidence of Iustification 404. Refuted ibid. The Contents of the Sermon about
Law to omit forbear or give over to curse that People any more But did or can the Law forbear or cease to curse those that are absolutely under it as a ministration of death and condemnation Pray consult Rom. 3. 19. and Gal. 3. 10. Are you aware what you say when you place Believers absolutely under the Curse of the Law and then talk of the New Covenant's victory over it and after all this leave them as you do absolutely under the cursing power of the one and still under the victorious grace of the other For shame my Friend give up your absurd notion and repent of this folly I would not willingly shame you before the World I did all that lay in me to prevent it But however Pudor est medicina pudoris the only way you have left me to prevent your glorying in your shame is this way to make you ashamed of your vain-glory As for that Scripture you alledge to countenance your fancy Rom. 5. 17 20. you might to as good purpose have opened your Bible and have taken the first Scripture that came to hand and it would have done your Position less harm For the Apostle's scope there is to demonstrate the perfection of the abounding Righteousness of Christ for the full discharge of Believers from the guilt of sin and curse of Adam's Covenant and cuts the throat of your Position which it is alledged to prove I have stood the longer upon the clearing of this first Point because this being fully cleared it runs through and clears the whole Controversy betwixt us For now it will be evident to all That neither Abraham's nor Moses his Covenant complexly taken as Mr. Cary takes it could possibly be for this reason an Adam's Covenant of Works and if not a Covenant of Works then how dark or legal soever the Dispensations of them were they must needs be the same Covenant of Grace for substance under which we are and so the main Controversy betwixt us is hereby at an end I know not how many Covenants of Works or how many of Grace Mr. C. fancies there are But Orthodox Divines constantly affirm That as there never were but two ways of Life to mankind the one before the Fall by perfect doing the other after the Fall by sincere believing So answerably there can be but two Covenants betwixt God and Mankind viz. the Covenant of Works and the Covenant of Grace The last of which hath indeed been more obscurely Administred and in that respect is called the Old Covenant yet that and the New are essentially but one Covenant And the Church of God which for many Ages stood under that Old Covenant did not stand under it as an Adam's Covenant or the First Covenant of works for the undeniable Reasons above given And therefor Abraham's Covenant from whence we derive our Childrens Title to Baptism must of necessity be the very same Covenant for substance with this New Covenant which all Abraham's believing off-spring and their Infant-seed are now under And in proving this one point I have sufficiently confuted both Mr. C's Solemn Call and this his feeble vindication of it together But lest he should take this for the only Absurdity proved upon him tho' it be tiresome to me and must be ungrateful to him give me leave to touch one more among many and that the rather because I make great use of it in this Controversy and Mr. Cary both yields and denies it If his own words be the Messengers of his meaning either he or I must mistake their errand I had in my Prolegomena distinguished of the Law as strictly taken for the Ten Commandments and more largely and complexly taken as including the Ceremonial Law The former I considered according to God's intention and design in the promâ—lgation of it which was to add it as an Appendix to the Promise Gal. 3. 19. And the carnal Iews mistaking and perverting the end of the Law and making it to themselves a Covenant of Works by making it the very Rule and Reason of their justification before God Rom. 9. 32 33. Rom. 10. 3. I told him That the Controversy depended upon this double sense of the Law for that it ought not to be denominated from the abused and mistaken End of it but from God's chief scope and design in the promulgation of it which was to add it as an Appendix to the Promise as the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there imports and so must be published with Evangelical purposes Let us now hear Mr. C's sense of this matter In his Call p. 131. he yields the distinction in these words In his Reply p. 43. proving the Law to be a Covenant of Works from Rom. 10. 5. he saith The Jews were right enough in reference to the true nature of the Law That it was a Covenant of Works c. though they were out in respect of its proper use and intention which was not that any should attain unto Life and Righteousness thereby but to shew them the nature of Sin and the Holiness and Righteousness of God to convince them of their sin and misery without Christ and their necessity of a Saviour which they being ignorant of and still going about to establish theâ—r own Righteousness which was of the Law and refusing to submit themselves unto the righteousness of God c. they stumbled at that stumbling stone and were accordingly broken snared and taken Rom. 9. 31 32 33. Rom. 10. 3. And this saith he was the true ground of the dispute between the Apostle and them This was Orthodoxly spoken and would end the Controversy would he stand to it But This was the nature of it in the first sanction of it as the fruit of God's special designation and appointment and that it is the greatest violation and perverting of Scripture that can lightly be met with to affirm that this is uttered and declared by Paul c. only because the Jews had perverted it and reduced it as they thought to its primitive intention And again p. 44. he saith he hath proved that it was the same with Adam's Covenant in both respects that is intentionally as well as materially considered And once more p. 20. he expresly denies that the Law was added as an Appendix to the Promise calls that a crude assertion of mine and asks me Why it might not be added as an Appendix rather to the first Covenant of Works to re-inforce that And after all gushes out many slighting and opprobrious terms upon me which I will not throw back again but rather leave him to reconcile himself with himself I shall only ask Mr. Cary a sober Question or two instead of Recriminations and rendring reviling for reviling First How the Iews were right enough in reference to the true nature of the Law as it was a Covenant of Works and yet out in respect of its proper use and intention which was not that any should attain unto Life and Righteousness
conclude Let the grave and learned Dr. Edw. Reynolds in his excellent Treatise of the Vse of the Law determine this Controversy betwixt us p. 371 c. where designedly handling this Doctrine from Rom. 7. 13. That the Law was revived and promulgated anew on Mount Sinai by the Ministry of Moses with no other than Evangelical and merciful purposes he abundantly confirms my Sense and Arguments and saves me the labour of refuting the principal and most of yours where carrying before him the whole Context of Gal. 3. from the 15th to the 23d he clearly carries his Doctrine with it proving from v. 15. That God's Covenant with Abraham was perpetual and immutable and therefore all other subsequent Acts of God such as the giving of the Law was do some way or other refer unto it 2. From v. 16. he further proves That as God's Covenant with Abraham is most constant in regard of the wisdom and unvariableness of him that made it so it can never expire for want of a Seed to whom it is made 3. From v. 17. he proves that if another Law be made after the Promise which prima specie and in strict construction doth imply a contradiction to the terms and nature of the former Law then it is certain that this latter Law must be understood in some other sense and admit of some other subordinate use which may well consist with the being and force of the former Covenant 4. From v. 18. he proves that the coming of the Law hath not voided the Promise and that the Law is not of force as you vainly dream towards the Seed to whom the Promise is made and therefore if it be not to stand in a contradiction it follows that it must stand in subordination to the Gospel and so to tend to Evangelical Purposes 5. He further proves his Conclusion from v. 19. which shews for what end the Law was added 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It was not saith he set up alone as a thing in gross by it self as an adequate compleat solid Rule of Righteousness as it was given to Adam in Paradise much less was it published to void and disannul any precedent Covenant but so far was it from abrogating that it was added to the Promise by way of subserviency and attendance the better to advance and make effectual the Covenant it self and that until the Seed should come which whether it respect Christ personal or mystical in either sense saith he it confirms the point we are upon viz. That the Law hath Evangelical purposes If the Seed be understood of the Person of Christ then this shews that the Law was put to the Promise the better to raise and stir up in men the expectations of Christ the promised Seed But if we understand by Seed the Faithful which I rather approve then the Apostle's meaning is this That as long as any are either to come into the unity of Christ's Body and have the Covenant of Grace applied to them c. so long there will be use of the Law both to the Unregenerate to make them â—ly to Christ and those that are already called that they may learn to cast all their faith hope and expectation of Righteousness upon him still This then manifestly shews that there was no other intention in publishing the Law but with reference to the Seed that is with Evangelical purposes to shew mercy not with reference to those that perish who would have had condemnation enough without the Law And further strengthens his Conclusion from the last words of vers 19. That it was ordained by Angels in the hand of a Mediator This saith he evidently declares That the Law was published in mercy and pacification not in fury or revenge for the work of a Mediator is to negotiate peace and treat of reconcilement between Parties offended whereas if the Lord had intended death in the publishing of the Law he would not have proclaimed it in the hand of a Mediator but of an Executioner 6. From vers 20. Those words saith he shew why the Law was published in the hand of a Mediator viz. that they should not despair and sink under the fear of his Wrath. For as he made a Covenant of Promise to Abraham and his Seed so he is the same God still one in his grace and mercy towards Sinners God is one i. e. in sending this Mediator he doth declare to Mankind that he is at peace and unity with them again Moses was the Representative and Christ the substantial and real Mediator God is one i. e. he carries the same purpose and intention both in the Law and in the Gospel namely benevolence and desire of reconcilement with men 7. To sum up all that hath been spoken touching the use of the Law in a plain similitude Suppose we a Prince should proclaim a Pardon to all Traitors if they would come in and plead it and after this should send forth his Officers to attach imprison examine convince arraign threaten and condemn them is he now contrary to himself hath he repented of his Mercy No but he is unwilling to lose his Mercy desirous to have the honour of his Mercy acknowledged unto him The same is the Case between God and us To Abraham he made a promise of Mercy and Blessedness to all that would plead interest in it for the remission of their Sins but men were secure and heedless of their Estate c. Hereupon the Lord published by Moses a severe and terrible Law yet in all this God doth but pursue his first purpose of mercy and take a course to make his Gospel accounted worthy of all acceptation which clears the general point That God in the publication of the Law by Moses on Mount Sinai had none but Merciful and Evangelical Intentions And once more The Law was not published by Moses on Mount Sinai as it was given to Adam in Paradise to justify or to save men And p. 385. it is not given ex primariâ— intentione to condemn men In consequence to all which he saith p. 388 389. that to preach the Law alone by it self is to pervert the use of it neither have we any power or commission so to do It was published as an Appendant to the Gospel and so must it be preached It was published in the hand of a Mediator and must be preached in the hand of a Mediator It was published Evangelically and it must be so preached See how this agrees now with p. 173. of your Call and how the several parts of the discourse of this sound and eminent Doctor which I have been forced to sum up and contract do abundantly confute your vain Notions of the Law and cut the very nerves of your best Arguments if they had any nerves in them for indeed it is moles absque nervis It were easy for me to represent the Sense of many other eminent Divines in perfect
