Vindiciae Legis Foederis OR A REPLY TO Mr. PHILIP CARY'S SOLEMN CALL WHEREIN He pretends to Answer all the Arguments of Mr. Allen Mr. Baxter Mr. Sydenham Mr. Sedgwick Mr. Roberts and Dr. Burthogge for the right of Believers Infants to BAPTISM BY Proving the Law at Sinai and the Covenant of Circumcision with Abraham were the very same with Adam's Covenant of Works and that because the gospel-Gospel-Covenant is Absolute By John Flavel Minister of the Gospel in Dartmouth Membra laxata inepta sunt ad sua munera obeunda gravissimo dolore corpus afficiunt P. Martyr Cum consensu videtur deponi fraternitas Aretius in Heb. 13. 1. LONDON Printed for M. Wotton at the Three Daggers in Fleetstreet 1690. A Friendly Preface to the Author of the SOLEMN CALL and the more discreet and charitable of the Party concerned with him in this Controversie Christian Friends WHen we open our Bibles and read that Text 1 Cor. 1. 10. we have cause to deal with it as Origen once did by another Scripture even close the Book and weep over it in consideration of the weak and feeble influences such melting words delivered with such a Pathos have upon the hearts of Professors this day Now I beseech you Brethren by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ that ye all speak the same thing and that there be no divisions among you but that ye be perfectly joyned together in the same mind and in the same judgment I beseech you He dips the nail in oyl that it may drive the easier I beseech you Brethren a compellation breathing sweetness and affection and should drop from our lips into each others ears with the same effect that word once did upon the ears of Benhadads Servants my Brother Benhadad Sirs said Moses to the striving Israelites ye are Brethren O when shall the Church become a true Philadelphia I beseech you Brethren by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ or as you love Jesus Christ ut quantum ipsum amant tantum studeant concordiae saith Calvin Be as studious of concord as you are free in professing love to Christ. That there be no divisions or rents among you a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Schism or rent in the Church is much the same and altogether as dangerous as a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Sedition in the Common-wealth and harder to be cured For as the Lord Verulam truly observes differences amongst persecuting Enemies and the Church are like the strivings of the AEgyptian with the Israelite which Moses quickly ended by knocking down the AEgyptian but dissentions in the Church are like the striving of one Israelite with another and all that Moses can do to quiet and part these is only by fair and gentle words and reminding them that they are Brethren Great is the mischief of divisions among Christians and the less the grounds and causes are the greater always is the sin and mischief of them In the Primitive Church contentions grew fervent about meats lawful and unlawful which did not profit the meaning is it greatly damnified them that were occupied therein Heb. 13. 9. practical Religion among them grew cold as disputations about these trifles grew fervent The readiest way to cool such heats is by discovering the trivial nature of the matter contended about as Demosthenes appeased the tumult among the people rais'd by a small occasion by relating to them the story of a man that had hired an Ass to carry him a journey but the Sun shining servent he was forced to quit her back and betake himself to her shadow the owner withstood him alledging that he had hired the body of the Ass but her shadow was not in the bargain and so the contention between them grew as hot as the Sun Many such trifles have raised great contentions in the world witness the great contention betwixt the Eastern and Western Church about keeping of Easter Other points there are of greater moment about which good men contend and yet these oftentimes are magnified much above their true intrinsecal value So I am sure it is in the Controversie before us Mr. Cary tells us that these things will be found at length to be of highest concernment unto us and must therefore be our most serious practice pa. 243. If so then the proper subject of Baptism must be one of those that is of greatest weight and the profession thereof the very Schibboleth to distinguish one person from another in matters of Religion No wonder therefore the fires of contention are blown up to such a vehement heat even in such an improper season much like the contentions among the English Fugitives at Francfort when their brethren were frying in the flames at Smithfield Just so must we be scuffling whilst thousands of our Brethren are bleeding in Ireland Had we a true sense of the quality of the Subject or the unseasonableness of the Time it would certainly allay these heats among us Did we see who stand by and look with pleasure upon our follies it wou'd quickly allay our heats Tertullian tells the Christians of his time that they were like the Funambulones or men that walk upon Ropes the least tread awry might be their ruin so narrowly did their enemies watch them Sirs the peace safety and honour of the dissenting interest are things of too great value to be hazarded amongst the hands of our common enemies You may fancy they will neglect the advantage you give them but if they do the Devil will call them fools for it Mr. Herle tells us of a Kings fool who wrote down the King himself in his Table among his brother fools because he had trusted an African Stranger with 4000 l. to buy Barbary Horses The King asked him how he would make him amends if the Stranger should come again why then said he I 'le blot your name out of my Table of Fools and write down the African in your stead Think not our Enemies are such Fools to neglect the advantage we cast into their hands 'T is a weighty note that of Livy Consilia non dant homines rebus sed res hominibus Men don't counsel things but times and things counsel men Methinkâ—… the postures of times and affairs givâ—… us better counsel than we seem to be goâ—… verned by in such work as this Divisions of forty years standing and more about Infants Baptism have eaten up the times wasted the spirits and alienated the hearts of English Professors divided them both in Society and Love by reason whereof Gods pleasant Plant in this resembles the Bramble which taking root at both ends by reason of the rancounters of the sap commonly withers in the middle Your Brethren in their Narrative from their general Assembly make a sad and sensible complaint of withering in the power of Godliness And truly we as well as they may complain with the Church We do all fade as a Leaf the Lord help us to discern the true cause whether
those Duties and Ordinances for Righteousness and Justification made it a Covenant of Works to themselves and Circumcision it self a Bond of that Covenant 6. Now for as much as Circumcision prefigured Christ who was to come of this Holy circumcised Seed of Abraham and his Death also was pointed at therein Heb. 2. 16. Col. 2. 11. of necessity this Ordinance must vanish at the Death of Christ and accordingly did so These things duly pondered how irrational is it to imagine this Covenant of Circumcision to be the very same with the Paradisical Covenant Did that Covenant discover native Corruption and direct to its remedy in Christ as this did Surely it gave not the least glimps of any such thing Did that Covenant separate and distinguish one Person from another as this did No no it left all under equal and common Misery Eph. 2. 3. Had Adam's Covenant a Seal of the Righteousness of Faith annexed to it as this had Rom. 4. 11. He received Circumcision a Seal of the Righteousness of Faith 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 Luke 1. 72. But you admit however that it sealed Evangelical Righteousness to Abraham but I hope you will not say that a Seal of the Covenant of Works ever did or could Seal Evangelical Righteousness to any individual Person in the World So then turn which way you will this truth still follows you and will fasten upon you That the Covenant of Circumcision was not a pure Covenant of Works but a gospel-Gospel-Covenant which I thus prove Argument I. If Circumcision be a part of the Ceremonial Law and the Ceremonial Law was dedicated by Blood and whatsoever is so dedicated is by you confessed to be no part of the Covenant of works then Circumcision is no part of the Covenant of works even by your own confession But it is so Ergo. That it is a part of the Ceremonial Law was never doubted or denied by any Man That it was dedicated by Blood and therefore no part of the Moral Law you your self not only acknowledge but vehemently plead for it Page 148. where you blame Mr. Sedgwick with some Sharpness and unbecoming Reflection for making no distinction betwixt the Ceremonial Covenant which was dedicated by Blood and the Law written in Tables of Stone which was not so dedicated and therefore could not be the same with the Moral Law which you make the Covenant of works telling him that this Dedication by Blood ought to distinguish it from the Moral Law or Sinai Covenant of works as you say it doth and ought to do how then can Circumcision be the same with and yet quite another thing from the Sinai Covenant was the Ceremonial Law dedicated by â—…lood Yes the Apostle â—…lainly asserts it from Exod. Heb. 9. 18 19. â—…4 7 8. Moses took the Book â—…f the Covenant and read it in the audience â—…f the people and took the blood and sprinkâ—…d it upon the people and said behold the â—…lood of the Covenant which the Lord hath â—…ade with you concerning these things But â—…hat kind of Covenant then was this Coâ—…enant that was sprinkled with Blood â—…ou tell us Page 147. it could not possiâ—…y be the Law written in Stones which â—…ou make the Covenant of works but â—…as indeed another Covenant delivered 〈◊〉 a distinct Season and in a distinct â—…ethod What Covenant then must this â—…e seeing it could not possibly as you â—…y be the Sinai Covenant written in â—…ones It must either be the Covenant â—…f Grace or none No say you that 〈◊〉 was not neither for it was of the same â—…ture with and is no other than a Coâ—…enant of works Page 151. it was the â—…me and yet could not possibly be the same Mr. Sedgwick that Learned-Grave Divine is check'd Page 148. for confounding the Ceremonial Law that waâ—… sprinkled with Blood with the Moraâ—… Law which you call the Covenant oâ—… works that was not sprinkled witâ—… Blood and say you Page 147. It coulâ—… not possibly be the same And then P. 151 you say It 's clear these two viz. thâ—… Moral and Ceremonial Law were both 〈◊〉 the same nature that is no other than 〈◊〉 Covenant of Works How doth this hanâ—… together Pray reconcile it if you caâ—… You say it is an ungrounded Supposition 〈◊〉 Mr. Sedgwick 's that that Covenant whiâ—… was so confirmed by Blood must of necessiâ—… be confirmed by the Blood of Christ alsâ—… Page 148. But Sir the truth you opposâ—… viz. That the Book of the Ceremoniâ—… Law was sprinkled by Typical Blooâ—… and therefore confirmed by the Bloâ—… of Christ for the time it was to continâ—… shines like a bright Sun-beam in yoâ—… Eyes from Heb. 9. 14 23. was not tâ—… Blood that sprinkled this Law the 〈◊〉 gure or Type of Christ's own Blood whose Blood was it then if not Christ'â—… How dare you call this an ungroundâ—… Supposition was not that Blood Typâ—… cal Blood And what I pray you was the Antitype but Christ's Blood And did not the Holy Ghost signifie the one by the other Heb. 9. 8. I stand amazed at these things You distinguish and confound all again You say it could not possibly be the same with the Law written in Stone and you say it 's clear both were of the same nature no other than a Covenant of works At this â—…ate you may say what you please for 〈◊〉 see Contradiction is no Crime in your Book Argument II. If Circumcision was the Seal of the Righteousness of Faith it did not perâ—…ain to the Covenant of works for the Righteousness of Faith and Works are Opposites and belong to two contrary Covenants But Circumcision was the Seal of the Righteousness of Faith Rom. 4. 11. He â—…i e. Abraham received the sign of Cirâ—…umcision a seal of the righteousness of Faith Therefore it pertains not to the Coveâ—…ant of Works but Grace A Man would think it impossible to evade so clear and Scripture an Argument as this is The Major Proposition is even self-evident and undeniable the Minor the plain words of the Apostle And what is your Reply to this certainly as strange a one as ever I met with Page 205. You say 'T is true Circumcision was a Seal of the Righteousness of Faith to Abraham but it was so to him only in his extraordinary Circumstanceâ—… but it was not so to any of his natural Sâ—… in its ordinary use I cannot deny but I have met with such an Assertion before in Mr. Tombes and I can tell you too that Bellarmine invented it before Mr. Tombes was born and that Dr. Ames fully confuted it in his third Tome Page 27. proving that there was no extraordinary cause oâ—… Abraham's account why God should justifie or seal him more than any other
