of receiving Doctriâ—es so destructive to the great Truths of the Gospel as these are And I do solemnly profess I have not designedly strained them to cast reproach upon him that publish'd them But the matters are so plain that if Mr. Cary will maintain his Positions not only my self but every intelligent Reader will be easily able to fasten all those odious Consequents upon him after all his Apologies Sir in a word I dare not say but you are a good Man but since I read your two Books you have made me Think more than once of what one said of Ionah after he had read his History that he was a strange Man of a good Man yet as strange a good Man as you are I hope to meet you with a sounder Head and better Spirit in Heaven The Second APPENDIX Giving a brief Account of the Rise and Growth of ANTINOMIANISM the deduction of the principal Errors of that Sect With modest and seasonable Reflections upon them THE Design of the following Sheets cast in as a Mantissa to the foregoing Discourse of Errors is principally to discharge and free the Free-grace of God from those dangerour Errors which fight against it under its own Colours partly to prevent the seduction of some that stagger and lastly though least of all to vindicate my own Doctrine the scope and current whereof hath always been and shall ever be to exalt the Free-grace of God in Christ to draw the vilest of Sinnersâ— to him and relieve the distressed Consciences of Sin-burthened Christians But notwithstanding my utmost care and caution some have been apt to censure it as if in some things it had a tang of Antinomianism But if my publick or private Discourses be the faithful Messengers of my Judgment and Heart as I hope they are nothing can be found in any of them casting a friendly aspect upon any of their Principles which I here justly censure as erroneous Three things I principally aim at in this short Appendix 1. To give the Reader the most probable Rise of Antinomianism 2. An Account of the principal Errors of that Sect. 3. To confirm and establish Christians against them by sound Reasons back'd with Scripture-authority And I. Of the Rise of Antinomianism The Scriptures foreseeing there would arise such a sort of Men in the Church as would wax wanton against Christ and turn his Grace into lasciviousness hath not only precautioned us in general to beware of such Opinions as corrupt the Doctrine of Free-grace Rom. 6. 1 2. Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound God forbid but hath particularly indigitated and marked those very Opinions by which it would be abused and made abundant provision against them as namely 1. All slighting and vilifying Opinions or Expressions of the Holy Law of God Rom. 7. 7 12. 2. All Opinions and Principles inclining men to a careless disregard and neglect of the Duties of Obedience under pretence of Free-grace and Liberty by Christ Iam. 2. Matth. 25. 3. All Opinions neglecting or slighting Sanctification as the evidence of our Justification and rendring it needless or sinful to try the state of our Souls by the Graces of the Spirit wrought in us which is the principal scope of the First Epistle of Iohn Notwithstanding such is the wickedness of some and weakness of others that in all Ages especially the last past and present men have audaciously broken in upon the Doctrine of Free-grace and notoriously violated and corrupted it to the great reproach of Christ scandal of the World and hardning of the Enemies of Reformation Behold saith Contzen the Iesuit on Matth. 24. the fruit of Protestantism and their Gospel-preaching Nothing is more opposite to looseness than the Free-grace of God which teacheth us That denying all ungodliness and worldly lusts we should live soberly righteously and godly in this present world Nor can it without manifest violence be made pliable to such wicked purposes And therefore the Apostle tells us Iude 4. That this is done by turning the Grace of our Lord into lasciviousness 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 transferring it scil foedâ interpretatione by a corrupt abusive interpretation to such uses and purposes as it abhors No such wanton licentious Conclusions can be inferr'd from the Gospel-doctrines of Grace and Liberty but by wresting them against their true scope and intent by the wicked Arts and Practices of Deceivers upon them The Gospel makes Sin more odious than ever the Law did and discovers the punishment of it in a more severe and dreadful manner than ever it was discovered before Heb. 2. 2 3. For if the word spoken by Angels were stedfast and every transgression and disobedience received a just recompence of reward How shall we escape if we neglect so great salvation It shews our obligations to duty to be stronger than ever and our encouragements to holiness greater than ever 2 Cor. 7. 