them under the Law or Sinai Covenant For with them all was that Covenant made and unâ—…er it they were Exod. 34. 27. Deut. 4 13. â—…h 27. 26. Yea they were absolutely under â—…t Gal. 5. 23. Before Faith came saith the Apostle we were kept under the Law shut up â—…nto the Faith which should afterward be revealâ—…d So Gal 4. 4 5. When the fulness of time was â—…ome God sent forth his Son made of a Woman made â—…nder the Law to redeem them that were under the Law that we might receive the Adoption of Sons And the Scriptures do equally assure us that as many as are under the Law they are under the Curse For it is written Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things that are written in the Book of the Law to do them Gal. 3. 10. unto which all the People were to say Amen Deut. 27. 26 These things you cannot but acknowledge as being no other than plain Scripture Propositions when yet at the same time you must needs grant that all Gods Elect among that People were under a pure Covenant of Gospel Grace whereby they were saved Now either it was the same or they were two different Covenants that had these essentially different Properties If they were two then â—…ou grant my main Proposition that God's People were then under two distinct and Essentially different Covenants If you say it was the same then see what follows For if the whole Body of the Israelites then were as they were under the Law and consequently under its Curse Can a Man be under the Curse of the Law and yet at the same time and as the fruit of the same Covenant be under the Blessing of the Gospel Doth the same Fountain at the same time send forth bitter Waters and sweet Or is it possible that the same Covenant should at the same time be a Covenant of Faith in Christ Jesus when both God himself Moses and Paul do plainly represent it to us as a Covenant of Works requiring strict universal and perfect Obedience under pain of the Curse Condemnation and Death Indeed I cannot but wonder how you hold and hug a Principle that runs you naturally into such gross Absurdities For do you not see what follows from hence by unavoidable Consequence For according to this Principle you must hold that Moses and all Gods Elect People in Israel who were under that Covenant and with whom it was made must during their Life hang midway between Justification and Condemnation and after Death between Heaven and Hell This you charge upon my Doctrin but do you not see that the same thundring Canon Limbus Patrum Pargatory and the like which with such a full Mouth you discharge at me comes thundring back again upon your self Yea do you not see that the very same Absurdities are far more justly and truly chargeable on your Doctrin than on mine For it may be reasonably concluded according to my Principles that how harsh or dreadful soever the Terms or Conditions of the Legal Covenant were to those that were under it as Moses and the whole Body of the Israelites then were yet the Grace of the Gospel Covenant far superseded and was by far more Victorious Powerful and Efficatious For as the Law entered that the offence might abound so saith the Apostle where Sin hath abounded Grace did much more abound And if by one man's offence death reigned by oue much more they which receive abundance of Grace and of the gift of Righteousness shall reign in life by one Jesus Christ Rom. 5. 17. 20. But what shall relieve when those two opposite and quite contrary conditions Faith and Works and the consequent fruits of either Justification and Condemnation shall be compriz'd or rather confounded together in one and the same Covenant Shall they fly from one part of the Covenant to the other from the Bitter Waters to the sweet Waters of the same Fountain for Relief This sounds harsh Is it not therefore much more congruous and suitable to Reason as well as also to the constant Analogy of the Christian Faith and Doctrin to affirm as Paul doth that these are the two Covenants and that the Sinner being scared with the dread and terrors of the Legal Covenant is forced thereby to have recourse unto the Gospel Covenant for succour which the Spirit of God hath assured us is of such a superabounding Nature for Comfort and Salvation above what the other contained for Death and Condemnation Besides God doth plainly tell the Israelites that he would remember his Covenant with them in the days of their youth I say His Covenant in opposition and contradistinction to their own before spoken of And then saith he thou shalt remember thy ways and be ashamed when thou shalt receive thy Sisters and I will give them to thee for Daughters but not by thy Covenant and I will establish my Covenant with thee and thou shalt know that I am the Lord Ezek. 16. 