Believer and that Abraham had nothing to glory in before God But to restrain as you do the publick Seal of a Covenant that comprehended and equally concerned the whole Church and People of God to one single Person so thaâ—… neither Isaac nor Jacob who were bâ—… name enrolled in that great Charter â—…hould have any right to the Seal of it â—…s such a Conceit as amazes an intelligent Reader We know Abraham was the â—…rst that received it but utterly deny â—…hat he received only for himself but â—…e received it as the Father of all them â—…hat Believe whether Jews or Gentiles â—…s the very next words tell us he reâ—…eived it that he might be the Father of â—…ll that Believe that is for himself and â—…ll his Spiritual Children One half of his Sacrament of Circumcision you allow â—…age 205. to the rest that were under 〈◊〉 viz. to be a sign of the Covenant but â—…e other half you cut off and say it â—…as only a Seal to him What good â—…ouchers have you for this Exposition â—…f the Text Have you the Concurrence 〈◊〉 Orthodox Expositors Or is it the rash â—…d bold Adventure of your own head â—…am sure it no ways agrees with the drift â—…d scope of the Apostles Argument â—…hich evidently is to prove that both â—…ws and Gentiles are justified by Faith as â—…braham was and that the Ground of â—…stification and Blessedness is common â—…th to the uncircumcised Gentiles and â—…cumcised Jews and that Abraham and all other Believers have but one way of Justification and Salvation and that how great soever Abraham was in this case he hath found nothing whereof to Glory ver 1 2. 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 rectifie it and better consider it Argument III. In the Covenant of Circumcision Gen. 17. God makes over himself tâ—… Abraham and his Seed to be their God or give them a special Interest in himself But in the Covenant of Works God doth not since the Fall make over himself to any to be their God by way oâ—… special Interest Therefore the Covenant of Circumcision cannot be the Covenant of Workâ—… This is so plain and clear that noâ—… can doubt or deny it that understand the nature of the two Covenants Aâ—… now Sir what course do you take 〈◊〉 avoid this Argument such a one sure 〈◊〉 no Man that ever I met with took before you and that 's this you boldly cut Abraham's Covenant Gen. 17. into two parts and make the first to be the pure Covenant of Grace which is the promissory part to the ninth Verse and the Restipulation as you call it Page 205. â—…o be as pure a Covenant of Works What hard shift will some Men make â—…o maintain their Opinion You say â—…ruly Page 205. that at the seventh and â—…ighth Verses was their Restipulation why â—…hen do you say Page 224. that at Verse â—…he seventh he proceeds to speak of anoâ—…her Covenant than what he had been â—…eaking of before Does the Promise â—…nd the Restipulation make two Coveâ—…ants or are they just and necessary parts â—…f one and the same Covenant You â—…lso tell us that the Covenant Gen. 17. 〈◊〉 2 3 4. was a plain Transcript of â—…veral free Promises of the Gospel under â—…e denomination of a Covenant But â—…hy then don 't you take the Restipulaâ—…on verse 7 8 9 10. to be a part of 〈◊〉 Oh no there is something required 〈◊〉 Abraham's and his Posterities part â—…ey must be circumcised and that spoils â—…l Why but Sir if the requiring of Circumcision alters the case so greatly as to make it a quite contrary Covenant how comes it to pass that in the Covenant to Abraham he himself was first required to be circumcised Why this is the reason here is somewhat required on their part as a Condition and a Condition quite alters the nature of the Covenant Very well but tell me then why you say Page 223. and in many other places that the Covenant made with Abraham in Gen. 12. was a Gospel-Covenant and yet there Abraham is obliged to walk before God and be perfect Does not that also there alter the nature of the Covenant as well as here in the seventeenth Chapter You also grant the Covenant made with Abraham Gen. 22. was a pure Gospel-Covenant or if you deny it the Apostle proves it Heb. 6. 13. and yet there is more appearance of respect to Abraham's Obedience in that Covenant than is in submitting to Circumcision see Gen. 22. 16 17. By my self have I sworn saith the Lord for because thou hast done this thing c. That in Blessing I will bless thee and in multiplying I will multiply thee I will trouble you on this Head but with one Query more If the four first Verses of the Seventeenth of Genesis contain a pure Gospel-Covenant as you say and the Restipulation in the following Verses make a Covenant of works because it thereby becomes Conditional Then tell me if you please whether what God graciously granted to Abraham in the former Verses be not all null'd and made void again by their Restipulation Does not this seem Harsh Here you have brought Abraham Isaac and Jacob and all the believers of Abraham's race just into the same case you brought Moses and all the Israelites before under two opposite Covenants where one cuts off all that the other granted But there is a stronger reason urged than the conditionality of the Covenant to prove it a Covenant of Works and that is Circumcision is made the Condition of Abraham's Covenant and that 's the worst of all conditions for it obliges a man to keep the whole Law Gal. 5. 3. 't is the yoke of bondage and to whatsoever Covenant it be so annexed it makes it become a bondage Legal Covenant If we be circumcised Christ shall profit us nothing Thus it was in the Covenant Gen. 17. Great use is made of this in many parts of your Discourse but Sir you are greatly mistaken in applying these Texts to the Purposes you do For the Apostle all along in that Epistle to the Galatians argues against the false Teachers who taught and pressed the necessity of Circumcision as a Bond obliging them to the strict and perfect Obedience of the Law in order to their Justification thereby or at least to joyn it with the Righteousness of Christ as a Con-cause of Justification see Gal. 2. 4 5. and the 3. 1. Now against this Abuse of Circumcision it is that the Apostle argues thus and tells them that in submitting to it on that account they made the Death of Christ of no Effect and obliged themselves by it to the whole Law for Circumcision did not simply and absolutely in the nature of the work or action oblige Men to the whole Law in the way of Justification by it but it did so from the Intention of the worker
and the Supposition of such an Opinion of it and design in it for in it self and with respect to Gods design in the Institution of it it was to be a Seal of the Righteousness of Faith Rom. 4. 11. and so it was an excellent useful instructive Ordinance to all Believers as long as the Ceremonial Law stood and even when it was expiring as the Gospel began to open more and more clearly there was yet some kind of Toleration of it to such as were born of Jewish Parents Thus Paul himself circumcised Timothy his Mother being a Jewess Acts 16. 1 3. but Titus being a Greek was not circumcised and that because of these false Teachers that would make an ill use of that their Liberty Gal. 2. 3 4. this Paul could never have done in case Circumcision in the nature of the act had bound Timothy to keep the Law for Justification By which it appears that the action in its own nature did not oblige to the keeping of the whole Law but from the Intention of the Agent and therefore as the Apostle rightly argues if a Man be circumcised with this design to be justified by it he would thereby bind himself to the whole Law and frustrate the Death of Christ to himself but it was now to have its Funeral with all other parts of the Ceremonial Law which vanish'd and were accomplished in the Death of Christ and it falling out that such a vile use was made of it at that time the Apostle thus thunders against it Had this been observed as also the like abuse of the Moral Law you would have known how to have reconciled the Apostles Encomiums of them both with his sharp Invectives against the one and the other But being Ignorant of these two great and necessary Distinctions of the Law according to Gods Intention in the Promulgation of it at Sinai and the carnal Jews Sense of it as a pure Covenant of works against which the Apostle so sharply inveighs in the places by you cited all your 23 Arguments from Page 183. to Page 187. fall to the Ground at one stroke your Medius Terminus having one sense in your Major Proposition and another in your Minor and so every Argument hath four Terms in it as will easily be evinced by the particular consideration of the respective places from whence you draw them So in like manner in your arguing here against Circumcision as a Bond to keep the whole Law and as such vacating the Death of Christ is a stumble at the same stone not distinguishing as you ought to have done betwixt an Obligation arising out of the nature of the work and out of the end and intention of the Workers and this every learned and judicious Eye will easily discern But we proceed to 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 This Ordinance supposeth the Fall of Man points to the Means and Instruments of his Sin and Misery and also to the Remedy thereof by Christ. 1. It singles out that Genital part by which original Sin was propagated Gen. 17. 11. Psalm 51. 5. to this the Sign of the Covenant is applied in Circumcision for the Remission of Sins past and the Extirpation of Sin for the future 2. Therefore it was instituted of God that Men might see both the necessity and true way of Mortifying their Lusts in the vertue of Christ's Death and Resurrection whereof Baptism that succeeds it is a Sign now as Circumcision was then as is plain from Col. 2. 11 12. In whom also ye are circumcised with the Circumcision made without hands in putting off the body of the Sins of the Flesh by the Circumcision of Christ buried with him in Baptism wherein also ye are risen with him through the Faith of the operation of God who raised him from the dead 'T is clear then that Circumcision directed Men to the Death and Resurrection of Christ as the true and only means of mortifying their Lusts and if it did so sure it was not the Covenant of Works for that gives Fallen Man no hint of a remedy 3. It was also a discriminating Sign or Token betwixt the Church and the World God's People and the Heathens who were accordingly denominated from it the Circumcision and the Uncircumcision the Holy Seed and the Gentiles And now under the New Testament the Children of Abraham by Faith and the Children of the Flesh. This also shews it cannot be the Covenant of Works for in that Covenant all are equally and alike concluded under Sin and Misery Ephes. 2. 3. and there is no difference made by that Covenant betwixt Person and Person State and State If this be not enough to evince that the Covenant of Circumcision is a Covenant of Grace I promise you many more Arguments to prove it as soon as I shall find these refuted and your contrary Assertion well discharged from the gross Absurdities with which it is clog'd and loaded You see how genuine natural and congruous to Scripture the notion of it as a Covenant of Grace is and all the World may see how harsh alien and repugnant to Scripture your Notion of Circumcision as a Covenant of Works is You see into what Boggs you are again driven in defence of your Opinion Exemp gra That Circumcision is a part of the Ceremonial Law which was dedicated with Blood and therefore could be no â—…art of the Moral Law or Ten Commandments which was say you the Coâ—…enant of Works and yet that it is of â—…he same nature and that it 's clear 〈◊〉 is no other than a Covenant of Works Don't you there distinguish and confound all again blame and check Mr. Sedgwick without Cause and commit a greater Absurdity presently than you charged him with Don't you question whether that Covenant that was typically sealed by Blood was sealed by Christs Blood Pray Sir consider where-ever God commands typical Blood to be applyed it relates to Christs Blood Spiritually apply'd or to nothing Are not you forced in defence of your erroneous Thesis to say with Bellarmine That Circumcision was extraordinary in its Institution and applyed as a Seal to none but Abraham himself it excluded even Isaac the Type of Christ and Jacob a Prince with God O what will not Men venture upon in defence of their darling Opinions Are you not forced for your Security from the danger of the Third Argument to cut one and the same Covenant made with Abraham just in two and of the pure promissory part to make a Covenant of Grace and of the other part which you your self call a Restipulation to make another quite opposite Covenant Don't you magnifie the Bounty and Grace of God to Abraham in the first four Verses and then destroy it