1. and yet corrupt Nature will be still tempting men to corrupt and abuse it The more luscious the Food is the more men are apt to surfeit upon it This perversion and abuse of Free-grace and Christian-liberty is justly chargeable though upon different accounts both upon wicked and good Men. Wicked Men corrupt it designedly that by entitling God to their Sins they might sin the more quietly and securely So the Devil instigated the Heathens to sin against the Light and Law of Nature by representing their gods to them as drunken and lascivious Deities So the Nicolaitans and School of Simon and after them the Gnosticks and other Hereticks in the very dawning of Gospel Light and Liberty began presently to loose the bond of restraint from their Lusts under pretence of Grace and Liberty The Aetiani blushed not to teach That Sin and perseverance in Sin could hurt the Salvation of none so that they would embrace their Principles How vile and abominable Inferences the Manichaeans Valentinians and Cerdonites drew from the Grace and Liberty of the Gospel in the following Ages I had rather mourn over than recite And if we come down to the 15 th Century we shall find the Libertines of those days as deeply drenched in this Sin as most that went before them Calvin mournfully observes That under pretence of Christian-liberty they trampled all Godliness under foot The vile Courses their loose Opinions soon carried them into plainly discovered for what intents and purposes they were projected and calculated and he that reads the Preface to that Grave and Learned Mr. Thomas Gataker's Book entituled God's Eye upon Israel will find That some Antinomians of our days are not much behind the worst and vilest of them One of them cries out Away with the Law away with the Law it cuts off a man's Legs and thâ—n bids him walk Another saith T is as possible for Christ himself to sin as for a Child of God to sin That if a man by the Spirit know himself to be in the state of grace though he be drunk
They tell us That by God's laying our Iniquities upon Christ he became as compleatly sinful as we and we as compleatly righteous as Christ. That not only the guilt and punishment of sin was laid upon Christ but simply the very faults that men commit the transgression it self became the transgression of Christ Iniquity it self not in any figure but plainly sin it self was laid on Christ and that Christ himself was not more righteous than this Person is and this Person is not more sinful than Christ was Refutation These two Propositions will never go down with sound and Orthodox Christians The first sinks and debases Christ too low the other exalts the sinful Creature too high The one represents the pure and spotless Lord Jesus as sinful the other represents the sinful Creature as pure and perfect and both these Propositions seem evidently to be built upon these two Hypotheses 1. That the righteousness of Christ is subjectively and inherently in us in the same fulness and Perfection it is in Christ grant that and then it will follow indeed That Christ himself is not more righteous than the Believer is 2. That not only the guilt and punishment of sin was laid on Christ by way of imputation but sin it self the very transgression or sinfulness it self was transferr'd from the Elect to Christ and that by God's laying it on him the sinfulness or fault it self was essentially transfused into him and so sin it self did transire à subjecto in subjectum Grant but this and it can never be denied but Christ became as compleatly sinful as we But both these Hypotheses are not only notoriously false but utterly impossible as will be manifested by and by But before I come to the Refutation of them it will be necessary to lay down some Concessions to clear the Orthodox Doctrine in this Controversie and narrow the matter under debate as much as may be 1. And first we thankfully acknowledge the Lord Jesus Christ to be the Surety of the New Testament Heb. 7. 22. and that as such all the Guilt and Punishment of our Sins was laid upon him Isa. 53. 5 6. That is God imputed and he bare it in our room and stead God the Father as Supreme Law-giver and Judge of all upon the Transgression of the Law admitted the Sponsion or Suretiship of Christ to answer for the sins of men Heb. 10. 5 6 7. And for this very end he was made under the Law Gal. 4. 4 5. And that Christ voluntarily took it upon him to answer as our Surety whatsoever the Law could lay to our charge whence it became just and righteous that he should suffer 2. We say That God by laying upon or imputing the Guilt of our Sins to Christ thereby our Sins became legally his as the Debt is legally the Sureties Debt tho he never borrowed one farthing of it Thus God laid and Christ took our Sins upon him tho in him was no sin 2 Cor. 5. 