to confound Law and Gospel Adam's and Christ's Covenant but the distinction betwixt them is his own therefore my assumption was just That this blood was typically the blood of Christ and that the Holy Ghost signified the one by the other is plain from Heb. 9. 7 8. And I never met with that man that scrupled it before Mr. Cary. So then my first Argument to prove Abraham's Covenant of Circumcision to be the Covenant of Grace and not an Adam's Covenant or any part thereof stands firm after Mr. C's passionate Reply which I hope the Lord will pardon to him though he had scarce Charity enough left to desire a pardon for his Friend who had neither wronged the Truth nor him Argument II. My second Argument was this If Circumcision was the seal of the Righteousness of Faith it did not pertain to the Covenant of Works for the Righteousness of Faith and Works are opposite But Circumcision was the Seal of the Righteousness of Faith Rom. 4. 11. Ergo. The sum of what he answers to this p. 72 73 c. as far as I can pick his true sense out of a multitude of needless words is this He confesses this Argument seems very plausible but however Abraham was a Believer before Circumcision and tho indeed it sealed the Righteousness of Faith to him yet it sealed it to him only as the Father of Believers and denies that ever Jacob or Isaac or any other enrolled in that Covenant were sealed by it but to all the rest beside Abraham it was rather a token of servitude and bondage This is the sum and substance of his Reply But Sir let me ask you two or three plain Questions 1. What is the reason you silently slide over the Question I asked you p. 41. of my Vindiciae c Did you find it an hot Iron which you durst not touch 'T is like you did My Question was this Had Adam 's Covenant a seal of the righteousness of faith annexed to it as this had Rom. 4. 11 The righteousness of faith is evangelical righteousness and this Circumcision sealed Say not it was to Abraham only that it sealed it for 't is an injurious restriction put upon the Seal of a Covenant which extended to the Fathers as well as to Abraham however you admit that it sealed evangelical righteousness to Abraham but I hope you will not say that a Seal of the Covenant of Works for so you make Circumcision to be ever did or could seal evangelical righteousness to any individual person in the World I find you a man of great confidence but certainly here it failed you not one word in Reply to this 2. I told you your distinction was invented by Bellarmine and shew'd you where it was confuted by Dr. Ames but not a word to that 3. I show'd That the extending of that Seal to all Believers as well as Abraham is most agreeable to the drift and scope of the Apostle's Argument which is to prove that both Iews and Gentiles are justified by Faith as Abraham was and that the ground of â—ustification is common to both and that how great soever Abraham was yet in this case he hath found nothing whereof to glory And is not your Exposition a notable one to prove the community of the priviledge of Justification because the Seal of it was peculiar to Abraham alone p. 47 48. Sir You have spent words enough upon this Head to tire your Reader But why can I not meet with one word among them that fairly advances to grapple with my Argument or answer the important Questions before you upon which the matter depends If this be all you have to say I must tell you You are a weak manager of a bad Cause which is the less hazard to Truth Argument III. In the Covenant of Circumcision Gen. 17. God makes over himself to Abraham and his Seed to be their God or gives 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 The sum of your Reply in p. 76. is under two Heads 1. You boldly tell me That God doth in the Covenant of Works make over himself to Sinners to be their God by way of special interest but it being upon such hard terms that it 's utterly impossible for Sinners that way to attain unto life he hath therefore been pleased to abolish that and make a new Covenant and bring Exod. 20. 2. to prove it This is new and strange Divinity with me 1. That God should become a People's God by way of special interest by vertue of the broken Covenant of Works This wholly alters the nature of that Covenant for then it was a Law that could give life contrary to Gal. 3. 21. unless you can suppose a Soul that 's totally dead in Sin to have a special interest in God as his God 2. This Answer of yours yields the Controversy about the nature of the Sinai Law for this very Concession of yours is the Medium by which our Divines prove it to be a Covenant of Grace 3. This Concession of yours confounds the two Covenants by communicating the essential property and prime privilege of the Covenant of Grace to Adam's Covenant of Works Either therefore expunge Ier. 31. 33. as a Covenant of Grace I will be their God and they shall be my people or allow that in Gen. 17. 7. to be specifically the same and that Exod. 20. though more obscurely delivered 4. You assert That God may actually become a Peoples God by way of special interest and yet the salvation of that People be suspended upon impossible terms You sent them before to Purgatory but by this you must send them directly to Hell for if the salvation of God's peculiar People be upon impossible terms 't is certain they cannot be saved And lastly It is an horrid reflection upon the Wisdom and Goodness of God who never did or will make any Covenant wherein he takes fallen Men to be his peculiar People and make over himself to be their God and yet not make provision for their Salvation in the same Covenant but leave their Salvation for many Ages upon hard and impossible terms i. e. leave them under damnation 2. I told you in my Vindiciae c. p. 49. that you were fain to 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 9th verse and the Restipulation as you call it p. 205. to be as pure a Covenant of Works Which I truly said was a bold Action and in so calling it I gave it a softer name than the nature of it deserved The sum of what you reply to this is 1. By denying the matter of fact and charging me with misrepresentation and in
the whole Law for Righteousness You may ponder this Argument at your leisure and not think to refute it at so cheap a rate as by calling it a corrupt gloss of my own And thus I hope I have sufficiently fortified and confirmed my Third Argument to prove Abraham's Covenant to be a Covenant of Grace My Fourth was this Argument IV. That which in its direct and primary end teacheth Man the corruption of his Nature by sin and the mortification of sin by the Spirit of Christ cannot be a condition of the Covenant of Works But so did Circumcision in the very direct and primary end of it Therefore c. Your Reply to this is That when I have substantially proved that the Sinai Covenant as it contained the Passeover Sacrifices Types and Appendages under which were vailed many spiritual Mysteries relating to Christ and mortification of sin by his Grace and Spirit to be no Covenant of Works but a Gospel-covenant you will then grant with me that the present Argument is convincing p. 96 97. of your Reply Sir I take you for an honest man and every honest man will be as good as his word Either I have fully proved against you that the Sinai Law taken in that latitude you here express it is not an Adam's Covenant of Works or I have not If I have not doubtless you have reserved your more pertinent and strong Replies in your own breast and trust not to those weak and silly ones which you see here baffled and have only served to involve you in greater Absurdities than before But if you have brought forth all your strength as in such a desperate strait no man can imagine but you would then I have fully proved the point against you And if I have I expect you to be ingenuous and candid in making good your word That you will then grant with me that this Argument is convincing to the end for which it was designed And so I hope we have fully issued the Controversy between us relating to God's Covenant with Abraham You have indeed four Arguments p. 59 60 61 62. of your Reply to prove Abraham's Covenant a Covenant of Works of the same nature with Adam's Covenant 1. Because as life was implicitly promised to Adam upon his obedience and death explicitly threatned in case of his disobedience which made that properly a Covenant of Works so it was in the Covenant of Circumcision Gen. 17. 7 8. compared with vers 10 14. This Argument or Reason can never conclude because as God never required of Abraham and his Children personal perfect and perpetual obedience to the whole Law for life as he did of Adam so the death or cutting off spoken of here seems to be another thing from that threatned to Adam Circumcision as I told you before was appointed to be the discriminating Sign betwixt Abraham's Seed and the Heathen World and the wilful neglect thereof is here threatned with cutting off by Civil or Ecclesiastical Excommunication from the Commonwealth and Church of Israel as Luther Calvin Paraeus Musculus c. expounds not by death of Body and Soul as was threatned to Adam without place for repentance or hope of mercy 2. You say Abraham's Covenant could not be a Covenant of Faith because Faith was not reckoned to Abraham for Righteousness in Circumcision but in Uncircumcision Rom. 4. 9 10. This is weak reasoning Circumcision could not belong to a Gospel-covenant because Abraham was a Believer before he was circumcised You may as well deny the Lord's Supper to be the Seal of a Gospel-Covenant because the Partakers of it are Believers before they partake of it Beside you cannot deny but it sealed the Righteousness of â—aith to Abraham and I desired you before to prove that a Seal of the Covenant of Works iâ— capable of being applied to such an use and service which you have not done nor ever will be able to do but politickly slided by it 3. You say it cannot be a Covenant of Grace because it is contra-distinguished to the Righteousness of Faith Rom. 4. 13. The Law in that place is put strictly for the pure Law of Nature and Metaleptically signifies the Works of the Law which is a far different thing from the Law taken in that latitude wherein you take it And is not this a pretty Argument that because the promise to Abraham and his Seed was not through the Law but through the Righteousness of Faith therefore the Covenant of God made with Abraham and his Seed Gen. 17. cannot be a gracious but a legal Covenant This Promise mentioned Rom. 4. 13. was made to Abraham long before the Law was given by Moses and Free-grace not Abraham's legal Righteousness was the impulsive cause moving God to make that Promise to Abraham and to his Seed and their enjoyment of the Mercies promised was not to be through the Law but through the Righteousness of Faith By what rule of art this Scripture is alledged to prove God's Covenant with Abraham Gen. 17. to be a Covenant of Works I am utterly to seek If it be only because Circumcision was added to it that 's answered over and over before and you neither have nor can reply to it 4. Lastly It cannot say you be a Covenant of Grace because it 's represented to us in Scripture as a Bondage-covenant Acts 15. 10 c. Gal. 5. 1. 'T is time I see to make an end Your discourse runs low and dreggy Do you think it is one and the same thing to say That the Ceremonial Law was a yoke of bondage to them that were under it and to say it was an Adam's Covenant Are these two parallel distinctions in your Logick Alas Sir there is a wide difference The difficulty variety and chargeableness of those Ceremonies made them indeed burthensome and tiresome to that People but they did not make the Covenant to which they were annexed to become an Adam's Covenant of Works for in the very next breath vers 11. the Apostle will tell you they were saved yea and tells us that we shall be saved even as they So that either they that were under this yoke were saved by Faith in the way of Free-grace as we now are or we must be saved in the way of legal Obedience as they were Take which you please for one of them you must take We shall be saved even as they Acts 15. 10 11. If you can make no stronger opposition to my Arguments than such as you have here made your Cause is lost though your confidence and obstinancy remain It were easy for me to fill more Paper than I have written on this Subject with Names of principal note in the Church of God who with one voice decry your groundless Position and constantly affirm that the Law in the complex sense you take it as it comprehends the Ceremonial Rites and Ordinances whereunto Circumcision pertains is and can be no other than the
dwelleth in our hearts by Faith Eph. 3. 17. Upon which Scriptural Grounds and Reasons it is that we affirm Faith to be an Antecedent Condition or Causa sine quâ non to the saving benefits of the new Covenant and that it must go before them at least in order of nature which is that we mean when we say Faith is the antecedent Condition of the New Covenant And those that deny it to be so as the Antinomians do who talk of actual and personal Justification from Eternity or at least from the death of Christ must consequently assert the actual Justification of Infidels and not only disturb but destroy the whole order of the Gospel and open the Sluces and Flood-gates to all manner of licentiousness And thus our Pious and Learned Divines generally affirm Faith to be the condition of the Covenant So Mr. Ieremiah Burroughs Faith saith he hath the great honour above all other Graces to be the Condition of the second Covenant therefore certainly it is some great matter that Faith enables us to do Whatsoever keeps Covenant with God brings strength though it self be never so weak as Sampson â—s Hair What is weaker than a little Hair Yet because the keeping that was keeping Covenant with God therefore even a little Hair was so great strength to Sampson Faith then that is the Condition of the Covenant in which all Grace and Mercy is contained if it be kept it will cause strength indeed to do great things And as this excellent Man Mr. Burroughs is in this sense for the Conditionality of the New Covenant so are the most Learned and Eminent of our own Divines Dr. Edward Reynold's assigning the differences betwixt the two Covenants gives this for one They differ in the Condition saith he there Legal Obedience here only Faith and the certain consequent thereof Repentance There is difference likewise in he manner of performing these Conditions For now God himself begins first to work upon us and in us before we move or stir towards him He doth not only command us and leave us to our created strength to obey the Command but he furnisheth us with his own Grace and Spirit to obey the Command Of the same judgment is Dr. Owen Are we able saith he of our selves to fulfil the Condition of the New Covenant Is it not as easie for a Man by his own strength to fulfil the whole Law as to repent and believe the Promise of the Gospel This then is one main difference of these two Covenants That the Lord did in the Old only require the Condition now in the New he also effects it in all the foederates to whom the Covenant is extended This is the Man you pretend to be against Conditions Mr. William Pemble opening the nature of the two Covenants saith The Law offers Life unto Man upon condition of perfect Obedience the Gospel offers Life unto Man upon another condition to wit of Repentance and Faith in Christ. And after his proofs for it saith From whence we conclude firmly That the difference between the Law and the Gospel assigned by our Divines is most certain and agreeable to the Scriptures viz. That the Law gives Life unto the just upon condition of perfect obedience in all things the Gospel gives Life unto sinners upon condition they repent and believe in Christ Jesus Learned and judicious Mr. William Perkins thus The Covenant of Grace is that whereby God freely promising Christ and his Benefits exacts again of Man that he would by Faith receive Christ. And again in the Covenant of Grace two things must be considered the Substance thereof and the Condition The Substance of the Covenant is That Righteousness and Life Everlasting is given to God's Church and People by Christ. The Condition is That we for our parts are by Faith to receive the foresaid Benefits and this Condition is by Grace as well as the Substance That Learned Humble and Painful Minister of Christ Mr. Iohn Ball stating the difference betwixt the two Covenants shews that in the Covenant at Sinai in the Covenant with Abraham and that with David that in all these Covenant expressures there are for substance the same Evangelical conditions of Faith and Sincerity Dr. Davenant thus In the Covenant of the Gospel it is otherwise for in this Covenant to the obtainment of Reconciliation Justification and Liâ—e Eternal there is no other condition required than of true and lively Faith Iohn 3. 