these three Principles or Positions on which the other parts of his Discourse are superstructed and these being destroyed his other Discourses are but arenae sine calce I properly therefore begin with the Foundation Next I shall shew how far we are greed in the matters here controvertâ—…d and where it is in each of these that â—…he Controversie indeed lies betwixt us â—…nd as to I Position viz. That the Sinai-Law is the same with Aâ—…am's Covenant of Works made in Paraâ—…ice The difference betwixt us here is not 〈◊〉 Whether both these be called Coâ—…enants in Scripture nor 2. Whether there were no Grace at all in both or either of them For we are agreed it is Grace in God to enter into Covenant with Man whatever that Covenant be nor 3. Whether the Sinai-law be not a Covenant of Works to some Men by their own fault and occasion nor 4. Whether the Scriptures do not many times speak of it in that very sense and notion wherein Carnal Justiciaries apprehend and take it and by rejecting Christ make it so to themselves nor 5. Whether the very matter of the Law of Nature be not reviv'd and represented in the Sinai Law These are not the Points we contend about But the Question is Whether the Sinai Law do in its own nature and according to Gods purpose and design in the promulgation of it revive the Law of Nature to the same ends and uses it served to in Adam's Covenant and so be properly and truly a Covenant of Works Or whether God had not gracious and evangelical ends and purposes viz. by such a dreadful representation of the severe and impracticable terms of the first Covenant instead of obliging them to the personal and punctual observance of them foâ—… righteousness and life he did not rather design to convince them of the impossibility of legal righteousness humble proud Nature and shew them the necessity of betaking themselves to Christ now exhibited in the New Covenant as the only refuge to Fallen Sinners The latter I defend according to the Scriptures the former Mr. Cary seems to assert and vehemently argue for 2ly In this Controversie about the Sinai Law I do not find Mr. Cary distinguishing as he ought betwixt the Law considered more largely and complexly as containing both the Moral and Ceremonial Law for both which it is often taken in Scripture and more strictly for the Moral Law only as it is sometimes used in Scripture These two he makes one and the same Covenant of Works though there be some that doubt whether the meer Moral Law may not be a Covenant of Works yet I never met with any Man before that durst affirm the Ceremonial Law which is so full of Christ to be so and to this Law it is that Circumcision appertains 3ly The Moral Law strictly taken for the Ten Commandments is not by him distinguished as it ought to be and as the Scripture frequently doth according to Gods intention and design in the promulgation of it which was to add it as an Appendix to the promise Gal. 3. 19. and not to set it up as an opposite Covenant Gal. 3. 21. and the carnal Jews mistaking and perverting the use and 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. these things ought carefully to have been distinguished forasmuch as the whole Controversie depends on this double sense and intention of the Law yea the very denomination of that Law depends hereon For I affirm it ought not to be denominated from the abused and mistaken end of it amongst carnal men but from the true scope design and end for which God published it after the Fall And though we find such expressions as these in Scripture The man that doth them shall live in them And cursed is every one that continueth not in all things c. yet these respecting the Law not according to Gods intention but Mans corruption and abuse of it the Law is not thereby to be denominated a Covenant of Works Gods end was not to justifie them but to try them by that terrible dispensation Ezod 20. 20. whether they would still hanker after that natural way of self-righteousness for this end God propounded the terms of the first Covenant to them on Sinai not to open the way of self-justification to them but to convince them and shut them up to Christ just as our Saviour Matth. 19. 17. puts the young man upon keeping the Commandments not to drive him from but necessitate him to himself in the way of Faith The Law in both these Senses is excellently described Gal. 4. in that Allegory of Hagar and Sarah the figures of the two Covenants Hagar in her first and proper Station was but a serviceable Hand-maid to Sarah as the Law is a Schoolmaster to Christ but when Hagar the Hand-maid is taken into Sarah's Bed and brings forth Children that aspire to the Inheritance then saith the Scripture Cast out the bond-woman with her son So it is here take the Law in its primary use as God designed it as a School-master or Hand-maid to Christ and the promise so it is consistent with them and excellently subservient to them but if we marry this Hand-maid and espouse it as a Covenant of Works then are we bound to it for life Rom. 7. and must have nothing to do with Christ. The Believers of the Old Testament had true apprehensions of the right end and use of the Law which directed them to Christ and so they became Children of the Free-woman The carnal Jews trusted to the works of the Law for righteousness and so became Children of the Bond-woman but neither could be Children of both at once no more than the same Man can naturally be born of two Mothers This is the difference betwixt us about the first Position and as to the II Position That Abraham's Covenant Gen. 17. is an Adam's Covenant of Works also because Circumcision was annexed to it which obliged Men to keep the whole Law The Controversie betwixt us in this point is not whether Circumcision were an Ordinance of God annexed by him to his Covenant with Abraham nor 2. Whether Abraham's ordinary and extraordinary Seed ought to be and actually were signed by it nor 3. Whether it were a Seal of the righteousness of Faith to any individual Person for he allows â—…t to be so to Abraham nor 4. Wheâ—…he it pertain'd to the Ceremonial Law and so must cease at the death of Christ But the difference betwixt us is Whether â—…1 it was a Seal of the Covenant to â—…one but Abraham and 2. Whether â—…n the very nature of the Act or only from the intention of the Agent it did oblige men to keep the whole Law as Adam was obliged to keep it in innoâ—…ency 3. Whether it were utterly â—…bolished at the death of Christ as a
condition of the Covenant of works or being a sign of the same Covenant of Grace we are now under it be not sucâ—…eeded by the new Gospel-sign which is Baptism Mr. Cary affirms that it was 〈◊〉 it self a condition of the Covenant of Works and being annexed to Gods Covenant with Abraham Gen. 17. it made â—…hat a true Adam's Covenant of works â—…lso This I utterly deny and say Aâ—…raham's Covenant was a true Covenant â—…f Grace 2. That Circumcision was Seal of the righteousness of Faith and therefore could not possibly belong to the Covenant of Works 3. That as it was applied both to the ordinary and extraordinary Infant-seed of Abraham during that administration of the Covenant so it is the will of Christ that Baptism should take its place under the Gospel and be applyed now to the Infant-seed of all Abraham's Spiritual Children These are the things wherein we differ about the second Position And lastly as to the III Position That neither Moses's Law Exod. 2â—… nor God's Covenant with Abraham Geâ—… 17. can be any other than an Adam's Covâ—…nant of Works because they have each 〈◊〉 them conditions in them on Man's part 〈◊〉 the gospel-Gospel-Covenant hath none at all but 〈◊〉 altogether free and absolute The Controversie here betwixt us 〈◊〉 not 1. Whether the Gospel-Covenanâ—… requires no duties at all of them thaâ—… are under it nor 2. Whether it requires any such conditions as were 〈◊〉 Adam's Covenant namely perfect personal and perpetual obedience undeâ—… the severest Penalty of a Curse and admitting no place of Repentance Nor 3. 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 In these things we have no Controversie 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 Priviledge 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 This I affirm and he positively denies These three Positions being confuted and the contrary well confirmed viz. That the Law at Sinai was not set up by God as an Adam's Covenant to open the old way of Righteousness and Life by works but was added to the promise as subservient to Christ in its design and use and consequently can never be a pure Adam's Covenant of Works And secondly That Abraham's Covenant Gen. 17. is the very same Covenant of Grace we are now under and 2ly that Circumcision in the nature of the act did not oblige all men to keep the whole Law for Righteousness And 3ly That the New Covenant is not absolute and wholly unconditional though notwithstanding a most free and gracious Covenant the Pillars on which Mr. Cary sets his new Structure sink under it and the building falls into ruins I have not here taken Mr. Cary's two Syllogisms proving Abraham's Covenant to be a Covenant of Works because I find my self therein prevented by that ingenuous and learned man Mr. Whiston in his late Answer to Mr. Grantham Neither have I particularly spoken to his 23 Arguments to prove the Sinai Law to be a pure Adam's Covenant because frustra sit per plura quod sieri potest per pauciora I have overthrown them all together at one blow by evincing every Argument to have four terms in it and so proves nothing But I have spoken to all those Scriptures which concern our four Positions and fully vindicated them from the injurious senses to which Mr. Cary following Mr. Tombes had wrested them These things premised I shall only further add that if Mr. Cary shall attempt a Reply to my Answer and free his own Theses from the gross absurdities with which I have loaded them he must plainly and substantially prove against me 1. That the Sinai Law according to its true scope and end was promulged by God for man's Justification and Happiness in the way of personal Obedience and that the Jews that did accordingly endeavour after Righteousness by the works of the Law did not mistake its true end and meaning or if they did and thereby made it what God never intended it to be a Covenant of works to themselves that the Sinai Law ought rather to be denominated from their mistake and abuse of it than from its primary and proper use and God's design in its promulgation 2. He must prove against me with like evidence of truth that Circumcision discovered no more of Man's Native Corruption nor any more of his remedy by Christ nor sealed to any Person whatsoever the Righteousness of Faith than Adam's Covenant in Paradise did and that it did in its own nature oblige all upon whom it passed to the same terms of Obedience that Adam's Covenant obliged him And 3. That there is not to be found in the new Covenant any such Act or Duty of ours as hath been described and limited above which is of a suspending Nature to the Benefits therein granted And 4. That the respective Expositions he gives of the several Texts by me explained and vindicated are more congruous to the Scope and Grammar than mine are and more agreeable to the current Sense of Orthodox Expositors and then he shall be sure to receive an answerable return from me else 't is but labour lost to write again A REPLY TO Mr. Philip Cary's Solemn Call THE Book I have undertaken to animadvert briefly upon bears the Title of A Solemn Call but I am not so much concerned with the Solemnity as I am with the Authority of this Call Not how it is but whose it is If it be the Call of God it must be obey'd tho it be to part not only with the Priviledges but Lives of our dearest Children but then we had need be very well assur'd it is the Call of God else we are guilty at once of the highest Folly and basest Tâ—…eachery to part with so rich an Inheritance convey'd by God's Covenant with Abraham to us believing Gentiles and our Seed at Mr. Cary's Call You direct your Solemn Call to all that would be owned as Christs faithful Witnesses Here you are too obscure and general Do you mean all that would be owned by you or by Christ If you mean that we must not expect to be owned by you till we renounce Infants Baptism you tell us no news for you have long since turn'd your back upon our Ministry and Assemblies yet methinks 't is strange that we who were lately own'd as Christs faithful Witnesses under our late Sufferings must now be