21. He hath made him to be sin for us who knew no sin i. e. who was clean and altogether void of sin 3. We thankfully acknowledg that Christ hath so fully satisfied the Law for the sins of all that are his that the Debts of Believers are fully discharg'd and the very last mite paid by Christ. His Payment is full and so therefore is our Discharge and Acquittance Rom. 8. 1 31. And that by virtue hereof the Guilt of Believers is so perfectly abolished that it shall never more bring them under Condemnation Iohn 5. 24. And so in Christ they are without fault before God 4. We likewise grant That as the Guilt of our Sins was by God's Imputation laid upon Christ so the Righteousness of Christ is by God imputed to Believers by virtue of their Union with Christ and becomes thereby as truly and fully theirs for the justification of their particular Persons before God as if they themselves had in their own Persons fulfilled all that the Law requires or suffered all that it threatned No inherent Righteousness in our own Persons is or can be more truly our own for this end and purpose than Christ's imputed Righteousness is our own He is the Lord our Righteousness Jer. 23. 6. We are made the righteousness of God in him 1 Cor. 5. 21. Yea the righteousness of the Law is fulfilled in them that believe Rom. 8. 4. But notwithstanding all this we cannot say 1. That Christ became as compleatly sinful as we Or 2. That we are as compleatly righteous as Christ and that over and above the Guilt and Punishment of Sin which we grant was laid upon Christ Sin it self simply considered or the very Transgression it self became the Sin or Transgression of Christ and consequently that we are as compleatly Righteous as Christ and Christ as compleatly Sinful as we are 1. We dare not say That Sin simply consider'd as the very Transgression of the Law it self as well as the Guilt and Punishment became the very Sin and Transgression of Christ For two things are distinctly to be considered and differenced With respect to the Law and unto Sin As to the Law we are to consider in it 1. It s Preceptive part 2. It s Sanction 1. The preceptive part of the Law which gives Sin its formal Nature 1 Ioh. 3. 4. For sin is the transgression of the law All Transgression arises from the Preceptive part of the Law of God He that transgresseth the Precepts sinneth and under this consideration sin can never be communicated from one to another The Personal sin of one cannot be in this respect the Personal sin of another There is no Physical Transfusion of the Transgression of the Precept from one subject into another This is utterly impossible even Adam's personal sins consider'd in his single private capacity are not communicable to his Posterity 2. Besides the Transgression of the Preceptive part of the Law there is an obnoxiousness unto Punishment arising from the Sanction of the Law which we call the Guilt of Sin and this as Judicious Dr. Owen observes is separable from sin And if it were not separable from the former no sinner in the world could either be pardoned or sav'd Guilt may be made another's by Imputation and yet that other not rendred formally a sinner thereby Upon this ground we say the Guilt and Punishment of our Sin was that only which was imputed unto Christ but the very Transgression of the Law it self or Sin formally and essentially consider'd could never be communicated or transfused from us into him I know but two ways in the world by which one man's sins can be imagined to become another's viz. Either by Imputation which is Legal and what we affirm or by Essential Transfusion from subject to subject as our Adversaries fancy which is utterly impossible and we have as good ground to believe the absurd Doctrine of Transubstantiation as this wild notion of the Essential Transfusion of Sin Guilt arising from
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
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
Opinions or Judgments from the perfect Rule of the Divine Law And to this all men by nature are not only liable but inclinable Indeed man by Nature can do nothing else but Err Psal. 58. 3. he goeth astray as soon as born makes not one true step till renewed by Grace and many false ones after his Renovation The Life of the Holiest man is a Book with many Errata's but the whole Edition of a wicked man's Life is but one continued Error he that thinks he cannot Err manifestly Errs in so thinking The Pope's supposed and pretended Infallibility hath made him the great deceiver of the World A good man may Err but is willing to know his Error and will not obstinately maintain it when he once plainly discerns it Error and Heresy among other things differ in this Heresie is accompanied with pertinacy and therefore the Heretick is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sels-condemned his own Conscience condemns him whilst men