16. Therefore Justification and the right to Eternal Life doth depend on the Condition of Faith alone Dr. Downame harmonizeth with the rest in these words That which is the only Condition of the Covenant of Grace by that alone we are justified But Faith is the Condition of the Covenant of Grace which is therefore called Lex Fidei Our Writers saith he distinguishing the two Covenants of God that is the Law and the Gospel whereof one is the Covenant of Works the other the Covenant of Grace do teach That the Law of Works is that which to Justification requireth works as the Condition thereof The Law of Faith that which to Justification requireth Faith as the Condition thereof The former saith Do this and thou shalt live the latter Believe in Christ and thou shalt be saved But what stand I upon particular though renowned names You may see a whole Constellation of our sound and famous Divines in the Assembly thus expressing themselves about this Point The Grace of God say they is manifested in the second Covenant in that he freely provideth and offereth to sinners a Mediator and Life and Salvation by him and requiring Faith as the Condition to interest them in him promiseth and giveth his Holy Spirit to all his Elect to work in them that Faith with all other saving Graces and to enable them to all holy Obedience as the evidence of the truth of their Faith c. I could even tire the Reader with the Testimonies of eminent foreign Divines as Cameron de triplici foedere Thes. 82. Vrsinus Paraeus explicatio Catech. Quest 18. de foedere Wendeline Christian Theology Lib. 1. cap. 19. Thes. 9. Poliander Rivet Wallaeus and Thysius the four learned Professors at Leyden Synops Disp. 23. Sect. 27 c. And as for those Ancient and Modern Divines whom the Antinomians have corrupted and misrepresented the Reader may see them all vindicated and their concurrence with those I have named evidenced by that Learned and Pious Mr. Iohn Graile in his Modest Vindication of the Doctrine of Conditions in the Covenant of Grace from p. 58. onward a Man whose name and memory is precious with me not only upon the account of that excellent Sermon he Preached and those fervent Prayers he poured out many years since at my Ordination but for that Learned and Judicious Treatise of his against Mr. Eyre wherein he hath cast great light upon this Controversy as excellent Mr. Baxter and
being in Christ and on that as well as on many accounts necessary The difference between him and other good men seems to lie not so much in the things which the one or other of them believe as about their order and reference to one another where 't is true there may be very material difference but we reckon That notwithstanding what is more controversible in these Writings there are much more material things wherein they cannot but agree and would have come much nearer each other even in these things if they did take some words or terms which come into use on the one or the other hand in the same sense but when one uses a word in one sense another uses the same word or understands it being used in quite another sense here seems a vast disagreement which proves at length to be verbal only and really none at all As let by Condition be meant a deserving Cause in which case 't is well known Civillians are not wont to take it and the one side would never use it concerning any good Act that can be done by us or good Habit that is wrought in us in order to our present acceptance with God or final Salvation Let be meant by it somewhat that by the constitution of the gospel-Gospel-Covenant and in the nature of the thing is requisite to our present and eternal well-being without the least notion of desert but utmost abhorrence of any such notion in this case and the other side would as little refuse it But what need is there for contending at all about a Law-term about the proper or present use whereof there is so little agreement between them it seems best to serve and them it offends Let it go and they will well enough understand one another Again Let Justification be taken for that which is compleat entire and full as it results at last from all its Causes and Concurrents and on the one hand it would never be denied Christ's righteousness justifies us at the Bar of God in the Day of Iudgment as the only deserving cause or affirmed that our Faith Repentance Sincerity do justifie us there as any cause at all Let Iustification be meant only of being justified in this or that particular respect As for instance against this particular Accusation of never having been a Believer and the honest mistaken Prefacer would never have said O horrid upon it s being said Christ's Righteousness doth not justify us in this case For he very well knows Christ's Righteousness will justifie no man that never was a Believer but that which must immediately justifie him against this particular Accusation must be proving that he did sincerely believe which shews his interest in Christ's Righteousness which then is the only deserving cause of his full entire Iustification There is an Expression in Vol. 1. p. 46. That Salvation is not the end of any good work we do which is like that of another we are to act from Life not for Life Neither of which are to be rigidly taken as 't is likely they were never meant in the strict sense For the former this Reverent Author gives us himself the handle for a gentle interpretation in what he presently subjoyns where he makes the end of our good works to be the manifestation of our Obedience and Subjection the setting forth the praise of the glory of the Grace of God which seems to imply that he meant the foregoing negation in a comparative not in an absolute sense understanding the glory of God to be more principal and so that by end he meant the very ultimate end so for the other 't is likely it was meant that we should not act or work for life only without aiming and endeavouring that we might come to work from life also For it is not with any tolerable charity supposable that one would deliberately say the one or the other of these in the rigid sense of the words or that he would not upon consideration presently unsay it being calmly reasoned with For it were in effect to abandon Humane Nature and to sin against a very Fundamental Law of our Creation not to intend our own felicity it were to make our first and most deeply Fundamental Duty in one great essential branch of it our sin viz. To take the Lord for our God For to take him for our God most essentially includes our taking him for our supream good which we all know is included in the notion of the last end it were to make it unlawful to strive against all sin and particularly against sinful oversion from God wherein lies the very death of the Soul or the sum of its misery or to strive after perfect conformity to God in holiness and the full fruition of him wherein its final blessedness doth principally conâ—ist It were to teach us to violate the great Precepts of the Gospel Repent that your sins may be blotted out Strive to enter in at the strait Gate Work out your salvation with fear and trembling To obliterate the Paterns and Precedents set before us in the Gospel We have believed in Jesus Christ that we might be justified I beat down my body lest I should be a castaway That thou mayest save thy self and them that hear thee It were to suppose one bound to do more for the salvation of others than our own salvation We are required to save others with fear plucking them out of the fire Nay we were not by this rule strictly understood so much as to pray for our own salvation which is a doing of somewhat when no doubt we are to pray for the success of the Gospel to this purpose on behalf of other meâ— T were to make all the threatnings of Eternal Death and promises of Eternal Life we find in the Gospel of our Blesâ—ed Lord useless as motives to shun the one and obtain the other For they can be motives no way but as the escaping of the former and the attainment of the other have with us the places and consideration of an end It makes what is mentioned in the Scripture as the Character and commendation of the most eminent Saints a fault as of Abraham Isaac and Jacob c. That they sought the better and Heavenly Countrey and declared plainly that they did so which necessarily implies their making it their end But let none be so harsh as to think of any good man that he intended any thing of all this if every passage that falls from us be stretch'd and tortured with utmost severity we shall find little to do besides accusing others and defending our selves as long as we live A Spirit of meekness and love will do more to our Common Peace than all the Disputations in the World Vpon the whole We are so well assured of the peaceful healing temper of the present Author of these Treatises That we are persuaded he designed such a course of managing the Controversies wherein he hath concerned himself as
not on the one hand to injure the memory of the Dead and on the other to prevent hurt or danger to the Living Nor do we say thus much of him as if he sought or did need any Letters of Recommendation from us but as counting this Testimony to Truth and this expression of respect to him a Debt to the spontaneous payment whereof nothing more was requisite besides such a fair occasion as the Providence of God hath now laid before us inviting us thereunto John Howe Vin. Alsop Nath. Mather Increase Mather John Turner Rich. Bures Tho. Powel AN EPISTLE TO THE READER Candid Reader CEnsure not this Treatise of ERRORS as an Error in my Prudentials in sending it forth at such an improper time as this I should never spontaneously have awakened sleeping Controversies after God's severe castigation of his people for them and in the most proper and hopeful season for their Redintegration And beside what I have formerly said I think fit here to add That if the attacque had been general and not so immediately and particularly upon that Post or Quarter I was set to defend I should with Elihu have modestly waited till some abler and more skilful hand had undertaken the defence of this Cause If ever I felt a temptation to envy the happiness of my Brethren it hath been whilst I saw them quietly feeding their Flocks and my self forced 〈◊〉 some part of my precious 〈…〉 time devoted to the 〈…〉 combating with unquiet and erring Brâ—thren But I see I must not be my own chuser Notwithstanding I hope and am in some measure persuaded That publick benefit will redound to the Church from this irksâ—me Labour of mine And that this strife will spread no further but the Malady be cured by an Antidote growing in the very place where it began And that the Christian Camp will not take a general Alarm from such a â—ingle Duel The Book now in thy hands consisteth of Four parts viz. 1. A general Discourse of the Causes and Cures of Errors very necessary at all times especially at this time for the reduction and establishment of seduced and staggering Christians and nothing of that nature having occurred to my observation among the manifold Polemical Tracts that are extant I thought it might be of some use to the Churches of Christ in such a vertigenous Age as we live in and the blessing of the Lord go forth with it for benefit and establishment 2. Next thou hast here the Controversies moved by my Antagonist first about the Mosaick Law complexly taken which he boldly pronounces to be an Adam's Covenant of works And secondly about God's Covenant with Abraham Gen. 17. which he also makes the same with that God made with Adam in Paradise and affirms Circumcision expresly called a Seal of the Righteousness of Faith to be the Seal of the said Covenant of Works first made with Adam 3. Finding my Adversary in the pursuit of his design running into many Antinomian delirations to the reproach and damage of the Cause he contends for I thought it necessary to take the principal Errors of Antinomianism into examination especially at such a time as this when they seem to spring afresh to the hazard of God's Truth and the Churches Peace wherein I have dealt with becoming-modesty and plainness if haply I might be any way instrumental in my plain and home way of Argumentation to detect the falsity and dangerous nature of those notions which some good men have vented and preserve the sounder part of the Church from so dangerous a contagion 4. In the next place I think it necessary to advertise the Reader That whereas in my first Appendix under that head of the Conditionality of the New Covenant I have asserted Faith to be the Condition of it and do acknowledg p. 246. that the word Condition is variously used among Iurists yet I do not use in any sense which implies or insinuates that there is any such condition in the New Covenant as that in Adam's Covenant was consisting in perfect personal and perpetual obedience or any thing in its own nature meritorious of the benefits promised or capable to be performed by us in our own strength but plainly that it be an act of ours tho' done in God's strength which must be necessarily done before we can be actually justified or saved and so there is found in it the true suspending nature of a condition which is the thing I contend for when I affirm Faith is the condition of the New Covenant How many senses soever may be given of this word Condition this is the determinate sense in which I use it throughout this Controversy And whosoever denies the suspending Nature of Faith with respect to actual Justification pleads according to my understanding for the actual Justification of Infidels And thus I find a Condition defined by Navar Iohan. Baptist. Petrus de Perus c. Conditio est Suspensio alicujus dispositionis tantisper dum aliquid futurum fiat And again Conditio est quidam futurus eventus in quem dispositio suspenditur Once more My Reader possibly may be stumbled at my calling Faith sometimes the Instrument and sometimes the Condition of our Justification when there is so great a Controversy depending among Learned Men with respect to the use of both those terms I therefore desire the Reader to take notice That I dive not into that Controversy here much less presume to determine it but finding both those Notions equally opposed by our Antinomians who reject our actual Justification by Faith either way and allow to Faith no other use in our actual Justification but only to manifest to us what was done from Eternity I do therefore use both those terms viz. the Conditionality and Instrumentality of Faith with respect unto our Justification and shew in what sense those terms are useful in this Controversy and are accommodate enough to the design and purpose for which I use them how repugnant soever they are in that particular wherein the Learned contend about the Use and Application of them To be plain when I say Faith justifies us as an Organ or Instrument my only meaning is that it receives or apprehends the Righteousness of Christ by which we are justified and so speaking to the Quomodo or manner of our Justification I say with the general Suffrage of Divines we are justified instrumentally by Faith But in our Controversy with the Antinomians where another different Question is moved about the Quando or time of our actual Justification there I affirm that we are actually justified at the time of our believing and not before and this being the Act upon which our Justification is suspended I call Faith the Condition of our Justification This I desire may be observed lest in my use of both those terms my Reader should think either that I am not aware of the Controversy depending about those terms or that I do herein manifest the vacillancy of