disown'd by you when we have liberty to amplifie and confirm our Testimony in the peaceful improvement of our common Liberty But if your meaning be as I strongly suspect it is that we must not expect to be own'd by Christ except we give up Infants Baptism then I say it is the most uncharitable as well as unwarrantable and dangerous Censure that ever dropt from the Pen of a sober Christian 'T is certainly your great evil to lay Salvation it self on such a point as the proper Subject of Baptism and to make it Articulus Stantis vel cadentis Religionis the very Basis on which the whole Christian Religion and its Professors Salvation must stand I hope the rest of your Brethren are more charitable than your self but however it be I do openly profess that I ever have and still do own you and many more of your Perswasion for my Brethren in Christ and am perswaded Christ will own you too notwithstanding your many Errors and Mistakes about the lesser and lower matters of Religion Nor need your Censure much to affect us as long as we are satisfied you have neither a Faculty nor Commission thus solemnly to pronounce it upon us But what 's the condition upon which this dreadful Sentence depends why it is our attendance or non-attendance to the primitive purity of the Gospel Doctrine Sir I hope we do attend it and in some respects better than some greater Pretenders to primitive Purity who have cast off not only the initiating Sign of Gods Covenant this did not Abraham but also that most comfortable and ancient Ordinance of singing Psalms and what other primitive Ordinance of God may be cashier'd next who can tell We have a Witness in your Bosom that the Defence of Christs pure Worship and Institutions hath cost us something and as for me were I convinced by all that you have here said or any of your Friends that in baptizing the Infants of Believers we did really depart from the Primitive purity I would renounce it and turn Anabaptist the same day But really Sir this Discourse of yours hath very much convinc'd me of the weakness and sickliness of your Cause which is forc'd to seek a new Foundation and is here laid by you upon such a Foundation as must inevitably ruin it if your Party as well as your self have but resolution enough to venture it thereupon And it appears to me very probable that they intend to fight us upon the new ground you have here chosen and mark'd out for them by the high Encomiums they give your Book in their Epistles to it wherein they tell us Your Notions are of so rare a nature that you are not beholding to any other for them and it is a wonder if you should for I think it never entred into any sober Christians Head before you that Abraham's Covenant Gen. 17. was the very same with Adam's Covenant made in Paradise or that Moses Abraham and all the Elect of God in those days were absolutely under the very rigour and tyranny of the Covenant of Works and at the same time under the Covenant of Grace and all the Blessings and Priviledges thereof with many other such rare Notions of which it is pity but you should have the sole propriety I am particularly concern'd to detect your dangerous mistakes both in love to your own Soul and care of my Peoples amongst whom you have dispersed them though I foresee by M. E's Epistle to your Book what measure I am like to have for my plain and faithful dealing with you For if that Gentleman upon a meer surmise and presumption that one or other would oppose your Book dare adventure to call your unknown Answerer before ever he put Pen to Paper a Man-pleaser a Quarreller at Reformation and rank him with the Papists which opposed the Faithful for their non-conformity to their Inventions What must I expect from such rash Censurers for my sober plain and rational confutation of your Errors As to the Controversie betwixt us you truly say in your Title Page and many parts of your Book and your Brethren comprobate it in their Epistles that the main Arguments made use of by the Paedo-Baptists for the support of their practice are taken from the Covenant of God with Abraham Gen. 17. You call this the very hinge of the Controversie and therefore if you can but prove this to be the very same Covenant of Works with that made with Adam in Paradise we shall then see what improvements you will quickly make of it Ay Sir You are sensible of the Advantage no less than a compleat Victory you shall obtain by it and therefore being a more hardy and adventurous Man than others put desperately upon it which never any before you durst attempt to prove Abraham's Covenant which stands so much in the way of your Cause to be a meer Covenant of Works and therefore now abolished My proper Province is to discover here that part of the Foundation I mean Abraham's Covenant whence our Divines with great Strength and Evidence deduce the Right of Believers Infants to Baptism now Next to evince the Absurdity of your Assertions and Arguments you bring to destroy it And lastly To reflect briefly upon the Answers you give in the beginning of your Book to those several Texts of Scripture pleaded by the learned and judicious Divines you oppose for the Justification of Infants Baptism 1. Those that plead God's Covenant with Abraham Gen. 17. as a Scripture Foundation for Baptizing Believers Infants under the Gospel proceed generally upon these four Grounds or Principles 1. That God's Covenant with Abraham Gen. 17. was the same Covenant for substance we Gentile Believers are now under and they substantially prove it from Luke 1. from the 54. to the 74. Verse which place evidently shews the sameness of the Covenant of Grace they were and we are now under and from Matt. 21. 41 43. the same Vineyard and Kingdom the Jews then had is now let out to us Gentiles and from Rom. 11. that the Gentile-Christians are grafted into the same Olive-Tree from which the Jews were broken off for their Unbelief and that the Blessing of Abraham cometh now upon the Gentiles Gal. 3. 8 14 16. and in a word that the Partition Wall betwixt them and us is now pulled down and that we through Faith are let into the self-same Covenant and all the Priviledges they then enjoy'd Ephes. 2. 13. 2. They assert and prove That in Abraham's Covenant the Infant-Seed were taken in with their Parents and that in token thereof they were to have the Sign of the Covenant applied to them Gen. 17. 9. 3. They affirm and prove That the Promise of God to Abraham and his Seed with the Priviledges thereof to his Children do for the Substance of them descend to Believers now and their Seed Acts 2. 38 39. and though the external Sign viz. Circumcision be changed yet Baptism takes its place under
Covenant of Works whose Terms or Condition is do this and live and the Promise or Gospel whose Condition is Believe and thou shalt be saved are not specifically different but only gradually in point of Strength and Weakness and the Reason you give is as strange that this comes to pass through the satisfaction of Christ. Good Sir enlighten us in this rare Notion Did Christ die to purchase a Reconciliation betwixt the Covenant of Works as such and the Covenant of Grace as if both were now by the Death of Christ agreed and to be justified by Works and by Faith should after Christ's Death make no Odds or Disserence between them If it be so why have you kept such a coil to prove Moses's and Adam's Covenant yea Abraham's too being Covenant of Works can never consist or mingle with the gospel-Gospel-Covenant And then I say you contradict the Apostle who so directly opposes the Covenant of Works as such to the Covenant of Grace and tells us they are utterly inconsistent and exclusive of each other and this he spake after Christ's Death and actual satisfaction But 4. That which more amazes me is the strange Answer you give to Mr. Sedgwick Page 132 133. in your return to his Argument That if the Law and the Promise can consist then the Law cannot be set up as a Covenant of Works You answer That the Law and the Promise having divers ends it doth not thence follow that there is an inconsistence betwixt them and that the Law even as it is a Covenant of Works instead of being against the Promise tends to the Establishment of it And Page 133. That by convincing Men of the Impossibility of obtaining Rest and Peace in themselves and the necessity of betaking themselves to the Promise c. the Law is not against the Promise having so Blessed a Subserviency towards the Establishment thereof Here you own a Subserviency yea a Blessed Subserviency of the Law to the Promise which is that Mr. Sedgwick and my self have urged to prove it cannot be so as it is a pure Adam's Covenant but that therefore it must come under another Consideration only here we differ you say it hath a Blessed Subserviency to the Promise as it is the same with Adam's Covenant we say it can never be so as such but as it is either a Covenant of Grace though more obscure as he speaks or though the matter of it should be the same with Adam's Covenant yet it is subserviently a Covenant of Grace as others speak and under no other Consideration can it be reconciled to the Promise But will you stand to this that the Law hath no Hostile Contradiction to the Promise but a Blessed Subserviency to it as you speak Page 173. where you say That if we preach up the Law as a Covenant of Life or a Covenant of Faith and Grace which are equipollent Terms let us distinguish as we please between a Covenant of Grace Absolutely aud Subserviently such then we make an ill use of the Law by perverting it to such a Service as God never intended it for and are guilty of mingling Law and Gospel Life and Death together Reply Here Sir my Understanding is perfectly posed and I know not how to make any tolerable Orthodox Sense out of this Position Is the Law preached up as a pure Covenant of Works that is pressing Men to the personal and punctual Obedience of it in order to their Justification by Works no way repugnant to the Promise but altogether so when preached in Subserviency to Christ and Faith This is new Divinity with me and I believe must be so to every Intelligent Reader Don't I oppose the Promise when I preach up the Law as a pure Covenant of Works which therefore as such must be Exclusive of Christ and the Promise and do I oppose either when I tell Sinners the Terrors of the Law serve only to drive them to Christ their only Remedy who is the end of the Law for Righteousness to every one that Believeth Rom. 10. 4. are Works and Grace more consistent than Grace with Grace Explain your meaning in this Paradoxical Expression and leave not your self and others in such a Maze I read Gal. 3. 19. for what end God published the Law 430 years after the Promise was made to Abraham and find it was added because of Transgression 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it was put to not set up by it self alone as a distinct Covâ—… nant but added as an Appendix to the Covenant of Grace whence it is plain that God added the Sinai Law to the Promise with Evangelical ends and Purposes If then I preach the Law to the very same Evangelical Uses and Purposes for which God added it to the Promise do I therein make an ill use of the Law and mingle Life and Death together But preaching it as a pure Covenant of Works as it holds forth Justification to Sinners by Obedience to its Precepts do I then make it blessedly subservient as you speak to the Promise or Covenant of Grace The Law was added because of Transgression that is to restrain Sin in the World and to convince Sinners under guilt of the necessity of another Righteousness than their own even that of Christ and for the same ends God added it to the Promise I always did and still shall Preach it and I am perswaded without the least danger of mingling Law and Gospel Life and Death together in your Sense 'T is plain to me that in the Publication of the Law on Sinai God did not in the least intend to give them so much 〈◊〉 a Direction how to obtain Justification â—…y their most punctual Obedience to its Precepts that being to Fallen Man utterly impossible and beside had he promulged the Law to that end and purpose he had not added it but directly opposed it to the Promise which its manifest he did not Gal. 3. 21. Is the law then against the promise of God God forbid And ver 18. makes it appear that had it been set up to that end and purpose it had utterly disannulled the Promise for if the inheritance be of the law it is no more by promise What then can be clearer than that the Law at Sinai was published with gracious Gospel-ends and purposes to lead Men to Christ which Adam's Covenant had no respect nor reference to and therefore it can never be a pure Adam's Covenant as you falsly call it neither is it capable of becoming a pure Covenant of Works to any Man but by his own Fault in rejecting the Righteousness of Christ and seeking Justification by the works of the Law as the mistaken carnal Jews did Rom. 10. 3. and other legal Justiciaries now do And upon this account only it is that Paul who so highly praises the Law in its subserviency to Christ thunders so dreadfully against it as it is thus set by ignorant mistaken Souls in direct Opposition to Christ. 5ly And