labour in vain to convince him He doth not formally and in terms Condemn himself but he doth so equivalently whilst he continues to own and maintain Doctrines and Opinions which he finds himself unable to defend against the evidence of Truth Humane frailty may lead a man into the first but Devilish Pride fixes him in the last The word of God which is our rule must therefore be the only Test and Touchstone to try and discover Errors for Regula est index sui obliqui 'T is not enough to convince a man of Error that his Judgment differs from other mens you must bring it to the Word and try how it agrees or disagrees therewith else he that charges another with Error may be found in as great or greater an Error himself None are more disposed easily to receive and tenaciously to defend Errors than those who are the Antesignani Heads or Leaders of Erroneous Sects especially after they have fought in defence of bad Causes and deeply engaged their Reputation The following Discourse justly entitles it self A BLOW AT THE ROOT And though you will here find the Roots of many Errors laid bare and open which comparatively are of far different degrees of Danger and Malignity which I here mention together many of them springing from the same Root Yet I am far from censuring them alike nor would I have any that are concerned in lesser Errors be exasperated because their lesser Mistakes are mentioned with greater and more pernicious ones this Candor I not only intreat but justly challenge from my Reader And because there are many general and very useful Observations about Errors which will not so conveniently come under the Laws of that Method which governs the main part of this Discourse viz. the CAVSES and CVRES of Error I have therefore sorted them by themselves and premised them to the following Part in Twenty Observations next ensuing Twenty general Observations about the rise and increase of the Errors of the times First Observation TRuth is the proper Object the natural and pleasant food of the Understanding Iob 12. 11. Doth not the ear that is the understanding by the ear try words as the mouth tasteth meat Knowledg is the assimilation of the Understanding to the truths received by it Nothing is more natural to man than a desire to know Knowledg never cloys the Mind as food doth the natural Appetite but as the one increaseth the other is proportionably sharpened and provoked The Minds of all that are not wholly immers'd in Sensuality spend their Strength in the laborious search and pursuit of Truth Sometimes climbing up from the Effects to the Causes and then descending again from the Causes to the Effects and all to discover Truth Fervent Prayer sedulous Study fixed Meditations are the labours of inquisitive Souls after Truth All the Objections and Counter-arguments the mind meets in its way are but the pauses and hesitations of a bivious Soul not able to determine whether Truth lies upon this side or upon that Answerable to the sharpness of the Minds appetite is the fine edg of Pleasure and Delight it feels in the discovery and acquisition of Truth When it hath Rack'd and Tortured it self upon knotty Problems and at last discovered the Truth it sought for with what joy doth the Soul dilate it self and run as it were with open arms to clasp and welcome it The Understanding of man at first was perspicacious and clear all Truths lay obvious in their comely order and ravishing beauty before it God made man upright Eccl. 7. 29. this rectitude of his mind consisted in Light and Knowledg as appears by the prescribed method of his Recovery Col. 3. 10. Renewed in knowledg after the Image of him that created him Truth in the Mind or the Minds union with Truth being part of the Divine Image in man discovers to us the Sin and Mischief of Error which is a defacing so far as it prevails of the Image of God No sooner was man created but by the exercise of knowledg he soon discovered God's Image in him aâ—d by his Ambition after more lost what he had So that now there is an haziness or cloud spread over Truth by Ignorance and Error the sad effects of the Fall Second Observation Of Knowledg there are divers sorts and kinds some is Humane and some Divine some Speculative and some Practical some Ingrafted as the Notions of Morality and some Acquired by painful search and Study But of all knowledg none like that Divine and Supernatural knowledg of saving truths revealed by Christ in the Scriptures from whence ariseth the different degrees both of the Sinfulness and danger of Errors those Errors being always the worst which are committed against the most important Truths revealed in the Gospel These Truths lye infolded either in the plain words or evident and necessary consequences from the words of the Holy Scriptures Scripture-Consequences are of great use for the refutation of Errors it was by a Scripture-consequence that Christ successfully proved the Resurrection against the Sadduces Matth. 