The knowledg of them is a good defensative against them Now there are two common Artifices of Seducers which it is not safe for Christians to be ignorant of First They usually seek to disgrace and blast the reputations of those Truths and Ministers set for their defence which they design afterwards to overthrow and ruin and to beget credit and reputation to those Errors which they have a mind to introduce How many precious truths of God are this day and with this design defamed as legal and carnal Doctrines and those that defend them as Men of an Old Testament spirit Humiliation for Sin Contrition of Spirit c fall under disgrace with many and indeed all qualifications and pre-requisites unto coming to Christ as things not only needless but pernicious unto the Souls of Men although they have not the least dependance upon them Yea Faith it self as a pre-requisite unto Justification as no better than a Condition pertaining to Adam's Covenant And so for the persons of Orthodox Ministers you see into what contempt the false Teachers would have brought both the Person and Preaching of Paul himself 2 Cor. 10. 10. His bodily presence say they is weak and his speech contemptible Secondly Their other common Artifice is to insinuate their false Doctrines among many acknowledged and precious Truths which only serve for a convenient vehicle to them and besides that to make their Errors as palatable and gustful as they can to the vitiated Appetite of corrupt Nature The forementioned Worthy hath judiciously observed how artificially Satan hath blended his baneful Doses to please the Palate of Carnal Reason Spiritual Pride and the desire of Fleshly Liberty Carnal Reason is that great Idol which the more intelligent part of the carnal World worships And are not the Socinian Heresies as pleasant to it as a well-mixt Iulep to a feverish Stomach Spiritual Pride is another Diana which obtains greatly in the World and no Doctrine like the Pelagian and Semipelagian Errors gratify it A Doctrine that sets fallen Nature upon its Legs again and persuades it it can go alone to Christ at least with a little external help of Moral suasion without any preventing or creating work in the Soul This goes down glib and grateful And then for Fleshly Liberty How do those that are fond of it rejoice in that Doctrine or Opinion which looses Nature from the yoke of restraint How does the poor deluded Papist hug himself to think he hath liberty by his Religion to let loose the reins of his Lust to all sensualities and quit himself from all that guilt by Auricular Confession to the Priest once a year How doth the Familist smile upon that Principle of his which tells him the Gospel allows more Liberty than severe Legal Teachers think fit to tell them of They press Repentance and Faith but Christ hath done all this to thy hands Cause XII Having considered the several Causes of Errors found in the evil dispositions of the seduced as also the impulsive and instrumental Causes namely Satan and false Teachers employed by him I shall next proceed to discover some special and most successful Methods frequently used by them to draw the minds of Men from the Truth Amongst which that which comes first to consideration is the great skill they have in representing the ABVSES of the Ordinances of God and Duties of Religion by wicked Men to scare tender and weak Consciences from the due use of them and all further attendance upon them The abuse of Christ's holy Appointments are so cunningly improved to serve this design that the minds of many well-meaning persons receive such deep disgust at them that they are scarce ever to be reconciled to them again A strong prejudice is apt to drive Men from one extream upon another as thinking they can never get far enough off from that which hath been so scaringly represented to them Thus making good the old Observation Dum vitant stulti vitia in contraria currunt they run from the troublesome smoak of Superstition into the Fire of an irreligious contempt of God's Ordinances split themselves upon Charybdis to avoid Scylla Ex. gra The Papists having deeply abused the Ordinance of Baptism by their corruptive mixtures and additions of the superstitious Cross Chrism c. part whereof is not sufficiently purged to this day by the Reformation and finding also multitudes of carnal Protestants dangerously resting upon their supposed baptismal Regeneration to the great hazard of their Salvation which mistake is but too much countenanced by some of its Administrators They take from hence such deep offence at the administration of it to any Infants at all though the Seed of God's Covenanted People that they think they can never be sharp enough in their invectives against it nor have they patience to hear the most rational defences of that Practise So for that Scriptural Heavenly Duty of Singing What more commonly alledged against it than the abuse and ill effects of that precious Ordinance How often is the Nonsense and Error of the common Translation the rudeness and dulness of the Metre of some Psalms as Psal. 7. 13. as also the cold formality with which that Ordinance is performed by many who do but Parrotize I say How often are these things buz'd into the ears of the people to alienate their hearts from so sweet and beneficial a Duty And very often we find it urged to the same end how unwarrantable and dangerous a thing it is for carnal and unregenerated persons to appropriate to themselves in Singing those Praises and Experiences which are peculiar to the Saints not understanding or considering that the singing of Psalms is an Ordinance of Christ appointed for teaching and admonition as well as praising Col. 3. 16. Teaching and admonishing one another in Psalms and Hymns c. Thus Antinomianism took if not its rise yet its encouragement from the too rigorous pressing of the Law upon convinced sinners If Satan can prevail first with wicked Men to corrupt and abuse God's Ordinances by the superstitious mixtures and additions and then with good Men to renounce and slight them for the sake of those abuses he fully obtains his design and gives Christ a double wound at once one by the hand of his avowed Enemies the other by the hands of his Friends no less grievous than the first First wicked Men corrupt Christ's Ordinances and then good Men nauseate them The Remedies The proper Remedies against Errors insinuated by the abuses of Duties and Ordinances are such as follow Remedy I. Let Men consider that there is nothing in Religion so great so sacred and excellent but some or other have greatly corrupted or vilely abused them What is there in the whole World more precious and excellent than the Free-grace of God and yet you read Iude 4. of some that turned the Grace of our Lord into Lasciviousness What more desirable to Christians than the glorious Liberty Christ
a pure Adam's Covenant of Works but to prevent Mistakes in the Reader 2. It must be heedfully observed also that how free gracious and absolute soever the New Covenant be for God forbid that I should go about to eclipse the glory of Free-grace on which my Soul depends for Salvation yet that will never prove Abraham's Covenant to be an abolished Adam's Covenant of Works unless two things more be proved which I never expect to see viz. First That Abraham and his believing Posterity were bound by the very nature and act of Circumcision to keep the whole Law in their own persons in order to their Justification and Salvation as perfectly and perpetually and under the same penalty for the least failure as Adam was to keep the Law in Paradise Secondly It must be further proved That Abraham and all his believing Off-spring who stood with him under that Covenant whereof Circumcision was the initiating Sign were all saved in a different way from that in which Believers are now saved under the Gospel for so it must be if the addition of Circumcision made it unto them an Adam's Covenant of Works But this would be a direct contradiction to the words of the Apostle speaking of them who were under the Covenant of Circumcision Acts 15. 11. But we believe that through the grace of our Lord Iesus Christ we shall be saved even as they If he say they stood indeed under that Covenant as a pure Covenant of Works but were saved by another Covenant and so for many Ages the Church of God stood absolutely under the Covenant of Works and at the same time under the pure Covenant of Grace the one altogether absolute and free the other wholly conditional and though these two be in their own natures inconsistent and destructive of each other yet so it was that all the Saints for many Ages were absolutely under the one and yet purely under the other shall I be then censured for saying he speaks pure contradiction Possibly my Reader will be tempted to think I abuse him and that no man of common sense can be guilty of such an horrid Absurdity I must whatever respect I have for Mr. C. once more tell him before the World that this is not only his own Doctrine but that very Doctrine upon which he hath adventured the whole Cause and Controversie of Infants Baptism which I therefore say is hereby become a desperate Cause And this brings me to my first general Head viz. I. First That Mr. Cary hath not been able to free his Thesis from this borrid absurdity but by strugling to do it hath according to the nature of Errors entangled himself in more and greater ones Mr. Cary in p. 174 175. of his Solemn Call was by me reduced to this Absurdity which he there owns in express words That Moses and the whole body of the People of Israel were absolutely under without the exception of any the severest penalties of a dreadful Curse and that the Sinai Covenant could be no other than a Covenant of Works a ministration of death and condemnation and yet at the same time both Moses and all the Elect were under a pure Covenant of Gospel-grace And if these were two contrary Covenants in themselves and just opposite the one to the other as indeed they were we have nothing to say but with the Apostle O the depth c. This Reader is the Position which must be made good by Mr. Cary or his Cause is lost Deformed Issues do not look as if they had beautiful Truth for their Mother No false or absurd Conclusion can regularly follow from true Premisses But hence naturally and necessarily follows this Absurdity I. That Abraham Moses and all the Believers under the Old Testament by standing absolutely under Adam's Covenant of Works as a ministration of death and condemnation and at the same time purely under the Covenant of Grace as Mr. C. affirms they did must necessarily during their lives hang mid-way betwixt Life and Death Justification and Condemnation and after death midway betwixt Heaven and Hell During life they could neither be justified nor condemned Justified they could not be for Justification is the Soul 's passing from death to life 1 Iohn 3. 14. Iohn 5. 24. Upon a man's justification his Covenant and State are changed but the Covenant and State of no man can be so changed as long as he remains absolutely under the severest Penalties and condemnation of the Law as Mr. C. affirms they did Again Condemned they could not be seeing all that are under the pure Covenant of Grace as he saith they were at the same time are certainly in Christ and to such there is no condemnation Rom. 8. 1. nor ever shall be Ioh. 5. 24. He that believeth shall not come into condemnation but is passed from death unto life What remains then but that during life they could neither be perfectly justified nor perfectly condemned and yet being absolutely under the severest Penalties of Adam's Covenant they were perfectly condemned and again being under the pure Covenant of Grace they must be perfectly justified And then after death they must neither go to Heaven nor Hell but either be annihilated or stick mid-way in Limbo Patrum as the Papists fancy betwixt both No condemned Person goes to Heaven nor any justified Person to Hell His Position therefore which necessarily infers this gross Absurdity is justly renounced and detested by Learned and Orthodox Divines The Learned and Acute Turrettine the late famous Professor of Divinity at Geneva proving that the Sinai Law could not be a pure Covenant of Works brings this very Medium to prove it as a known truth allowed by all men The Israelites saith he with whom God covenanted were already under Abraham's Covenant which was a Covenant of Grace and were saved in Christ by it therefore they could not be under the Legal Covenant Nemo enim simul potest duoâ—us foederibus totâ specie distinctis subesse because no man can be under two Covenants specifically different at the same time as these two are That Great and Renowned Divine Mr. William Strong gives four irrefragable Arguments to prove that no man can stand under both these Covenants at the same time which in co-ordination actually destroy and make void each other If the First Covenant stand there is no place for the Second and if the Second stand the first is made void And this saith he will fully appear if we consider the direct contrariety in the terms of those two Covenants For 1. the Righteousness of the first Covenant is in our selves but the Righteousness of the Second is the Righteousness of another 1 Ioh. 5. 11. 12. 2. In the Covenant of Works acceptation is first of the Works and afterwards of the Person Gen. 4. 7. but in the Covenant of Grace the acceptation is first of the Person and then of the Work Gen. 4. 4. 3. The First Covenant was a Covenant