a Righteousness of his own in the way of doing was pleased to revive the Law of Nature as to its matter in the Sinai Dispensation which was 430 Years after the first Promise had been renewed and further opened unto Abraham of whose Seed Christ should come and this he did not in opposition to the Promise but in subserviency thereto Gal. 3. 21. And though the matter and substance of the Law of Nature be found in the Sinai Covenant strictly taken for the Ten Commandments yet the Ends and Intentions of God in that terrible Sinai Dispensation were two-fold 1. To convince Fallen Man of the sinfulness and impotency of his Nature and the impossibility of obtaining Righteousness by the Law and so by a blessed necessity to shut him up to Christ his only Remedy And 2. To be a standing Rule of Duty both towards God and Man to the end of the World But if we take the Sinai Covenant more largely as inclusive of the Ceremonial with the Moral Law as it is often taken and is so by you in the New Testament then it did not only serve for a Conviction of Impotency and a Rule of Duty but exhibited and taught much of Christ and the Mysteries of the New Covenant in those its Ceremonies wherein he was prefigured to them 5. Whence it evidently appear that the Sinai Covenant was neither repugnant to the New Covenant in its scope and aim The law is not against the promise Gal. 3. 21. nor yet set up as co-ordinate with it with a design to open two different ways of Salvation to Fallen Man but was added to the Promise in respect of its Evangelical purposes and designs on which account it is call'd by some a Covenant of Faith or Grace in respect of its subserviency unto Christ who is the end of the Law for righteousness Rom. 10. 4. and by others a Subservient Covenant according to Gal. 3. 23 24. and accordingly we find both Tables of the Law put into the Ark Heb. 9. 4. which shews their Consistency and Subordination with and to the method of Salvation by Christ in the New Covenant 6. This design and intention of God was fatally mistaken by the Jews ever since God promulg'd that Law at Sinai and was by them notoriously perverted to a quite contrary end to that which God promulged it for even to give Righteousness and Life in the way of personal and perfect Obedience Rom. 10. 3. for they being ignorant of Gods righteousness and going about to establish their own righteousness have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God Hence Christ came to be slighted by them and his righteousness rejected for they rested in the Law Rom. 2. 17. were married to the Law as an Husband Rom. 7. 2 3. and so might have no Conjugal Communion with Christ. However Moses Abraham and all the Elect discerned Christ as the end of the Law for righteousness and were led to him thereby 7ly This fatal Mistake of the Use and Intent of the Law is the ground of those seeming Contradictions in Paul's Epistles Sometimes he magnifies the Law when he speaks of it according to Gods end and purpose in its Promulgation Rom. 7. 12 14 16. but as it was fatally mistaken by the Jews and set in opposition to Christ so he thunders against it calls it a ministration of Death and Condemnation and all its appendent Ceremonies weak and beggarly elements and by this distinction whatsoever seems repugnant in Paul's Epistles may be sweetly reconciled and 't is a distinction of his own making 1 Tim. 1. 8. We know that the Law is good if we use it lawfully There is a good and an evil use of the Law Had you attended these things you had not so confidently and inconsiderately pronounced it a pure Covenant of Works II Position Secondly you affirm with like Confidence That the Covenant of Circumcision is also the same viz. The Covenant of Works made with Adam in Paradise This I utterly deny and will try whether you have any better Success in the Proof of your second than you had in your first Position and to convince you of your mistake let us consider what the general nature of this Ordinance of Circumcision was what its ends were and then prove that it cannot be what you affirm it to be the very same Covenant God made with Adam before the Fall but must needs be a Covenant of Grace 1. Circumcision in its general Nature was 1. an Ordinance of God's own Institution in the 99th year of Abraham's Age at which time of its Institution God renewed the Covenant with him Gen. 17. 9 10. 2. That it consisted as all Sacraments do of an external Sign and a Spiritual Mystery signified thereby The external part of it which we call the Sign was the cutting off the Foreskin of the Genital part of the Hebrew Males on the eighth Day from their Birth The Spiritual Mystery thereby signified and represented was the cutting off the Filth and Guilt of Sin from their Souls by Regeneration and Justification called the Circumcision of the heart Deut. 10. 16. And though this was laid upon them by the Command as their Duty yet a gracious Promise of Power from God to perform that Duty was added to the Command Deut. 30. 6. The Lord thy God will circumcise thy heart to love him c. just as Promises of Grace in the New Testament are added to commands of Duty 3. Betwixt this outward visible Sign and Spiritual Mystery there was a Sacramental Relation from which Relation it is called the Token of the Covenant Gen. 17. 12. The Sign and Seal of the Covenant Rom. 4. 11. yea the Covenant it self Acts 7. 8. 2. Next let us consider the ends for which Circumcision was instituted and ordained of God of which these were the Principal 1. It was instituted to be a convictive Sign of their natural Corruption propagated by the way of natural Generation For which reason this natural Corruption goes in Scripture under the name of the Uncircumcision of the heart 〈◊〉 9. 26. 2. It also signified the putting off of this Body of Sin in the vertue of Christ's Death Col. 2. 11. 3. It was appointed to be the initiating Sign of the Covenant or a token of their Matriculation and Admission into the Church and Covenant of God Gen. 17. 9 10 11. 4. It was ordained to be a discriminating Mark betwixt God's Covenanted People and the Pagan World who were Strangers to the Covenant and without God in the World And accordingly both Parties were from this Ordinance denominated the Circumcision and the Uncircumcision Col. 3. 11. 5. It was also an obliging Sign to Abraham and his Seed to walk with God in the Uprightness and Sincerity of their Hearts in the performance of all covenanted Duties in which Duties Abraham and the Faithful waâ—…ked Obedientially with God looking to Christ for Righteousness but the carnal Jews resting in and trusting to
the Gospel Col. 2. 11 12. 4. They constantly affirm That none of those Grants or Priviledges made to the Infant-Seed of Abraham's Family were ever repealed or revoked by Christ or his Apostles and therefore Believers Children now are in the rightful Possession of them and that therefore there needed no new Command or Promise in Abraham's Command we find our Duty to Sign our Children with the Sign of the Covenant and in Abraham's Promise we find God's gracious Grant to our Children as well as his especially since the Apostle directs us in this very respect to the Covenant of God with Abraham Acts 2. 38 39. These Sir are the Principles on which we lay as you say great Stress and which to this day you have never been able to shake down here therefore you attempt a new Method to do it by proving this Covenant is now abolished and this is your Method in which you promise your self great Success Three things you pretend to prove 1. That the Sinai Covenant Exod. 20. 2. That Abraham's Covenant Gen. 17. are no Gospel-Covenants and that because 3. The Gospel-Covenant is Absolute and Unconditional How you come to hook in the Mosaick Covenant into this Controversie is not very evident unless you think it were easie for you to prove that to be a Covenant of Works and then Abraham's Covenant Gen. 17. being an Old Testament Covenant were the more easily proved to be of the same nature I am obliged to examine your three Positions above noted and if I evidence to the World the Falsity of them the Cause you manage is so far lost and the right of Believers Infants to Baptism stands firm upon its old and sure Foundation I begin therefore with your I Position That the Covenant made with Israel on Mount Sinai is the very same Covenant of Works made with Adam in Innocency P. 122. and divers other places of your Book the very same Now if I prove that this Assertion of yours doth naturally and regularly draw many false and absurd Consequents upon you which you are and must be forced to own then this your Position cannot be true for from true Premisses nothing but truth can naturally and regularly follow but I shall make it plain to you that this your Position regularly draws many false Conclusions and gross Absurdities upon you some of which you own expresly and others you as good as own being able to return nothing rational or satisfactory in your own defence against them 1. From this Assertion that the Sinai Covenant was a pure Covenant of Works the very same with Adam's Covenant it regularly and necessarily follows that either Moses and all Israel were Damned there being no Salvation possible to be attained by that first Covenant or else that there was a Covenant of Grace at the same time running parallel with that Covenant of Works and so the Elect People of God were at one and the same time under the first as a Covenant of Death and Condemnation and under the second as a Covenant of Grace and Justification This Dilemma pinches you to assert that Moses and all the Elect of God under that Dispensation were damned you dare not and if you had you must have expunged the 11th Chapter to the Hebrews and a great part of the New Testament together with all your hopes of sitting down with Abraham Isaac and Jacob in the Kingdom of Heaven The latter therefore seeing you cannot avoid you are forc'd upon and in plain words yield it p. 174 175. That Moses and the whole body of the Children of Israel without exception of any were under yea absolutely under the severest penalties of a dreadful Curse That the Covenant they were under could be no other than a Covenant of Works a ministration of Death and Condemnation when yet it is also evident from the same Holy Scriptures of Truth that at the same time both Moses and all the Elect among that People were under a pure Covenant of Gospel-grace and that these two Covenants were just opposite the one to the other but to this you have nothing to say but with the Apostle in another case O the depth Here Sir you father a pure and perfect contradiction upon the Holy Scriptures that it speaks things just opposite and contradictory the one to the other and of necessity one part or member of a contradiction must be false this all the rational World knows but so it is say you and fly to the infinite Wisdom to reconcile them for you say you know not what to say to it Just so the Papists serve us in the Controversie about Transubstantiation when they cannot reconcile one thing with another they fly to the Omnipotent Power to do it But Sir I wonder how you hold and hug a Principle that runs naturally into such gross absurdities Do you see what follows from hence by unavoidable consequence you must according to this Principle hold That Moses and all Gods peculiar elect People in Israel must during their Life hang mid-way between Justification and Condemnation and after Death between Heaven and Hell 1. During Life they must hang mid-way between Justification and Condemnation justify'd they could not be for Justification is the Souls passing from Death to Life 1 John 3. 14. John 5. 24. This they could not possibly do for the ministration of Death and Condemnation hindred He that is under Condemnation by the Law cannot during that state pass into Life And yet to be under Condemnation is as impossible on the other side for he that is justified cannot at the same time be under Condemnation Rom. 8. 1. John 5. 24. What remains then but that during Life they must stick mid-way betwixt both neither justify'd nor condemned and yet both so and so Justification is our Life and Condemnation our Death in Law Betwixt these two which are privatively oppos'd there can be no Medium of participation and yet such a Medium you here fancy 2. And then after Death they must necessarily hang betwixt Heaven and Hell to Heaven none can go that are under the very rigour and tyranny of the Law a pure Covenant of Works as you say they were To Hell they could not go being under the pure Covenant of Grace What remains then but some third state must be assigned them and so at last we have found the Limbus Patrum and your Position leads us right to Purgatory a Conclusion which I believe you your self abhor as much as I. 2ly This Hypothesis pinches you with another Dilemma viz. Either there was pardon on Repentance in Moses his Covenant and the Sinai Dispensation of the Law or there was none if you say â—…one you directly contradict Lev. 26. 40 46. If there were then it cannot be Adam's Covenant of Works You answer pag. 179. That God promiseth pardon for the Breach of Moses his Covenant and of Adam 's Covenant too but neither Adam 's Covenant nor the Jewish legal Covenant promised any