22. The Arrians and other Hereticks rejected consequential proofs and required the express words of Scripture only hoping that way to defend and secure their Errors against the arguments and assaults of the Orthodox Some think that reason and natural light is abundantly sufficient for the direction of life but certainly nothing is more necessary to us for that end than the written Word for though the remains of natural light have their place and use in directing us about natural and earthly things yet they are utterly insufficient to guide us in spiritual and heavenly things 1 Cor. 2. 14. The natural man receiveth not the things of God c. Eph. 5. 8. Once were ye darkness 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 now are ye light in the Lord i. e. by a beam of heavenly light shining from the Spirit of Christ through the written Word into you minds or understandings 'T is the written Word which shines upon the path of our Duty
and easie to be understood Remedy III. Vain Curiosity is a dangerous Snare of Satan By such trifles as these he devours our time eats up our strength and diverts our minds from the necessary and most important business of Religion Whilst we immerse our thoughts in these pleasing but barren Contemplations Heart-work Closet-work Family-work lie by neglected Whilst we are employed in garnishing the Dish with Flowers and curious Figures the cunning Cheat takes away the meat our Souls should subsist by Eighth Cause Pride and Arrogancy of HVMANE REASON is another Evil Disposition molding and preparing the mind for Errors When men are once conceited of the strength and perspicacity of their own carnal Reasons and Apprehensions nothing is more usual than for such men to run mad with Reason into a thousand Mistakes and Errors To this cause Ecclesiastical Historians ascribe the Errors that infest the Church Reason indeed is the highest natural excellency of man it exalts him above all Earthly Creatures and in its primitive perfection almost equalized him with Angels Heb. 2. 7. The Pleasures which result from its exercises and experiments transcend all the delights and pleasures of sense How common is it for men to dote upon their own intellectual beauty and glory in their victories over weaker Understandings And tho the reason of fallen Man is greatly wounded and weakened by Sin yet it conceits it self to be as strong and clear as ever and with Sampson when his Locks were shorn goes forth as before time being neither sensible of its own weakness or of the mysterious and unsearchable depths of Scripture Reason is our Arbiter and Guide by the institution and Law of Nature in civil and natural Affairs 't is the beam and standard at which we weigh them It is an home-born Judge and King in the Soul Faith comes in as a stranger to Nature and so it is dealt with even as an Intruder into Reason's Province just as the Sodomites dealt with Lot It refuseth to be an Underling to Faith Out of this Arrogancy of carnal Reason as from Pandorâ—â—'s Box swarms of Errors are flown abroad into the World By this means Socinianism first started and hath since propagated it self They look upon it as a ridiculous and unaccountable thing to reason that the Son should be co-equal and co-eternal with the Father that God should forgive sins freely and yet forgive none but upon full satisfaction That Christ should make that satisfaction by his Sufferings and yet be pars laesa the Party offended and so make satisfaction to himself with many more of the like stamp Yea Atheism as well as Socinianism are births from this Womb. 'T is proud and carnal Reason which quarrels at the Creation of the World and seems to triumph in its uncontrolable Mâ—xim Ex nihilo nihil fit out of nothing comes nothing It looks upon the Doctrine of the Resurrection with a deriding smile as a thing incredible It thinks it hard and harsh that God should command men to turn themselves to him and threaten them with damnation in case of refusal and yet at the same time man should not have in himself a sufficient power and a free will to do this without the supernatural and preventing Grace of God It thinks it a ridiculous thing for such a great and solemn Ordinance of God as Baptism is to pass upon such a Subject as an Infant of a week old which is not capable to understand the Ends and Uses of it Hence it is some over-heated Zealots lots have not stuck to say That we have as good warrant and reason to baptize Cats Dogs and Horses as we have to babtize Infants Oh the madness of Carnal Reason The Remedies To take down the Arrogance and prevent the mischief of Carnal Reasonings let us be convinced Remedy I. That it is the will of God that Reason in all Believers should resign to