by it but to convince them of Sin and of the necessity of a Saviour and yet the Law be a Covenant of Works intentionally as well as materially considered and that in respect of God's special designation and appointment If God designed and appointed it in his Sinai dispensation to be to them an Adam's Covenant of Works then certainly they were not out as you say they were when they sought Righteousness by the works of it nor could that mistake of theirs be the ground of the Controversy betwixt the Apostle and them For it seems it was no mistake being by God's intention as well as its own primitive nature promulged at Sinai as a true Adam's Covenant Secondly You deny the Law was added to the Promise and ask me why it might not be added to the first Covenant to re-inforce that I answer Because the scope of the place will not bear it nor any good Expositor countenance such a fancy You make the Sinai Law to be the same with that first Covenant and by so expounding the Apostle you make him say either that the same thing was added to it self which must in your own Phrase be by a Correspondency of Identity or else that there are two distinct Covenants of Works when indeed there is but one and that the latter was added to the former This is your way of Expounding Scripture when driven to a streight by dint of Argument Nothing beside such a pure necessity could drive you upon such an Absurdity It was added to the promise saith Dr. Reynolds by way of subserviency and attendance the better to advance and make effectual the Covenant it self Mr. Strong upon the two Covenants saith the Apostle's meaning is that the Law was added as an Appendix to the Promise But it may be you had rather hear Dr. Crisp's Exposition than his for you say had it been added to the Promise it would have given life The Doctor will at once give you the true sense of the Text and with it a full answer to your Objection Though Life saith he be not the end of the Law yet there are other sufficient uses of it requiring the promulgation thereof It was published to be an Appendix to the Gospel Gal. 3. 19. And this supposes 1. The priority of the Gospel to the Law 2. The principality of the Promise of Life by Christ above the Law 3. The Consistence of the Law and Gospel They may well stand one by another as an House and the addition to it may That it was with such an intention added to the Promise I have met with no Man that had front enough to deny or scruple it before you And that the Iews did mistake its chief scope and use from whence we denominate it a Covenant of Grace the generality of Godly and Learned Divines constantly affirm See Mr. Anth. Burgess de Lege p. 227. Bolton's Bounds p. 160 161. Mr. Samuel Mather on the Types p. 11. with multitudes more whose citations would even weary the Reader And what you urge from Mr. Poole's Annotations on 2 Cor. 3. 6 7. it makes nothing at all to your purpose For it is manifest the Annotator there takes the Moral Law in it self strictly taken and as set in opposition to the Gospel which it never was since the Fall but by the ignorance and infidelity of unregenerate Men. You also labour to shelter your erroneous fancy under the authority of Dr. Owen but you manifestly abuse him in your Citation for in that very place you refer to he speaks strictly of the Covenant of Works made with Adam in Paradise and plainly distinguishes it from the Sinai Covenant which sufficiently shews his judgment in this point For these are his own words which you suppressed in the Citation As to the Sinai Covenant and the New Testament with their privileges thence emerging they belong not to our present Argument This Paragraph you wilfully omit that you might include that which his words plainly exclude In the same place he tells you that David and Abraham's Covenant was for essence the Covenant of Grace notwithstanding the variations made in it But you take and leave as best suits your design Once more in p. 16 17 c. of my Vindiciae Legis you find your self pinched with another Dilemma from Lev. 26. 40 41 46. whence I plainly proved That there is a Promise of Pardon found in the Sinai dispensation to penitent sinners That this Promise was given at Mount Sinai by the hand of Moses is undeniable from vers 46. That it contained the Relief of a gracious remission to penitent sinners is as undeniable from vers 40 41. If you say this Promise belongs to Moses his dispensation as verse 46. tells you it did then there is remission of Sins found in the Sinai Laws If you say it only refers to Abraham's Covenant of Grace then that Covenant of Grace appears to be conditional which you utterly deny Now what is your Reply to this 1. You object my own words in the Method of Grace p. 326. as if you had never read the just and fair Vindication I had before given you of them p. 134 135. of my first Reply to you At this rate Men may continue Controversies to the Worlds end Sir there are many Witnesses that you are very well acquainted with my Method of Grace 2. You say p. 31. of your Reply That that Covenant could not be conditional because a Condition implies merit either of congruity or condignity This is a further discovery of your ignorance of the nature of Conditions as well as Covenants But that Point belonging to the last Head of Controversy between us I shall refer it thither It were easie for me to instance in many more Absurdities which Mr. C. cannot eluctate and to prove them upon him as easily as to name them But I will not press him too far what hath been named and proved already is more than enough to convince the Reader that my first Argument is left standing in its full force and strength against him viz. Argument I. That Proposition can never be true which necessarily draws many and horrid gross absurdities after it by just consequence But so doth this Ergo. Argument II. My next Argument Vindiciae c. p. 27. is as secure as the first It was this If Adam's Covenant had one end namely the Happiness and Justification of Men by their own Obedience and the Law at Sinai had quite another end namely to bring Sinners to Christ by Faith for their Righteousness the one to keep him within himself the other to take him quite out of himself then the Sinai Law cannot possibly be the same with Adam's Covenant of Works in Paradise But so stands the Case Rom. 10. 4. Christ is the end of the Law for righteousness to every one that believeth Therefore they cannot be the same but two different Covenants All that touches this Argument is but
the next page confessing the whole Charge saying Though the Promise 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 vers 2 4. the other between God and Abraham and his natural Posterity also vers 7 8 9 10. The former you call a Covenant of Grace the latter a Covenant of Works And p. 81. you affirm That after God had entred the Covenant of Grace with Abraham v. 2 4. that Abraham himself was required to be circumcised by the Command of God as a Token of the Covenant of Works And then after some unbecoming Scoffs for misplacing vers 7 8. where vers 9 10. should be as also of Gen. 12. for Gen. 17. whether by the Scribe my Self or Press I cannot say but in each place sufficient light is given to set you right in the scope and Argument of my Discourse you tell us That how harsh and unlikely soever it may seem to man's carnal reason that the latter to wit the Covenant of Works made with Abraham vers 9 10. must needs make void the Covenant of Grace made with him vers 2 4. yet the Apostle gives a quite contrary resolution of it Gal. 3. 17. And after all p. 79. in return to my Argument That the Circumcision of Abraham and his Seed vers 9 10. could not possibly be a condition of Adam's Covenant of Works from the nature of the act because Paul himself circumcised Timothy Act. 16. 1 2 3. and asserts it to be a part of his Liberty Gal. 2. 3. 4. which could never be if in the very nature of the act it had bound Timothy to keep the Law for justification and had been contrary to the whole scope of the Apostle's Doctrine but it became an obligation only from the intention of the Agent All that you say to this p. 95. is That as for Paul's compliance with the Iews however the case stood in that respect this is certain That the blessed Apostle would never have expressed himself with that vehemency he doth Gal. 5. 2 3. if this had been only the sense of the Iewish Teachers or that Circumcision in its own nature did not oblige to the keeping of the whole Law and that this is only my corrupt gloss upon the Text. If there be but one Covenant made betwixt God and Abraham in that 17th of Genesis and you make two not only numerically but specifically distinct yea opposite Covenants of it then you boldly cut God's Covenant with Abraham in two and are guilty of an insufferable abuse of the Covenant of God But the former is true therefore so is the latter You say p. 223 224. of your Call That at the second and fourth Verses God made a Covenant with Abraham himself alone but at verse 7. he makes the Covenant of Circumcision betwixt himself and Abraham and his natural Seed also and saith vers 7. And or according to the old Translation Moreover as proceeding to speak of another Covenant than what he had been before insisting on Now I would soberly ask 1. What Vouchers you have amongst Expositors for this your rash and daring Assertion I find not a man that hath trod this path before you and I hope none will be hardy enough to follow You certainly stand alone and 't is pity but you should 2. Where do you find the just parts of the New Covenant in the 2d and 4th verse Is it not altogether promisory on God's part without any restipulation on Abraham's for you have excluded v. 1 9 10. from that which you call God's Covenant of Grace with him And then for your Covenant of Works vers 7 8 9 10. you make this to be the Promisory part of that Covenant to be a God unto thee and to thy Seed after thee and again vers 8. I will be their God Was ever such a Promise as this found in a Covenant of Works Tell me what-ever God said more in the New Covenant than he saith here Oh blessed Covenant of Works if this be such 3. Tell me whether you can satisfy your own Conscience with the Answers you have given to my first Argument against your paradoxical yea heterodoxical Exposition I told you That if vers 7 8 9 10. contain another Covenant viz. of Works entred by God with Abraham and his Seed it must needs make void the former Covenant vers 2 4. for where-ever the Covenant of Works takes place the Co-Covenant of Grace gives place they cannot consist as I have abundantly proved before Do you verily think those words of the Apostle Gal. 3. 17. which you bring as a foundation to support your singular and sinful Exposition viz. And this I say That the Covenant that was confirmed before of God in Christ the Law which was four hundred and thirty years after cannot disannul that it should make the Promise of none effect do you think I say that in that or any other Text the Apostle opposes the two Covenants made as you fancy with Abraham Gen. 17 or doth he not there speak of God's Covenant with Abraham as distinguished from the Law made 430. years afterward 4. Have you satisfied your own Judgment and Conscience in the Reply you make to that unanswerable Objection from Paul's circumcising of Timothy Acts 16. 2 3. where you have the plain matter of fact before you that he was circumcised by Paul and this Fact of his justified as a part of the Liberty he had in Christ Gal. 2. 3 4. from whence it evidently appears That Circumcision in its own nature did not simply and absolutely oblige men to the keeping of Moses his Law for Righteousness but only from the intention or opinion of the Person And though you call this my corrupt gloss upon the Text therein you grosly abuse me The gloss is neither corrupt nor my own but the unanimous Judgment of all sound Expositors of the Text as you might see were you capable of seeing it in a Collection of their Judgments upon that Text Gal. 5. 2 3. in Mr. Poole's Synopsis And tho Estius thinks the Act of Circumcision might be obligatory to the Gentiles to whom the Law was not given yet it was not so to the Iews that believed and such was Timothy But why do I refer you to the Judgment of Commentators the very reason of it may convince you For If the very Act of Circumcision did in its own nature oblige all on whom it passed to keep the whole Law for their Righteousness then Paul so obliged Timothy and all others on whom he passed it to keep the Law for their Righteousness But Paul did not oblige Timothy or any other on whom he passed it by the very Act of Circumcision so to keep the Law Therefore the very Act of Circumcision in its own nature did not oblige all on whom it passed to keep