pardon upon repentance but rather threatens and inflicts the contrary Reply Either this is a direct Answer to my Argument to prove the Law at Sinai cannot be a pure Adam's Covenant because it had a promise of pardon annexed to it Lev. 26. 40. but Adam's Covenant had none If your Answer be direct then 't is a plain contradiction in saying it had and it had not a promise of pardon belonging to it or else it is a meer Evasion and an eluding of the Argument and your only meaning is That the Relief I speak of is not to be found in any promise belonging to the Sinai Dispensation but in some other Gospel-Covenant or Promise But Sir this will not serve your turn you see I cite the very promise of Grace made to the Israelites on Mount Sinai by the hand of Moses wherein God promiseth upon their humiliation to remember his Covenant for their good Now Sir you had as good have stood to your first Answer which is self-contradictory as to this which is no less so as will evidently appear by a nearer and more particular view of the place and gathering up your own Concessions about it that this Text Lev. 26. 40. hath the nature of a gracious Gospel-promise in it no Man can deny except he that will deny that Gods remembring of his Covenant for the relief of poor broken-hearted Sinners is no Gospel-promise pertaining to the Covenant of Grace That it was made to the penitent Israelites upon Mount Sinai and there delivered them by the hand of Moses for their relief is as visible and plain as the Words and Syllables of the 46th Verse are to him that reads them Let the Promise then be considered both ways 1. In your Sense as a plain direction to the Covenant of Grace made with Abraham for their relief for so you say it was p. 180. Or let it be considered absolutely as that which contained relief in it self for the penitent Israelites that should live towards the end of the World after they should be gathered from all their Dispersions and Captivities as you there speak and more fully explicate in your accommodation of a Parallel Promise p. 111 112 113. First let us view it in your sense as a relative promise to the Covenant of Grace made with Abraham Gen. 12. to which say you it plainly directs them and then this legal Dispensation can never be the same with Adam's Covenant for to that Covenant no such Promise was ever annexed which should guide and plainly direct them to Christ and Pardon as that Star which appeared to the Wise Men directed their way to Christ. If there be any such relative promise belonging to Adam's Covenant in Paradise as this which I plainly shew you was made on Mount Sinai be pleased to produce it and you end the Controversie but if you cannot as you know you can not then never say the legal Dispensation at Sinai and the Covenant of Work with Adam in Paradise are the very same Covenant Secondly Let us consider this Promise absolutely in it self anâ—… then I demand was there Mercy Relieâ—… and Pardon contained in it for any penâ—… tent Sinner present or to come Yeâ—… say you it extends Relief to Penitentâ—… after God shall gather them from aâ—… their Captivities at the end of thâ—… World very Good Then 't is a verâ—… vigorous Promise of Grace which noâ—… only reaches 430 years backward as faâ—… as the first Promise to Abraham bâ—… also extends its Reliefs and Comfortâ—… many thousand years forwards even tâ—… the purest times of the Gospel just before Christ's coming to Judgment anâ—… can such a Promise as this be denieâ—… to be in it self a Gospel-Promise Suâ—… it can neither be denied to be such nor yet to be made upon Mount Sinai bâ—… the Hand of Moses This Dilemma is aâ—… pinching as the former Perhaps you will say this Promise did not belong to the Moral Law given at Sinai but to the Ceremonial Law if so then I should reasonably conclude that you take the Ceremonial Law of which you seem to make this a Branch Page 181. to be a Covenant of Grace seeing one of its Branches bears such a gracious Promise upon it No that must not be so neither for say you Page 151. the Ceremonial Covenant is of the same nature with the Covenant of Works or Law written in Tables of Stone whither then shall we send this Promise To the Covenant of Grace we must not send it unless only as an Index or Finger to point to it because it was made upon Mount Sinai and delivered to Israel by the Hand of Moses to the Gospel-Govenant we must not therefore annex it and to the legal Dispensation at Sinai you are as loath to annex it because it contains so much Relief and Grace in it for poor Penitents and that will prove that neither the Moral nor Ceremonial Law place it in which you please can be a pure Covenant of Works as Adam's was Moreover In making this the Promise which must Relieve and Comfort the distressed Israelites in the purest Gospel-times towards the end of the World you as palpably contradict your self in another respect for we shall find you by and by stoutly denying that the Gospel-Promises have any Conditions or Qualifications annexed to them but so hath this which you say relates to them that shall live at the end of the World If their uncircumcised Hearts be humbled and if they accept the punishment of their Iniquities then will I remember my Covenant c. But be this Promise Conditional or Absolute two things are undeniably clear 1. That it is a Promise full of Grace for the relief of Law-Transgressors ver 40. 2. That it was a Mount Sinai Promise ver 46. and such a Promise as you can never shew in Adam's Covenant Besides It is to me an unaccountable thing that a Promise which hath a double comfortable Aspect 430 years back and some thousands of years forward should not cast one comfortable glance upon the Penitents of the present Age when it was made nor upon any till near the end of the World What think you Sir of the 3000 Jews prick'd at the Heart Acts 2. had they no Relief from it because their Lot fell not late enough in time Were the Penitent Jews in Moses and Peter's days all born out of due time for this Promise to relieve O what Shifting and Shuffling is here Who can think a Man that twists and winds every way to avoid the dint of an Argument can possibly have a Moral Assurance of the truth of his own Opinion 3. You say Page 134. That through Christ's satisfaction there is no repugnancy or hostile contrariety betwixt the Law and Promise but an Agreement betwixt them and that they differ only in respect of Strength and Weakness the Gospel is able to go through stitch with it which the Law cannot do Reply Well then the Law considered as a
further to clear this Point the Apostle tells us Rom. 10. 4. That Christ is the end of the Law for righteousness to every one that believeth Whence I argue That if Adam's Covenant had one End namely the Justification of Men by their own personal Obedience and the Law at Sinai had a quite contrary 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 and bring him for his Justification to the Righteousness of another even that of Christ then the Sinai Law cannot possibly be the same thing with Adam's Covenant of Works but the Antecedent is true and plain in the forecited Text therefore so is the Consequent Christ is the end of the Law for Righteousness Take the Law here either more strictly for the Moral Law or more largely as it comprehends the Ceremonial Law still Christ is the end of the Law The Moral Law shuts up every Man to Christ for Righteousness by convincing him according to Gods design in the Publication of it of the impossibility of obtaining Justification in the way of Works And the Ceremonial Law many ways prefigured Christ his Death and Satisfaction by Blood in our room and so led Men to Christ their true Propitiation and all its Types were fulfilled and ended in Christ. Was there any such thing in Adam's Covenant You must prove there was else you will never be able to make them one and the same Covenant 6ly It seems exceeding probable from Acts 7. 37 38. That the Sinai Covenant was delivered to Moses by Jesus Christ there called the Angel This is he that was in the Church in the Wilderness with the Angel that spake to him in the Mount Sinai and with our Fathers who received the lively Oracles to give unto us Now if Christ himself were the Angel and the Precepts of the Law delivered by him to Moses were the Lively Oracles of God as they are there expresly affirm'd to be then the Law delivered on Mount Sinai cannot be a pure Adam's Covenant of Works For it is never to be imagined that Jesus Christ himself should deliver to Moses such a Covenant directly opposite to all the ends of his future Incarnation and that those Precepts which if they were of the same nature and revived to the same end at which Adam's Covenant directly aimed should be called the Lively Oracles of God When contrarywise upon your Supposition they could be no other than a Ministration of Condemnation and Death But that they were Lively Oracles viz. in their Design and Intention is plain in the Text and that they were delivered to Moses by Jesus Christ the Angel of the Covenant seems more than probable by comparing it with the former Verses 7ly Neither is it easie to imagin how such a Covenant which by the Fall of Adam had utterly lost all its Promises Priviledges and Blessings and could retain nothing but the Curses and Punishments annexed to it in case of the least Failure could possibly be numbred among the chief Priviledges in which Gods Israel gloried as it apparently was Rom. 9. 4. Who are Israelites to whom pertaineth the adoption and the glory and the covenants and the giving of the law and the service of God and the promises These things considered with many more which the intended Brevity of this Discourse will not now admit I am fully satisfy'd of the Falsity of your Position and so may you too when you shall review the many gross and palpable Absurdities with which I have clogg'd and loaded it with many more regularly and fairly deducible from it which I could easily produce did I not suspect these I have produced have already pressed your Patience a littly too far But if ever I shall see which I never expect a fair and Scriptural Solution of these weighty Objections you may expect from me more Arguments against your unsound Position which at the present I judge needless to add To conclude Those Premises as before I noted can never be true from whence such and so many gross and notorious Absurdities are regularly and unavoidably deducible For Ex veris nil nisi verum from true Premises nothing but Truth can regularly follow Had you minded those things which I seasonably sent you you had avoided all those Boggs into which you are now sunk and been able fairly to reconcile all those seeming Contradictions in Paul's Epistles with respect to the Law at Sinai But however by what hath been said your first Position That the Sinai Covenant is the same Covenant of Works with Adam 's in Paradise vanishes before the Evidence of Scripture-truth and sound Reason But yet though what I have said destroys your false Position I am not willing to leave you or the Reader ignorant wherein the Truth lies in this controverted Point betwixt us and that will appear by a due consideration of the following Particulars 1. 'T is plain and uncontroverted That Adam's Covenant in Paradise contained in it a perfect Law and Rule of natural Righteousness founded both in God's Nature and in Mans which in its perfect state of Innocency was every way enabled perfectly to comply therewith For the Scripture tells us Eccles. 7. 29. That God made Man upright and his punctual complying therewith was the Righteousness by which he stood 2. This Covenant of Works being once broken can never more be available to the Justification and Salvation of any Fallen Man There was not now a Law found that could give Righteousness the broken Covenant of Works lost immediately all the Blessings and Priviledges which before it contain'd and retain'd only the Curse and Punishment in token whereof Cherubims with flaming Swords turning every way were set to keep the way of the Tree of Life Gen. 3. 24. 3. Soon after the Violation of the Covenant of Works God was graciously pleased to publish for the relief of Mankind now miserable and hopeless the Second Covenant which we call the Covenant of Grace Gen. 3. 15. which is the first opening of the Grace of God in Christ to Fallen Man and though this first Promise of Christ was but short and obscure yet it was in every Age to be opened clearer and clearer until the promised Seed should come After the first opening of this new Covenant in the first Promise of Christ the first Covenant is shut up for ever as a Covenant of Life and Salvation and all the World are shut up to the only way of Salvation by Christ Gal. 3. 23. it being contrary to the Will of God that two ways of Salvation should stand open to Man at once and they so opposite one to another as the way of Works and the way of Faith are Acts 4. 12. John 14. 6. Gal. 2. 21. 4. 'T is evident however that after the first opening of the Promise of Christ Gen. 3. 15. God foreseeing the Pride of Fallen Man who naturally inclines to