Faith and all Ratiocination submit to Revelation Reason is no better than an Usurper when it presumes to arbitrate matters belonging to Faith and Revelation Reason's proper place is to sit at the feet of Faith and instead of searching the secret grounds and reasons to adore and admire the great and unsearchable Mysteries of the Gospel None of God's works are unreasonable but many of them are above Reason It was as truly as ingenuously said by one Never doth Reason shew it self more reasonable than when it ceaseth to reason about things that are above Reason Where is the Wise where is the Scribe where is the Disputer of this World hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this World For after that in the wisdom of God the World by wisdom knew not God it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe 1 Cor. 1. 20 21. 'T is not Reason but Faith that must save us The Wisdom of God in the Gospel is wisdom in a Mystery even hidden wisdom which God ordained before the World unto our glory 1 Cor. 2. 7. Such wisdom as the most Eagle-eyed Rationalists and famed Philosophers of the World understood not Eye hath not seen nor ear heard neither have entred into the heart of man the things which God hath prepared for them that love him But God hath revealed them to us by his spirit ibid. vers 9 10. Remedy II. Be convinced of the weakness and deep corruption of natural Reason and this will restrain its Arrogance and make it modest and wary A convinced and renewed Soul is conscious to it self of its own weakness and blindness and therefore dares not pry audaciously into the Arcana Coeli nor summon the great God to its bar It finds it self posed by the Mysteries of Nature and therefore concludes it self an incompetent Judge of the Mysteries of Faith The Arrogancy of Reason is the reigning Sin of the Unregenerate though it be a Disease with which the Regenerate themselves are infected When Conviction shall do its work upon the Soul the Plumes of spiritual pride quickly fall and it saith with Iob Once have I spoken but I will speak no more yea twice but I will proceed no further q. d. I have done Father I have done I have uttered things that I understood not Job 42. 3. Spiritual Illumination cures this Ambition Remedy III. Consider the manifold Mischiefs and Evils flowing from the pride of Reason It doth not only fill the World with Errors and Distractions but it also invades the Rights of Heaven and casts a vile reflection upon the Wisdom Sovereignty and Veracity of God It lifts up it self against his Wisdom not considering that the foolishness of God is wiser than men 1 Cor. 1. 25. It spurns at his glorious Sovereignty not considering that he giveth no account of his matters Job 33. 13. It questions his Veracity in saying with Nicodemus How can these things be Joh. 3. 9. Cause IX The last Evil Disposition I shall here take notice of in the Subject is rash
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
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
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
account to confute and destroy this Fancy and much more may be rationally urged against it Let the following Particulars be weighed in the Balance of Reason 1. Can we rationally suppose that Pardon and Acceptance can be affirmed or predicated of that which is not Reason tells us Non entis nulla sunt accidentia That which is not can neither be condemned nor justified But before the Creation or before a Man's particular Conception he was not and therefore could not in his own Person be the Subject of Justification Where there is no Law there is no Sin Where there is no Sin there is no Punishment Where there is neither Sin nor Punishment there can be no Guilt for Guilt is an Obligation to Punishment And where there 's neither Law nor Sin nor Obligation to Punishment there can be no Justification He that is not capable of a Charge is not capable of a Discharge What remains then but that either the Elect must exist from Eternity or be justified in time 'T is true future Beings may be considered as in the purpose and decree of God from Eternity or as in the Intention of Christ who died intentionally for the Sins of the Elect and rose again for their Justification But neither the Decree of God nor the Death of Christ takes place upon any Man for his actual Justification until he personally exist For the Object of Justification is a Sinner actually ungodly Rom. 4. 5. but so no Man is or can be from Eternity In Election men are considered without respect to Good or Evil done by them Rom. 9. 11. not so in actual Justification 2. In Justification there is a Change made upon the state of the Person Rom. 5. 8 9. 1 Cor. 6. 9 10 11. By Justification men pass from a state of Death to a state of Life Ioh. 5. 