Whether any Condition required by it on our part have any thing in its own nature meritorious of the Benefits promised nor 4. Whether we be able in our own strength and by the power of our Free-will without the preventing as well as the assisting Grace of God to perform any such work or duty as we call a Condition These things I told you were to be excluded out of this Controversy But the only Question betwixt us is Whether in the New Covenant some act of ours though it have no merit in it nor can be done in our own single strength be not required to be performed by us antecedently to a blessing or privilege consequent by vertue of a promise And whether such an act or duty being of a suspending nature to the blessing promised it have not the true and proper nature of a Gospel-condition In your Reply contrary to all rule and reason you include and chiefly argue against the very Particulars by me there excluded and scarcely if at all touch the true Question as it was stated and by you ought accordingly to have been considered I might therefore justly think my self discharged from any further concernment with you about it for if you will include what I plainly excluded you argue not against mine but another man's Position which I am not concerned to defend You here dispute against meritorious Conditions which I explode and abhor as much as your self You say p. 34. of your Reply that a Condition plainly implies something of merit by way of condignity or congruity which is false and turns the Question from me to the Papists And were it not more for the clearing up of so great a Point for the instruction and satisfaction of others than any hope you give me of convincing you I should not have touched this Question again unless I had found your Replies more distinct and pertinent But finding the Point in controversy of great weight I will once more tell you 1. What the word Condition signifies 2. In what sense it is by us used in this Controversy 3. Establish my Arguments for the conditionality of the New Covenant 1. And first we grant That neither our word Condition nor your term Absolute are either of them found in Scripture with respect to God's covenanting with Man so that we contend not about the signification of a Scripture term But though the word Conditional be not there yet the thing being found there That brings the word Conditional into use in this Controversy For we know not how to express those â— sacred Particles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. If If not Vnless But if Except Only and the like which are frequently used to limit and restrain the Grants and Privileges of the New Covenant Rom. 10. 9. Matt. 18. 3. Mark 5. 36. Mark 11. 26. Rom. 4. 24. I say we know not how to express the true sense and force of these Particles in this Controversy by any other word so fit and full as the word Conditional is Now this word Condition being a Law-term is variously used among Iurists and the various use of the word occasions that confusion which is found in this Controversy He therefore that shall clearly distinguish the various senses and uses of the word is most likely to labour with success in this Controversy I shall therefore briefly note the principal senses and uses of the term and shew in what sense we here take it Of Conditions there be two sorts Conditions 1. Antecedent 2. Consequent As to the latter namely consequent Conditions you your self acknowledge p. 100. That in the outward dispensation of the Covenant many things are required of us in order unto the participation or enjoyment of the full end of the Covenant in glory So then the Covenant is acknowledged to be consequently conditional which is no more than to say with the Apostle Without holiness no man shall see God or that if any man drawâ— back his soul shall have no pleasure in him c. Our Controversy therefore is not about consequent Conditions laid by God upon Believers after they are in Christ and the Covenant the Covenant so considered à posteriori will not be denied to be Condiâ—tional The only Question is about Antecedent Conditions and of these we are here to consider 1. Such as respect the first Sanction of the Covenant in Christ. 2. Such as respect the application of the benefits of the Covenant unto Men As to the first Sanction of the Covenant in Christ we freely acknowledg â—t hath no previous Condition on Manâ—s part but depends purely and only upon the Grace of God and Merit of Christ. So that our Question proceeds about such antecedent Conditions only as respect the Application of the Benefits of the Covenant unto Men. And of these Antecedent Conditions there are likewise two sorts which must be carefully distinguished 1. Such Antecedent Conditions which have the force of a meritorious and impulsive Cause which being performed by the proper strength of Nature or at most by the help of common assisting Grace do give a Man a right to the reward or blessings of the Covenant And in this sense we utterly disclaim antecedent Conditions as I plainly told you p. 61. of my Vindiciae c. Or 2. An Antecedent Condition signifying no more than an Act of ours which though it be neither perfect in every degree nor in the least meritorious of the benefit conferred nor performed in our own natural strength yet according to the constitution of the Covenant is required of us in order to the blessings consequent thereupon by vertue of the Promise and consequently the benefits and mercies granted in the Promise in this order are and must be suspended by the Donor or Disposer of them until it be performed Such a Condition we affirm Faith to be But here again Faith 〈…〉 the Condition of the New Covenant is considered 1. Essentially Or 2. Organically and Instrumentally In the first consideration of Faith according to its Essence it is contained under Obedience and in that respect we exclude it from justifying our persons or entitling us to the saving-mercies of the New Covenant as it is a work of ours and so I excluded it p. 133. of my Method of Grace which you ignorantly or wilfully mistake when in your Reply p. 88 89. you object it against me Faith considered in this sense is not the Condition of the Covenant nor can pretend to be so more than any other Grace But We consider it Organically Relatively and as most speak Instrumentally as it receives Christ Ioh. 1. 12. and so gives us power to become the Sons of God it being impossible for any Man to partake of the saving benefits of the Covenant but as he is united to Christ. For all the Promises of God in him are yea and in him Amen 2 Cor. 1. 20. And united to Christ no Man can be before he be a believer for Christ
Mr. Woodbridge have also done But alas what evidence is sufficient to satisfy ignorant and obstinate Men Sir it pities me to see the lamentable confusion you are in You are forced by the evidence of truth to yield and own the substance of what I contend for You have yielded the Covenant to be consequently Conditional in p. 84. of your Reply You have also as plainly yielded that the Application of Pardoning Mercy unto our Souls is in order of nature consequent unto believing p. 31. of your Reply From both which concessions in your own words recited this Conclusion is evident and unavoidable viz. That no adult person notwithstanding God's Eternal Election and Christ's meritorious death and satisfaction according to the Constitution and Order of the New Covenant can either be justified in this World or saved in the World to come unless he first believe For if the Application of Pardoning Mercy unto our Souls is in order of Nature consequent unto believing as you truly affirm it to be then according to the Constitution and Order of the New Covenant no application of pardoning Mercy can be made to our Souls before we believe And if it be evident as you say it is p. 84. that unto a full and compleat enjoyment of all the Promises of the Covenant Faith on our part is required then as no Man can be actually justified in this World so neither can he be saved before or without Faith in the World to come And if you did but see the true suspending nature of Faith which you plainly yield in these two concessions you would quickly grant the conditional nature of it For what is the proper nature and true notion of a Condition but to suspend the benefits and grants of that Covenant in which it is so inserted And thus the Controversy betwixt us is fairly issued But I doubt you understand not what you have here written or are troubled with a very bad memory Because I find you in a far different note from this in p. 103. of your Reply where you say That if Iesus 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 the benefit of the Promise doth necessarily suppose that Christ hath not done all for us nor purchased a right to Life for any but only 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 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 Either these passages I have here cited and compared were fetched at a great distance of time out of Authors differing as much in judgment as you and I do and so the dissonancy of them is the meer effect of oblivion and incogitancy Or else your Intellectuals are more confused and weak than I am willing to suspect them to be For if the application of Pardoning Mercy to our Souls is in order of Nature consequent to Believing as you truly say it was then certainly notwithstanding Christ's fulfilling the Law and purchasing Heaven and Happiness for Men something else must remain to be done besides declaring this to them to incline them to believe and accept it or prescribing to them in what way they shall finally come to inherit Eternal Life For besides those declarations and prescriptions you talk of Faith it self must be wrought in the Souls of Men or else Pardoning Mercy is not in order of Nature consequent unto believing as you said it was For all the external Declarations and Prescriptions in the World are not Faith it self but only the means to beget it which may or may not become effectual to that end Secondly Whereas you say that this senseless notion is consequent upon the Doctrine of all true Protestants you therein grosly abuse them and make all the true Protestants in the World guilty of worse than Arminian or Antinomian dotage The Antinomian indeed makes our actual justification to be nothing else but the manifestation or declaration of our Justification from Eternity or the time of Christ's death And the Arminian tells us That the Declaration of the Gospel to Men is sufficient to bring them to Faith by the assisting Grace of the Spirit But your notion is worse than the very dregs of both and yet you tack it as a just consequent to the Doctrine of all true Protestants Thirdly You say That to affirm Faith and Repentance to be the Conditions of the New Covenant required of us in point of Duty antecedent to the benefit of the Promise doth necessarily suppose that Christ hath not done all for us nor purchased a right to Life for any but only made way that they may have it upon certain terms or merited that we might merit Here Sir you vilely abuse all those worthy Divines before mentioned who have made Faith the Condition of the New Covenant pinning upon them both Popery and Iudaism Popery yea the dregs of Popery in supposing their Doctrine necessarily implies that Christ hath merited that we might merit And Iudaism to the height in saying their Doctrine necessarily supposes that Christ hath not purchased a right of Life to any What can a Iew say more Ah Mr. C. can you read the words I have recited out of blessed Burroughs Owen Pemble Perkins Davenant Downame yea the whole Assembly of Reverend and Holy Divines with multitudes more who have all with one mouth asserted Faith to be the Condition of the New Covenant required on Man's part in point of Duty and that Men must believe before they can be justified which is the very same thing with what I say That it is antecedent to the benefit of the Promise and not tremble to think of the direful charges you here draw against them The Lord forgive your rash presumption Fourthly Whereas you say Christ hath in our stead performed the Conditions of life and that there remains nothing but a Promise c. you therein speak at the highest dialect of Antinomianism Hath not Christ by his Life and Death performed the Conditions of Life in our stead yet you your self confess that pardoning Mercy is in order of nature consequent to our believing certainly then there is something more to be done beside the mere making or being of a Promise there must be the effect
that the want of a due observation of this plain Scripture-distinction betwixt God's free and absolute Covenant made with Sinners in Christ and our Covenants with God by way of return thereunto is the true reason of all our mistakes about the true nature of the Gospel-Covenant whilst we jumble and coâ—found together that which the Scriptures do so plainly distinguish To your first Answer I say It is true the Scriptures do distinguish betwixt Covenant and Covenant that of Works and that of Grace It also distinguishes the same Covenant of Grace for substance according to its various administrations into the Old and New Covenant It also distinguishes betwixt the promissory part of the same Covenant of Grace and the restipulatory part not as of two opposite Covenants as you distinguish them Gen. 17. but as the just and necessary parts of one and the same Covenant It also distinguishes betwixt Vows made by Men to God in some particular Cases and the Covenant of Grace betwixt God and them But what 's all this to your purpose Or in what point doth it touch my Argument You desire me to cast mine eye upon Ezek. 16. and Psal. 89. I have done so and that impartially and do assure you I admire why you produce them against my Argument That in Ezek. speaks of the enlargement of the Church by the accession of the Gentiles to it and the sense of those words seems to me to be this That this enlargement of the Church is a gracious addition or something beyond what God had ever done in his former dispensations of the Covenant to that People And for Psal. 89. I know not what you meant to produce it for unless it be to prove what I never denied That notwithstanding our failures in duty towards God God will still keep his Covenant with us though he will visit the Iniquities of his Covenant-pâ—ople with a Rod. To your second Answer That we are to deliberate the terms and count the cost with respect to those duties which are in order to the participation of the full end of the Covenant in glory by which I suppose you mean Self-denial Perseverance c. I have no Controversy with you about that Our Question is Whether there be no deliberations required of or to be performed by men who are not yet in Christ by justifying Faith but under some preparatory works towards Faith And whether at the very time of their closing with Christ there be not a consent of the Will unto those terms required of them If you say there be as by the places I alledged it evidently appears there are then you yield the point I contend for If you say they are not before or at the time of believing to consider any terms or give their consent to them by word or writing such an Answer would fly in the very face of those Scriptures I produced for then a man may be in covenant without his own consent he that deliberates not consents not non consentit qui non sentit And therefore you durst not speak it out for which modesty I commend you and so leave me with half an answer not touching that part viz. Antecedent deliberations which were concerned in this Argument And now let your most partial Friends judge Whether from this performance of yours you have any just ground for that vain boast which concludes your Answer viz. That the Covenants themselves which those Privileges are bottomed on are now repealed and that there is no room left for any other Argument to infer the Baptism of Infants at least I shall willingly commit it to the judgment of all intelligent and impartial Readers Whether Mr. Cary hath any real ground in this performance of his for such a Thrasonical Conclusion such a vain and fulsome Boast I find that with like confidence he hath also attempted a Reply to Mr. Ioseph Whiston a Reverend Learned and Aged Divine who hath accurately and