all by putting him at once under a contrary Covenant and so cut off all capacity to enjoy one of those mercies Don't you make Circumcision in its own Nature without respect to the intention of the Person an Obligation to the whole Law and that which frustrates the Death of Christ and yet must grant that Paul himself took Timothy and circumcised him and yet thereby brought him under no such dangerous obligation to the Law In a word You reject all those Covenants as legal that have any conditions in them or respect to any thing that is to be done by us and allow Gen. 12. and Gen. 22. to be pure Gospel-Covenants of Grace and yet in the first Abraham is bound to walk before God and be perfect and in the other God saith For because thou hast done this thing surely blessing I will bless thee And so much for Abraham's Covenant III. Of the Conditionality of the New Covenant Come we next to consider that Opinion of yours which led you into these other gross mistakes and absurdities and that is this That the Covenant of Grace is absolute and whatever Covenant is not so but hath any condition upon our part must needs for that reason be a Covenant of Works See Page 229. It is observable say you that as the Covenants mentioned Gen. 2. Exod. 20. c. were all conditional and therefore legal Covenants requiring strict and perfect Obedience as the condition propounded in order to the enjoyment of the mercies contained in them which are all therefore done away in Christ so on the other hand we see that the Covenant God made with Abraham Gen. 12. 2 3. and Gen. 17. 2 3. and Gen. 22. 16 17 18. was wholly free and absolute and therefore purely Evangelical c. We will review these things anon and see if you truly represent the matter but in order to it let me first tell you 1. What we mean by a Gospel-Condition 2. Prove that there are such in the Gospel-Covenant 3. Shew you the absurdity of your Opinion against it 1. What we mean by a Condition in the Gospel-Covenant By a Condition of the Covenant we do not mean in the strictest rigid Sense of the Word such a Restipulation to God from Man of perfect Obedience in his own Person at all times so as the least Failure therein forfeits all the mercies of the Covenant That 's rather the condition of Adam's Covenant of Works than of the Evangelical Covenant nor do we assert any meritorious condition that in the nature of an impulsive Cause shall bring Man into the Covenant and its Priviledges or continue him in when brought in This we renounce as well as you but our Question is about such a Condition as is neither in the Nature of it an Act perfect in every degree nor meritorious in the least of the Benefit conferr'd nor yet done in our own strength But plainly and briefly our Question is Whether there be not something as an Act required of us in point of Duty to a Blessing consequent by vertue of a promise Such a thing whatever it be hath the nature of a Condition inasmuch as it is antecedent to the Benefit of the Promise and the Mercy or Benefit granted is suspended until it be performed The Question is not Whether there be any intrinsecal worth or value in the thing so required to oblige the Disposer to make or perform the Grant or Promise but meerly that it be antecedent to the enjoyment of the benefit and that the disposer of the benefit do suspend the benefit until it be performed Thus an Act or Duty of ours which hath nothing at all of Merit in it or answerable value to the benefit it relates to may be in a proper Sense a Condition of the said benefit For what is a Condition in the true Notion of it but the Suspension of a Grant until something future be done or as others to the same purpose the adding of words to a Grant for the future of a suspending quality according to which the Disposer will have the benefit he disposeth to be regulated This properly is a Condition though there be nothing of equivalent value or merit in the thing required And such your Brethren in their Narrative pag. 14. do acknowledge Faith to be when they assert none can be actually reconciled justifyed or adopted till they are really implanted into Jesus Christ by Faith and so by vertue of this their Union with him have these fundamental benefits actually conveyed unto them which contains the proper Notion of the Condition we contend for And such a Condition of Salvation we assert Faith to be in the New Covenant Grant that is to say the Grant of Salvation by God in the Gospel-Covenant is suspended from all Men till they believe and is due by Promise not Merit to them as soon as they do truly believe The Notes or Signs of a Condition given by Civilians or Moralists are such as these If If not unless but if except only and the like When these are added in the Promise of a Blessing or Benefit for the future they make that Promise conditional and your Grammar according to which you must speak if you speak properly and strictly will tell you that Si sin modo dum dummodo are all conditional Particles and it is evident that these conditional Particles are frequently inserted in the Grants of the Blessings and Priviledges of the New Testament As for example Mark 9. 23. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If thou canst believe Acts 8. 37. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If thou believest with thy whole heart thou mayest c. Rom. 10. 9. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth and believe with thy heart c. thou shalt be saved Matth. 18. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Except ye be converted and become as little Children you shall not enter into the Kingdom of heaven Mark 5. 36. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Only believe Mark 11. 26. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But if ye forgive not c. with multitudes more which are all conditional Particles inserted in the Grants of Benefits 2. Having shewn what the nature of a Condition is I shall I hope make it plain to you That Faith is such a Condition in the Gospel-grant of our Salvation for we find the Benefit suspended till this Act of Faith be performed John 3. 36. He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life and he that believeth not the Son shall not see Life but the wrath of God abideth on him And most plainly Rom. 10. 9. having shewn before what the Condition of Legal Righteousness was he tells us there what the Gospel-condition of Salvation is The righteousness which is of Faith speaketh on this wise that if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus and shalt believe in thy heart that God raised him from the dead thou shalt be saved I ask you Sir
To imâ—…ose new Conditions though never so â—…ild is a New Covenant of Works with me Mercy but not a Covenant of race properly so called Sol. T 's true if those Works or Acts ours which God requires be underâ—…od of meritorious Works in our own Strength and Power to perform it destroys the Free Grace of the Covenant but this we utterly reject and speak only of Faith wrought in us by the Spirit of God which receives all from God and gives the entire Glory to God Ephes. 2. 5 8. Obj. But you will say If Faith be the Condition and that Faith be not of our selves then both the Promise and the Condition are on Gods part if you will call Faith a Condition and so still on our part the Covenant is absolute Sol. This is a mistake and the mistake in this leads you into all the rest though Faith which we call the Condition on our Part â—…e the Gift of God and the power of Believing be derived from God yet the act of believing is properly our act though the power by which we believe be of God else iâ—… would follow when we act any Grace as Faith Repentance or Obedience thaâ—… God believes repents and obeys in us and it is not we but God that doth alâ—… these This I hope you will not darâ—… to assert They are truly our Works though wrought in Gods Strength Isâ—… 26. 12. Lord thou hast wrought all oâ—… works in us i. e. Though they be our Works yet they are wrought in us by thy Grace or Strength As for Dr. Owen 't is plain from the place you cite in the Doctrine of Justification pag. 156. he only excludes Conditions as we do in respect of the dignity of the Act and is more plain in his Treatise of Redemption pag. 103 104. in which he allows Conditions in both the Covenants and makes this the difference That the Old required them but the New effects them in all the Federates I know no Orthodox Divine in the World that presumes to thrust in any Work of Mans into the Covenant of Grace as a Condition which in the Arminian Sense he may or may not perform according to the power and pleasure of his own Free-will without the preventing or determining Grace of God which preventing Grace is contained in those Promises Ezek. 36. 25 26 27. c. Nor yet that there is any meritorious Worth either of Condignity or Congruity in the Popish Sense in the very justifying Act of Faith for the which God justifies and saves us But we say That though God in the way of preventing Grace works Faith in us and when it is so wrought we need his assisting Grace to act it yet neither this assisting nor preventing Grace makes the act of Faith no more to be our Act 'T is we that believe still tho in Gods Strength and that upon our believing or not believing we have or have not the Benefits of Gods Promises which is the very proper Notion of a Condition Argument IV. If all the Promises of the New Covenant be absolute and unconditional having no respect nor relation to any Grace wrought in us nor Duty done by us then the Trial of our Interest in Christ by Marks and Signs of Grace is not our Duty nor can we take comfort in Sanctification as an Evidence of Justification But it is a Christians Duty to try his Interest in Christ by Marks and Signs and he may take comfort in Sanctification as an evidence of Justification Ergo. The Sequel of the Major is undeniably clear for that can never be a Sign or Evidence of an Interest in Christ which that Interest may be without yea and as Dr. Crispe asserts according to his Antinomian Principles Christ is ours saith he before we have gracious Qualifications Every true Mark and Sign must be inseparable from that it signifies Now if the works of the Spirit in us be not so but an Interest in Christ may be where these are not then they are no proper Marks or Signs and if they are not it cannot be our Duty to make use of them as such and consequently if we should they can yield us no Comfort The Minor is plain in Scripture 1 John 2. 3. Hereby we do know that we know him if we keep his Commandments The meaning is we perceive and discern our selves to be sincere Believers and consequently that Christ is our Propitiation when Obedience to his Commands is become habitual and easie to us So 1 John 3. 19. Hereby we know that we are of the truth and shall assure our hearts before him i. e. by our sincere cordial love to Christ and his Members as v. 18. this shall demonstrate to us that we are the Children of Truth and again 1 John 3. 14. We know that we are passed from death to life because we love the Brethren With Multitudes more to the same purpose which plainly teach Christians to fetch the Evidences of their Justification out of their Sanctification and to prove their Interest in Christ by the works of his Spirit found in their own Hearts And this is not only a Christians Liberty but his commanded duty to bring his Interest in Christ to this Touch-stone and Test 2 Cor. 13. 5. Examine your selves prove your selves c. 2 Pet. 1. 10. Give all diligence to make your calling and election sure i. e. your Election by your calling No Man can make his Election sure a priori nor can any Man make it surer than it is in se therefore it is only capable of being made sure to us a posteriori arguing from the work of Sanctification in us to God's eternal choice of us And as the Saints in all Ages have taken this course so they have taken great and lawful Comfort in the use of these Marks and Signs of Grace 2 Kings 20. 3. 2 Cor. 1. 12. I am sensible how vehemently the Antinomian Party Dr. Crispe Mr. Eyre and some others do oppugn this truth representing it as legal and impracticable for they are for the absolute and unconditional Nature of the new Covenant as well as you but by your espousing their Principle you have even run Anabaptism into Antinomianism and must by this Principle of yours renounce all Marks and Tryals of an Interest in Christ by any work of the Spirit wrought in us You must only stick to the immediate Sealings of the Spirit which if such a thing be at all it is but rare and extraordinary I will not deny but there may be an immediate Testimony of the Spirit but sure I am his mediate Testimony by his Graces in us is his usual way of sealing Believers We do not affirm any of these his works to be meritorious causes of our Justification or that considered abstractedly from the Spirit they can of themselves Seal or evidence our Interest in Christ. Neither do we affirm that any of them are compleat and perfect Works but this we say that