24. But the Decree or Purpose of God in it self makes no such actual change upon the state of any person It hath indeed the nature of an Universal Cause but an Universal Cause produceth nothing without particulars If our state be changed it is not by an immanent act of God Hence no such thing doth transire A mere velle non punire or intention to justify us in due time and order makes no change on our state till that time come and the particular Causes have wrought A Prince may have a purpose or intention to pardon a Law-condemned Traitor and free him from that Condemnation in due time but whilst the Law that condemned him stands in its full force and power against him he is not justified or acquitted notwithstanding that gracious intention but stands still condemned So is it with us till by Faith we are implanted into Christ. 'T is true Christ is a surety for all his and hath satisfied the debt He is a common Head to all his as Adam was to all his Children Rom. 5. 19. But as the Sin of Adam condemns none but those that are in him so the Righteousness of Christ actually justifies none but those that are in him and none are actually in him but Believers Therefore till we believe no actual change passeth or can pass upon our state So that this Hypothesis is contrary to Reason As this Opinion is Irrational so it is Unscriptural For 1. The Scripture frequently speaks of Remission or Justification as a future act and therefore not from Eternity Rom. 4. 23 24. Now it was not written for his sake alone that it was imputed to him but for us also to whom it shall be imputed if we believe on him c. And Gal. 3. 8. The Scriptures foreseeing that God would justify the Heathen through faith preached before the Gospel unto Abraham The Gospel was preached many years before the Gentiles were justified but if they were justified from Eternity how was the Gospel preached before their Justification 2. The Scripture leaves all Unbelievers without distinction under condemnation and wrath The Curse of the Law lies upon them till they believe Iohn 3. 18. He that believeth on him is not condemned but he that believeth not is condemned already And Eph. 2. 3 12 13. The very Elect themselves were by nature the Children of wrath even as others They were at that time or during that state of nature which takes in all that whole space betwixt their conception and conversion without Christ without hope without God in the World But if this Opinion be true that the Elect were justified from Eternity or from the time of Christ's death then it cannot be true that the Elect by nature are Children of Wrath without Christ without Hope without God in the World except these two may consist together which is absolutely impossible that Children of Wrath without God Christ or Hope are actually discharged from their Sins and Dangers by a free and gracious act of Justification But doth not the Scripture say Rom. 8. 33. Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's Elect If none can charge the Elect then God hath discharged them God hath not actually discharged them as they are Elect but as they are justified Elect for so runs that Text and clears it self in the very next words It is God that justifieth When God hath actually justified an Elect Person none can charge him 3. 'T is cross to the Scripture-order of Justification which places it not only after Christ's death in the place last cited Rom. 8. 33. but also after our actual vocation as is plain vers 30. Moreover whom he did predestinate them he also called and whom he called them he also justified and whom he justified them he also glorified Is it absurd to place Vocation before Predestination or Glorification before Justification sure then it must be absurd also to place Justification before Vocation the one as well as the other confounds and breaks the Scripture-order You may as well say men shall be glorified that were never justified as say they may be justified before they believed or existed So that you see the notion of Justification from Eternity or before our actual existence and effectual Vocation is a notion as repugnant to sacred Scripture as it is to sound Reason And as it is found repugnant to Reason and Scripture so it is highly injurious to Jesus Christ and the Souls of Men. 1. It greatly injures the Lord Jesus Christ and robs him of the glory of being our Saviour For if the Elect be justified from Eternity Christ cannot be the Saviour of the Elect as most assuredly he is for if Christ save them he must save them as persons subject to perishing either de facto or de jure But if the Elect were justified from Eternity they could in neither respect be subject to perishing for he that was eternally justified was never condemned nor capable of condemnation and he that never was or could be condemned could never be subject to perishing and he that never was nor could be subject