successfully defended God's Covenant with Abraham against Mr. Cox and doubt not if Mr. Cary and his Party have but confidence enough to expose it to the publick view and to adventure the Cause of Infant-baptism upon it the World will quickly see an end of this long-continued and unhappy Controversy which hath vexed the Church of God and alienated the Affections of good Men and that the Wisdom of Providence hath permitted and over-ruled this last Attempt to the singular advantage of the Truths of God and tranquillity of good Men whose concernment at this time especially is rather to strengthen their Faith and heighten their Encouragements from God's gracious Covenant than to undermine it when all things beside it are shaking and tottering round about them And now Sir for a Coronis to all those things that have been controverted betwixt us about the Covenants of God and the right of Believers Infants to Baptism resulting from one of them which I have asserted and argued against you in my first Answer and you have silently and wholly pass'd over in your Reply hoping to destroy them all at once by proving God's Covenant with Abraham Gen. 17. to be a pure Adam's Covenant of Works I judge it necessary as matters now lie between us to give the Reader the grounds and reasons of my Faith and Practice with respect unto the Ordinance of Infant Baptism and that as succinctly and clearly as I can in the following Theses which being laid together by an unprejudiced and considerative Reader will I think amount to more than a strong probability That it is the will of God that the Infant-seed of Believers ought now to be baptized But here I must remind the Reader and beg him to review what I have said before in thâ— third Cause of Errors That to arrive to satisfaction in this point requires a due and serious search of the whole Word of God with a sedate rational and impartial mind comparing one thing with another though they lie scattered at a distance in the Scriptures some in the Old Testament and some in the New Bring but these things to an interview as we do in discovering the change of the Sabbath and we may arrive unto a due satisfaction of the Will of God herein This I confess calls for strength of mind great sedulity attention and impartiality and yet what man would think all this too much if it were but to clear his Childrens Title unto a small Earthly Inheritance I intend not to give the Reader here an account of all the Arguments drawn from several Scripture Topics by the strenuous Defenders of Infants Baptism but to keep only to the Arguments drawn from God's Covenant with Abraham Gen. 17. which is the Scripture mainly controverted betwixt us You affirming boldly and dangerously that Covenant to be no other than an Adam's Covenant of Works and I justly denying and abhorring your Position upon the grounds and reasons before given which you neither have nor ever will be able to destroy Now
that the Reader who hath neither time nor ability to reade the Larger and more elaborate Treatises on this Subject may 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in one short view see the deduction of Believers Infants right to Baptism from this Gospel-covenant of God with Abraham I shall gather the substance of what I contend for and lay it as clearly as I can before the Eyes of my Reader in the following Theses which being distinctly considered as to the evident truth of each and then rationally compared one with the other he will see how each fortifies other and how all together do strongly confirm this Conclusion That the Infants of Believers under the Gospel as they naturally descend from Abraham's Spiritual Seed are therefore Partakers at least of the External Privileges of the visible Church and therefore ought now to be baptized Thesis I. It hath pleased God in all Ages of the World since man was created to deal with his Church and People by way of Covenant and in the same way he will still deal with them unto the end of the World God might have dealt with us in a supream way of mere Sovereignty and Dominion commanding what Duties he pleased and establishing his Commands by what Penalties he had pleased and never have brought himself under the tye and obligation of a Covenant to his own Creatures but he chuses to deal familiarly with his People the way of Covenanting being a familiar way 2 Sam. 7. 19. Is this the manner of men O Lord God! or as Iunius renders it and that after the manner of men O Lord God! 'T is a way full of condescending grace and goodness he is willing hereby his People should know what they may certainly expect from their God as well as what their God requires of them Hereby also he will furnish them with mighty Pleas and Arguments in Prayer succour their Faith against Temptations strengthen their hands in duties of Obedience sweeten their Obedience to them and discriminate his own People from the World As soon therefore as man was created and placed in Paradise being made upright and throughly furnished with Abilities lities perfectly and compleatly to obey all the Commands of his Maker the Lord immediately entred into the Covenant of Works with him and with all his natural Posterity in him and in this Covenant his standing or falling was according to the perfection and constancy of his personal Obedience Gen. 2. 17. Gal. 3. 10. But in this First Covenant of Works no provision at all was made for his recovery in case of the least failure by his repentance or better obedience but the Curse immediately seized both Soul and Body and Sin by the Fall entring into Man's nature totally disabled him to the perfect performance of any one Duty as that Covenant required it to be done Rom. 8. 3. nor would God accept any Repentance or after-endeavours in lieu of that perfect Obedience due by Law So that from the Fall of Adam to the end of the World this Covenant ceaseth as a Covenant of Life or a Covenant able to give Righteousness and Life unto all Mankind for evermore Rom. 3. 20. Therefore by the deeds of the Law there shall no stesh be justified in his sight Gal. 2. 16. â—y the works of the Law shall no 〈◊〉 justified Gal. 3. 11. But that no Man is justified by the Law in the sight of God is evident And it being so evident that Righteousness and Life being for ever impossible to be obtained upon the terms of Adam's Covenant it must therefore be a self-evident truth That since the Fall God never did and to the end of the World he never will open that way or door to Life thus block'd up by an absolute impossibility for the justification and salvation of any Man Thesis II. Soon after the violation and cessation of this first Covenant as a Covenant of Life it pleased the Lord to open and publish the second Covenant of Grace by Iesus Christ the first dawning whereof we find in Gen. 3. 15. where the Seed is promised which shall bruise the Serpent's head And though this be but a very short and somewhat obscure discovery of Man's Remedy and Salvation by Christ yet was it a joyful sound to the ears of God's people it was even life from the dead to the Believers of those times For we may rationally conclude That that space of time betwixt the breaking of the first and making of the second Covenant was the most dismal period of time that ever the World did or shall see This Covenant of Grace now took place of the Covenant of Works comprehended all Believers in the bosom of it The Covenant of Works took place from the time it was made until the fall of Adam and then was abolished as a Life-giving Covenant The second Covenant took place from the time it was made soon after the fall and is to continue to the end of the World And these only are the two Covenants God hath made with Men the latter succeeding the former and commencing from its expiration but both cannot possibly be in force together at the same time and upon the same persons as co-ordinate Covenants of Life and Salvation For in co-ordination they expel and destroy each other Gal. 5. 4. Whosoever of you are justified by the Law ye are fallen from Grace The first Covenant was a Covenant without a Mediator the second is a Covenant with a Mediator Place a Believer under both at once or put these two Covenants in co-ordination and that which results will be a pure contradiction viz. That a Man is saved without a Mediator and yet by a Mediator Moreover if there be a way to Life without a Mediator there was no need to make a Covenant in and with a Mediator nor can those words of Christ be true Ioh. 4. 6. I am the way the truth and the life no man cometh to the Father but by me The Righteousness of the first Covenant was within Man himself the Righteousness of the second Covenant is without Man in Christ. Put these two in co-ordination and that which results is as pure a contradiction as the former viz. That a Man is justified by a Righteousness within him and yet is justified by a Righteousness without him expresly contrary to the Apostle's conclusion Rom. 3. 20. Therefore by the deeds of the Law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight It is therefore an intolerable absurdity to place believers under both these Covenants at the same time under the Curse of the first and Blessing of the second For whensoever the state of any person is changed by Justification his Covenant is changed with his State Col. 1. 13. 'T is as unimaginable that a Believer should thus stand under both Covenants as it is to imagine that a Man may be born of two Mothers Gal. 4. 22 23 24 25. or a Woman lawfully Married to two Husbands Rom. 7. 1 2 3
4. and more absurd if it be possible any thing can be more absurd to attribute the most glorious privilege of the Covenant of Grace viz. I will be a God to thee and to thy seed after thee Gen. 17. 7. to the impotent and abolished Covenant of Works both which absurdities are asserted in defence of Antipoedobaptism And though it be true that after the first Edition of the Covenant of Grace the matter of the first Covenant was represented to the Israelites in the Moral Law yet that representation was intended and designed to be subservient and added to the Promise Gal. 3. 19. and so as an Acute and Learned Divine speaks the very Decalogue or Moral Law it self pertained to the Covenant of Grace yea in some sort flowed out of this Covenant as it was promulged by the Counsel of God to be serviceable to it both anteccdently to lead Men by the conviction of sin fear of wrath and self-despair to the Covenant of Grace and also consequently as it is a pattern of Obedience and Rule of Holiness For had it been published as a Covenant designed intentionally to its primitive use and end it had totally frustrated the Covenant of Grace Thesis III. Though the primordial Light or first glimmerings of this Covenant of Grace were comparatively weak and obscure yet from the first publication of it to Adam God in all Ages hath been amplifying the privileges and heightning the glory of this second Covenant in all the after expressures and editions of it unto this day and will more and more amplify and illustrate it to the end of the World That first Promise Gen. 3. 15. is like the first small Spring or Head of a great River which the farther it runs the bigger it grows by the accession of more Waters to it Or like the Sun in the Heavens which the higher it mounts the more bright and glorious the day still grows In that period of time betwixt Adam and Abraham we find no token of God's Covenant ordered therein to be applied to the Infant-Seed of Believers But in that second Edition of the Covenant to Abraham the privileges of the Covenant were amplified and his Infant-Seed not only taken into the Covenant as they were before but also added to the visible Church by receiving the token of the Covenant which then was Circumcision and so here is a great addition made to the visible Church even the whole Infant Off-spring of adult Believers From that period until the coming of the Messiah in the flesh the Iewish Church and their Infant-Seed except only some few Proselytes out of the Gentile Nations made up the visible Church of God and the poor Gentiles were without Christ being aliens from the Common-wealth of Israel and strangers from the Covenants of Promise having no hope and without God in the World Ephes. 2. 12. but in this glorious third period the Covenant again enlarges it self more than before and the Privileges of it are no longer limited and restrained to the Iewish Believers and their Infant-Seed but the Gentiles also are taken into the Covenant and the door of Faith was opened unto them Acts 14. 27. the partition-wall was now broken down which separated the Church from the Gentile World Eph. 2. 14. This was a glorious enlargement of the Covenant and many glorious Prophecies and Promises were fulfilled in it such as those Isa. 11. 10. and 42. 1 6. 49. 22. 54. 3. 60. 3 5 11 16. 62. 2 c. And though the Covenant as to its external part seems to have lost ground in the breaking off of the Iewish Nation from the Church yet like the Sea what it loses in one place it gains with advantage upon another the addition of many Gentile-Nations to the Church more than recompences for the present breaking off of that one Nation of the Iews And indeed they are broken off but for a time for God shall Graff them in again Rom. 11. 23. This therefore being the design of God and steddy Course of his Covenant of Grace more and more to enlarge it self in all Ages nothing can be more opposite to the nature of this Covenant than to narrow and contract its privileges in its farther progress and cut off a whole Species from it which it formerly took in Thesis IV. It is past all doubt and contradiction that the Infant-Seed of Abraham under the second edition of the Covenant of Grace were taken with their believing Parents into God's gracious Covenant had the Seal of that Covenant applied to them and were thereby added to the visible Church Gen. 17. 7 8 9 10 11. which was a gracious Privilege of the Covenant superadded to all the former and such as sweeps away all the frivolous and groundless cavils and exceptions of those that object the incapacity of Infants to enter into Covenant with God or receive benefit from the external privileges of the visible Church Nor can the subtilest enemy to Infants Baptism give us a convincing reason why the Infants of Gentile Believers are not equally capable of the same benefits that the Infants of Iewish Believers were if they still stand under the same Covenant that the former stood under and God hath no where repealed the gracious Grant formerly made to the Infant-Seed of his Covenant-people Thesis V. It is to me clear beyond all contradiction from Rom. 11. 17. If some of the branches be broken off and thou being a wild Olive-tree wert grafted in amongst them and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the Olive-tree I say I can scarce desire a clearer Scripture-light than this Text gives to satisfy my understanding in this case That when God brake off the unbelieving Iews from the Church both Parents and Children together the Believing Gentiles which are as truly Abraham's Seed as they were Gal. 3. 29. yea the more excellent Seed of Abraham were implanted or ingrafted in their room and do as amply enjoy the Privileges of that Covenant both internal and external for themselves and for their Infant-Seed as ever any Members of the Iewish Church did or could do Our Adversaries in this Controversy do pitifully and apparently shuffle here and invent many strange and unintelligible distinctions to be-cloud the light of this famous Text. What they are and how they are baâ—fled the Reader will easily discern from what hath already pass'd betwixt my Antagonist and me in p. 108 c. of my Vindiciae Legis foederis It is plain that Abraham is the root the Olive-tree the Visible Church the Sap and Fatness of the Olive are Church Ordinances and Covenant-Privileges the Gentile Believers who are Abraham's Seed according to Promise are the ingrafted Branches standing in the place of the natural Branches and with them or in like manner as they did partaking of the Root and Fatness of the Olive-Tree that is as really and amply enjoying all the immunities benefits and privileges of the Church and Covenant amongst