genuine Sense of this Text then all the Children in the World not immediately descended from one or both believing Parents must of necessity be all Bastards and their Parents how solemnly soever married must live in uncleanness and what mad Work think you will this Assertion make in the World And how many Millions of Persons will it nearly touch both in point of Honour and Inheritance 2. You say Though the Holiness here spoken of should be allow'd to be a Federal or Covenant Holiness yet for want of an express Institution it will not warrant our Practice Reply The Holiness of the Children being granted to be a Covenant Holiness none can deny them to be within the Covenant how else come they to be holy by Covenant and if within the Covenant who can deny them the Initiating Sign which is Baptism Or how shall they ordinarily be visibly admitted into the Visible Church without it The Connection betwixt their Federal Holiness and right to Baptism will appear plain enough from Acts 2. 38. which you come next to speak to 5. You attempt to answer Mr. Allen's argument from Acts 2. 38. Be baptized or the promise is unto you and to your Chilâ—ren and unto all that are afar off even â—s many as the Lord our God shall call On this Text you know we lay very great stress for the Proof of Infants Baptism and it deserves a remarque that you wholly Suppress our Arguments drawn from that Text but however return an Answer to them all such as it is You first tell us The Promise here spoken of is not a promise of any external priviledges but the promise of the Gospel or the Grace of God in Christ Jesus Secondly That the Promise was not to their Children as Believers Seed nor to them or any other uncall'd by the Lord but only a promise of remission of Sins and receiving the Holy Ghost upon their actual Repentance which Infants cannot perform and therefore cannot here be intended This is the true and whole Sense of your Answer Reply Now because you have wholly omitted our Argument from this Text for which doubtless there was some reason I think my self oblig'd to let the World know how we expound it and what we duly infer from that Exposition of it And then let the Reader judge whether by the forementioned Rules of a just Interpretation you or we are in the right 1. We observe this famous Text to contain the first Argument used by the Apostle after Christs Ascension to perswade the Jews to embrace Christianity by repenting and submitting themselves to Baptism the initiating Sign of it and therefore here we justly expect much Light about this controverted Point nor doth the Apostle in this Text deceive our expectation 2. We take it for granted that the direct and proper Scope of this place is to perswade the Jews to whom St. Peter preach'd to repent and be baptized This you allow when you say pag. 10. He uses it as a Motive why they and theirs should actually repent and be baptized In these two then there is no Controversie 3. We take it for certain that the Promise here referr'd to by Peter is that gracious Promise Gen. 17. 7. I will be a God to thee and thy Seed the adjoyning of their Children to them saith Calvin and with him runs the general current of Expositors depends on the Words of that Promise Gen. 17. 7. If you be not satisfied with this but rather will refer it to Joel 2. 28. you are then oblig'd to answer Mr. Sydenham's Arguments a fortiori from that reference But you make no Exception at all to this Accomodation of it And then the Sense must be this The Promise shall run as before to you and to your Children 4. We say that except it had had relation to the Covenant with Abraham there had been no occasion or reason at all here to have mentioned Children as well as Parents The promise is to you and to your Children It had been enough if he had only intended the believing Parents exclusive of their Infant Seed to have said The Promise is made to as many as the Lord our God shall call What reason or occasion was there to bring in their Children at all 5. We find here the Children both of believing Jews and Gentiles mentioned in the Promise accompanying the Precept of Baptism and the Precept to them built upon the Promise as that which gave them their Title to Baptism 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for the Promise is to you and to your Children In the same Line that he mentions Baptism he also mentions the Promise upon which their Right is founded and in the same Breath with which he mentions their Children he also mentions the Promise which he would never have done had his design been to have excluded their Children from both or either of them especially seeing their Children had been so long in the possession of both These things are obvious natural and every way agreeable both to the Grammar and Scope of the Text whence we argue Arg. If the Promise be the same to Believers under the Gospel that ever it was to Abraham and his natural Seed then the Children of Believers by vertue thereof have as good a Title to Baptism as Abraham's Children had to Circumcision But the Promise is the same Ergo c. Next let us consider your Answers 1. You say The Promise here spoken of is not a Promise of any external Priviledges but the Promise of the Gospel Reply Your Distinction is vain and groundless for it opposeth Promises that contain external Priviledges to Gospel Promises contrary to 1 Tim. 4. 8. Godliness hath promise of the Life that now is and of that which is to come Secondly Circumcision then and Baptism now which have both their Foundation in that Promise contain Priviledges in them of both sorts This no Man can deny but he that thinks it no Priviledg to be admitted into the Visible Church by the external initiating Sign and to be thereby distinguished from the Pagan World You have no Warrant therefore to divide those things which God hath united 2. You say the Promise was not to them as Believers Seed nor to any uncalled by the Lord. Reply Your meaning is that these Words as many as the Lord shall call are a Limitation of the Promise to them only whether Parents or Children that are actually called let this your Interpretation be compared with and examin'd by the Scope of the Text which you confessed before to be a Motive to perswade them and theirs to Repentance and Baptism and see if it can stand before it as ours doth For if this be the meaning then the Apostle's Argument must run thus I exhort you convinced Jews to Repentance and Christian Baptism for whereas you and your Children have hitherto been an holy Seed and the Promise formerly was to them as well as you but now the case is alter'd if you
Works forasmuch as our Divines are so far from conceiting the Covenant with Abraham to be a Covenant of Works that they will not allow the Sinai Law it self to be so and to convince you of it I lent you Mr. Roberts and Mr. Sedgewick on the Covenant to enlighten and satisfie you about it But little did I think you had had Confidence enough to enter the Lists with two such learned and eminent Divines and make them to follow your triumphant Chariot shackled with the incomparable Baxter and Allen Sydenham and Burthogg like three pair of Noble Prisoners of War But whatever was the occasion setting aside your Sin I am not sorry you have given a fit opportunity to enlighten the World in that Point also 2. You seem to fancy in your Letter that I was once of your Opinion about the Moral Law because you find these Passages in a Sermon of mine upon John 8. 36. If the Son therefore shall make you free then are you free indeed viz. That the Law required perfect working under pain of the Curse accepted no short Endeavours admitted no Repentance and gave no Strength But finding me here pleading for the Law you think you find me in a Contradiction to that Doctrine The Words I own the Contradiction I positively deny for I speak not there and here ad idem For in that Sermon and in those very Words you cite I speak against the Law not as God intended it when he added it to the Promise but as the Ignorance and Infidelity of unregenerate Men make it to themselves a Covenant of Works by looking upon it as the very rule and reason of their Justification before God This was the Stumbling Stone at which all Legal Justiciaries then did and still do stumble Rom. 9. 31 32 33. In this Sense the Apostle in his Epistles to the Romans and Galatians argues against the Law and so do I in the Words you cite but vindicate the Law in the very same Sermon you mention as consistent with and subservient to Christ in the former Sense and there tell you The Law sends us to Christ to be justified and Christ sends us back to the Law to be regulated The very same double Sense of the Law you will find in this Discourse and from the mistaken end and abuse of the Law which the Apostle so vehemently opposeth I here prove against you that the Law in this Sense cannot consist with or be added to the Promise and therefore make it my Medium to prove against you That the true Nature and Denomination of the Sinai Law can never be found in this Sense of it but it must be estimated and denominated from the Purpose and Intention of God which I have proved to be Evangelical Try your skill to fasten a Contradiction betwixt my Words in that Sermon and this Discourse I know you would be glad to find the shadow of one to make some small Excuse or Attonement for the many faults of that nature you have here committed 3. Your Letter also informs me that you hear you are answered by one hand already and for ought you know many more may be employed against you and I for one and so we shall compass you about like Bees Reply I have only seen Mr. Whiston's little Book against your Brother Grantham wherein he hath baffled two of your principal Arguments but you only come in collaterally there and must not look upon it as a full Answer to your Book but only as a Lash for your Folly en passant And for our compassing you about like Bees methinks you seem to be greatned in your own Fancy by the supposition or expectation of a multitude of Opponents You know as well as I who it is that glories in this Motto Unus contra omnes Sir I think your Mind may be much at rest in that matter Of all the six famous Adversaries mentioned in your Title Page there are but two living and you know mortui non mordent and of the remaining two one of them viz. Mr. Baxter is almost in Heaven living in the daily Views and chearful Expectations of the Saints everlasting rest with God and is left for a little while among us as a great Example of the Life of Faith And it is questionable with me whether such a great and Heavenly Soul can find any leisure or disposition to attend such a weak and trivial Discourse as this And as for my self you need not much fear me I have not neither do I intend to vibrate my Sting against you unless I find you infecting or disturbing that Hive to which I belong and to which I am daily gathering and carrying Honey and then who but a Drone would not sting 4. To conclude in the Close of your Letter you fall into the former strain of Love assuring me That the ancient Friendship of so many years shall still continue on your part Reply All that I shall return to this is only to relate a short Story out of Plutarch in the Life of Alexander where he tells us That whilst he was warring in the Indies one Taxiles an Indian King came with his Company to meet him and saluting Alexander said What need you and I to fight and war one upon another if thou comest not to take away our Water and the necessaries of Life from us for which we must needs fight As for other Goods if I am richer than thee I am ready to give thee of mine and if I have less I will not think scorn to thank thee for thine Alexander highly pleased with his Words made him this Reply Thinkest thou that this meeting of ours can be without fighting no no thou hast won nothing by all thy fair words for I will fight and contend with thee in Honesty and Courtesie and thou shalt not exceed me in Bounty and Liberality I say with Taxiles I had never armed against you had you not come to take away our Water and the necessaries of Life I mean the Covenant of God with Abraham which contains the rich Charter of the Gentile Believers Children and make it an abolished Adam's Covenant and told us that we must come up to the Primitive Purity in these things that is in renouncing it as a Covenant of Grace and relinquishing Infants Baptism as grounded thereon Sir Were my one Father alive I must and would oppose him should he attempt what here you do Infant Baptism with you is not Singing of Psalms that plain and Heavenly Gospel-Ordinance with you is not and will you take away our Benjamin also What! the Covenant of God with Abraham and his Children in their Generations all these things are against us No Sir we cannot part with that Covenant as an abolish'd Adam's Covenant nor will I give it up for all the Friendship in the World And yet I will say with Alexander I will contend with you in Friendship and Courtesie even whilst I earnestly contend against you for the Truths of God which you have here opposed and I have endeavoured to vindicate One Word more before I part with you I do assure you and the whole World that in this Controversie with you I have not knowingly or advisedly misrepresented your Sense If you shall say I did so in my second Argument from the Words p. 179. I assure you both my self and others could understand you no otherwise than I did in the Papers I sent you and when you told me you meant there was no pardon in either of those Covenants but that it plainly directed to Abraham's Covenant you will find I have given you as fair a Choice as you can desire either to stand to your words in the first Sense wherin I understood them or which will be the same to me to your own Sense in which you afterwards explained it to me And whereas I blame you over and over in my Epistle and Conclusion for putting the proper Subject of Baptism among the highest things in Religion Let the Reader view your Conclusion and see whether you do or not If you say you speak of the Covenant there as well as of baptism I allow that you do so yet I hope 't is equally as bad nay indeed and truth a great Aggravation of your Fault to make this Article viz. Gods Covenant with Abraham Gen. 17 is an abolished Adam 's Covenant one of the highest concernments of a Christian the Baptism only of Adult Believers another My consequences from your Words are just and regular how startling soever they seem to you If you think fit to rejoyn to this my Answer I desire you will avoid as much as you can a tedious Harangue of Words and speak strictly and regularly to my Arguments by limiting distinguishing or denying as a Disputant ought to do If so I promise you a Reply but if I find no such thing it shall pass with me but for waste Paper nor will I wast time about it The Lord give us Unity in things necessary Liberty in things indifferent and Charity in all things FINIS Gal. 3. 18. Rom. 10. 3. Rom. 2. 17. * Conditio est suspensio alicujus dispositionis tantisper dum aliquid futurum fiat Navarr Enchirid. 482. †Est verborum adjectio in futurum suspendentium secundum quam disponens vult dispositum regulari Dr. Crispe 2d Vol. of Christ exalted Serm. 14. Infant-Baptism pag. 45 45.