as it is over-ruled reduced and finally issued by the Covenant of Grace Under this consideration of sin which rather respects the future than present state the Antinomians only respect the hurt or evil of it over-looking both the former considerations of sin which concern the present state of Believers and so rashly pronounce sin can do Believers no hurt An Assertion tending to a great deal of looseness and licentiousness A Man drinks deadly Poison and is after many months recover'd by the skill of an excellent Physician shall we say there was no hurt in it because the man died not of it sure those fearful twinges he felt his loss of strength and stomach were hurtful to him tho he escaped with life and got this advantage by it to be more wary for ever after Tantum Religio potuit suadere malorum And then for other mens sins which they say we need not fear 't is an Assertion against all the Laws of Charity For the sins of wicked men eternally damn them Disturb the Peace and Order of the World Draw down National Judgments upon the whole Community Cause Wars Plagues Persecutions c. Which Considerations of the sins of others opened fountains of tears in David's Eyes Psal. 119 136. caused horror to take hold upon him vers 53. And yet if you will believe the Antinomian Doctrine Believers have no need to fear much less be in horror which is the extremity of fear for other mens sins How is Satan gratified and temptations to sin strengthned upon the Souls of men by such indistinct unwary and dangerous Expressions as these are A good Intention can be no sufficient salvo for such Assertions as these Secondly They tell us That as the Saints need fear no sin for any hurt it can do them so they must do no duty for their own good or with an eye to their own Salvation or Eternal Rewards in Heaven Refutation This as the former is too generally and indistinctly deliver'd He that distinguisheth well teacheth well The confounding of things which ought to be distinguish'd easily runs men into the bogs of Errors Two things ought to have been distinguish'd here in Duties 1. Ends 2. Self-ends First Ends in Duty There are two ends in Duties one supream and ultimate viz. the glorifying of God which must and ought to take the first place of all other ends Another secondary and subordinate viz. the good and benefit of our selves To invert these and place our own good in the room of God's Glory is sinful and unjustifiable and he that aims only at himself in Religion is justly censured as a mercenary Servant especially if it be any external good he aims at but spiritual good especially the enjoyment of God is so involv'd in the other viz. the glory of God that no man can rightly take the Lord for his God but he must take him for his Supream Good and consequently therein may and must have a due respect to his own happiness Secondly Self-ends must also be distinguished into 1. Corrupt or carnal Self-ends 2. Pure and spiritual Self-ends As to carnal and corrupt Self-ends inviting and moving men to the performance of Religious Duties when these are the only Ends men aim at they bewray the Hypocrisy of the Heart and accordingly God charges Hypocrisy upon such Persons Hosea 7. 14. They have not cried unto me with their heart when they howled upon their Beds they assemble themselves for Corn and Wine c. God reckons not the most solemn Duties animated by such Ends to be done unto him Zech. 7. 5. Did ye at all fast to me But beside these Man hath a best self a spiritual self to regard in duty viz. The conformity of his Soul to God in holiness and the perfect fruition of God in glory Such holy Self-ends as these are often commended but nowhere condemned in Scripture 'T was the Encomium of Moses That he had respect unto the recompence of reward Heb. 11. 26. These ordinate respects to our spiritual best self are so far from being our sin that God both appoints and allows them for great uses and advantages to his People in their way to glory They are 1. Singular Encouragements to the Saints under Persecution Streights and Distresses Heb. 10. 34. And to that end Christ proposes them Luke 12. 32. And so the best of Saints have made use of them 2 Cor. 4. 17 18. 2. They are Motives and Incentives to Praise and Thankfulness 1 Pet. 1. 3 4. 1 Coloss. 12. 3. They stir up the Saints to chearful and vigorous industry for God Col. 3. 23 24. 1 Cor. 15. 58. Now to cut off from Religion all these spiritual and excellent Self-respects and to make them our sins and marks of our Hypocrisy is an Error very injurious to the Gospel and to the Souls of Men. For 1. it crosses the strain of the Gospel which commands us to strive for our Salvation Luk. 13. 24 25. Phil. 2. 12. 1 Tim. 4. 16. 2. It blames that in the Saints as sinful which the Scripture notes as their excellency and records to their praise Heb. 11. 26. 3. It makes the Laws of Christianity to thwart and cross the very fundamental Law of our Creation which inclines and obliges all men to intend their own Felicity And on this account not only our Antinomians are blame-worthy but others also who are far enough from their Opinion who urge humiliation for sin beyond the Staple teaching men they are not humbled enough till they be content to be damned 4. It unreasonably supposes a Christian may not do that for his own Soul which he daily doth and is bound to do for other mens Souls viz. to pray preach exhort and reprove for their Salvation Error IX They will not allow the New Covenant to be properly made with us but with Christ for us And some of them affirm That this Covenant is all of it a Promise having no Condition upon our part They acknowledge indeed Faith Repentance and Obedience to be Conditions but say they are not Conditions on our part but on Christ's and consequently affirm That he repented believed and obeyed for us Refutation 1. The confounding of distinct Covenants leads them into this Error we acknowledge there was a Covenant properly made with Christ alone which we call the Covenant of Redemption This Covenant indeed though it were made for us yet it was not made with us It had its Condition and that Condition was laid only upon Christ viz. That he should assume our Nature and pour out his Soul unto death which Condition he was solely concerned to perform but beside this there is a Covenant of Grace made with him and with all Believers in him with him primarily as the Head with them as the Members who personally come into this Covenant when they come into union with him by Faith This Covenant of Grace is not made with Christ alone personally considered but with Christ and all
Covenant of Grace though more obscurely administred But because Latin Authors are of little use to you and among English ones the Judgment of Dr. Crisp I suppose will be instar omnium with you I will recite it faithfully out of his Sermon upon the two Covenants where he makes the Old and New Covenants to be indeed two distinct Covenants of Grace for which I see no reason at all but proves the former to be so in these words It is granted of all men That in the Covenant of Works there is no remission of Sin there is no notice of Christ but the whole business or imployment of the Priests of the old Law was altogether about remission of Sins and the exhibiting and holding forth of Christ in their fashion unto the People In the 15th of Numbers vers 28. I will give you but one Instance there you shall plainly see That the administration of that Priestly Office had remission of Sins as the main end of that Administration If a Soul sin through ignorance he shall bring a She-goat unto the Priest and he shall make an atonement for the Soul that sinneth ignorantly and it shall be forgiven him See the main end is administring forgiveness of Sins And that Christ was the main Subject of that their Ministry is plain because the Apostle saith in the Verse before my Text That all that Administration was but a Shadow of Christ and a Figure for the present to represent him as he doth express in the 9th Chapter of this Epistle And the truth is the usual general Gospel that all the Iews had was in their Sacrifices and Priestly Observations So that it 's plain the administration of their Covenant was an administration of Grace and absolutely distinct from the administration of the Covenant of Works And what can be said more absolutely and directly contradictory to your Position than this is And yet again p. 250. speaking to that Scripture Heb. 8. 8. where the Apostle distinguishes of a better and a faulty of First and Second he saith Finding fault with them The days come when I will make a new Covenant with the House of Israel and with the House of Judah not according to the Covenant I made with their Fathers when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the Land of Egypt and as Ieremiah adds it for the Apostle takes all this out of Ier. 31. 31. although I was an Husband to them and in the close of all Your Sins and Iniquities will I remember no more Here are two Covenants a new Covenant and the Covenant he made with their Fathers Some may think it was the Covenant of works at the promulgation of the Moral Law but mark well that Expression of Ieremiah and you shall see it was the Covenant of Grace For saith he not according to the Covenant I made with their Fathers although I was an Husband unto them How can God be considered as Husband to a People under the Covenant of Works which was broken by man in innocency and so became disannulled or impossible by the breach of it The Covenant of Works runs thus Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things that are written in the Book of the Law and In the day thou sinnest thou shalt die the death Man had sinned before God took him by the hand to lead him out of the Land of Egypt and Sin had separated Man from God how then can God be called an Husband in the Covenant of Works The Covenant therefore was not a Covenant of Works but such a Covenant as the Lord became an Husband in and that must be a Covenant of Grace c. How the Doctor makes good his two distinct Covenants of Grace I see not nor expect ever to see proved and is not my present concernment to enquire but once it is evident by what he hath here said That the Ceremonial Law whereof Circumcision is a branch can be no other than the Covenant of Grace And nothing is more common among our Divines than to prove not only the Sinai Law but God's Covenant with Abraham Gen. 17. to be the Covenant of Grace by this Medium That God having entred into a Covenant of Grace with Abraham before would never bring him under a Covenant of Works afterwards which must nullify and void the former And beside such a Covenant of Works as you make this was never heard of in the World wherein God promises to be a God to Abraham and his Seed in their Generations upon the rigorous and impossible Terms of Adam's Covenant By this time I presume you must feel the force of those Arguments produced against your vain and groundless notion and how little you are able to do to deliver your Thesis from them but the more you struggle the more still you are intangled Go which way you will your Absurdities follow you as your Shadow haeret lateri lethalis arundo Leaving therefore all your Absurdities upon you till God shall give you more illumination and ingenuity to discern and acknowledge them I shall pass on to the examination of your third Position which led you into these other gross Mistakes and if God shall convince you of your Error in this point I hope it may prove a means of recovering you out of the rest which in love to your Soul I heartily desire III. Your third Position is That God's Covenant with Abraham Gen. 17. can be no other than the Covenant of Works because Circumcision was the Condition of it For say you the new Covenant is altogether absolute and unconditional Of the Conditionality of the New Covenant This Question Whether the Covenant of Grace be conditionate or absolute was moved as a learned Man observes in the former Age by occasion of the Controversy about Justification betwixt the Protestants and Papists Among the Protestants some denied and others affirmed the Conditionality of the Gospel-covenant Those that denied it did so for fear of mingling Law and Gospel Christ's Righteousness and Man's as the Papists had wickedly done before Those that affirmed it did so out of fear also lest the necessity of Faith and Holiness being relaxed Libertinism should be that way introduced But if the Question were duly stated and the sense of its Terms agreed upon the Gospel-Covenant may be affirmed to be conditional to secure the People of God from Libertinism without the least diminution of the Righteousness of Christ or clouding the Free-grace of God I did in my first Answer to your Call endeavour to prevent the needless trouble you have here given your self by a succinct state of the Question telling you the Controversy betwixt us is not 1. Whether the Gospel-covenant requires no duties at all of them that are under it nor 2. Whether it requires any such Conditions as were in Adam's Covenant namely perfect personal and perpetual Obedience under the penalty of the Curse and admitting no place of Repentance nor 3.