60 61. Now what may we infer from hence but plainly this that there was a two fold Covenant betwixt God and Israel the one called theirs the other Gods yet both Gods Covenants the first was called theirs because they were required to perform the Conditions of it the one a Covenant of Works whereof Moses was the Mediatour wherein themselves were immediately concerned to procure their own Salvation by their own Duties of Obedience which was impossible which was the true nature of the Sinai Covenant Rom. 10. 5. Gal. 3. 10 12. The other a Covenant of Gospel Grace which is wholly free and absolute whereof Christ is the only Mediatour and Surety Rom. 10. 6 7 8 c. Heb. 8. 6 7 c. This is properly Gods Covenant and this is the Covenant saith God that I will establish In short the Scriptures do plainly assure us of two Covenants the Legal and the Gospel and that these two are essentially different in respect of the terms of Life propounded in either And the Scriptures do equally assure us that no man is justified by the Law in the sight of God This is evident saith the Apostle and why For the just shall live by Faith and the Law is not of Faith but the man that doth them shall livein them On the contrary you affirm that the Law is of Faith yea that it is a Covenant of Faith in Christ Jesus Now whomshall we believe whether Paul or you You affirm that the Sinai Covenant was purposely so dispensed as to tender Life and Happiness upon two opposite and contrary Conditions Works and Faith Perfect doing and believing The Apostle Paul on the other hand affirms That if it be by Grace then is it no more of Works otherwise Grace is no more Grace and if it be of Works then is it no more Grace otherwise Work is no more Work So that we see the Scripture allows of no such mixture and shews us it is impossible that the same Covenant should
For indeed Faith it self is not our Righteousness as it would be if it were as you affirm it is the Condition of the New Covenant and that as an Act or Work required of us in point of Duty antecedent to the Benefit of the Promise For that would be to make an Act or Work of our own to be the formal matter of our Justification before God but this it is not it being only designed as an Instrument to receive and apply the Righteousness of another Even that wrought in the person of Christ for us which is wholly distinct from our own or any thing wrought in us or done by us Phil. 3. 9. Tit. 3. 5. You tell us indeed in your forementioned Book Entitled The Method of Grace P. 133 134. That though Faith is a Condition of the Covenant yet you cannot allow that it Justifies as a Condition And why Because as you there also tell us you cannot see according to this Opinion any Reason why Repentance may not as properly be said to Justifie as well as Faith For say you there Repentance is a Condition of the New Covenant as much as Faith And say you If Faith justify as a Condition then not onely Repentance but every other Grace that is a Condition must justify as well as Faith And say I 't is very true If Faith is a Condition of the New Covenant Repentance is a Condition as much as that and so are all other Graces Conditions of the New Covenant as well as Faith and Repentance This cannot be avoided And if all these are the Conditions of the New Covenant why they should not justify as Conditions I see not nor I think you nor any Man else For you give no other Reason why you cannot allow that Faith justifies as a Condition but that this will necessarily bring in Repentance and all other Graces to justify as Conditions also as well as Faith as indeed it doth Since whatsoever is the Condition of the New Covenant must needs be the Condition of our Justification For this is too evident to be justly denied but that as Perfect Obedience under the Law being the Condition of that Covenant was to have been the Condition of our justification before God had we been able to Perform it So after this Reckoning it is noless evident in reference to Faith Repentance and good Works under the Gospel also If therefore these must be ackdowledged to be the Conditions of the New Covenant the consequence is unavoidable that they are also the Conditions nay the very matter and ground of our acceptation before God And so at last in stead of making the Gospel Covenant to be a Covenant of Faith free and absolute we shall make it a plain Covenant of Works For what else maketh or wherein else consisteth the true Form or Nature of a a Covenant of Works but that Works whether perfect or imperfect be the Condition of it This being that alone that renders it essentially different from the Promise of Grace or the Gospel Covenant Thirdly It is true that Believing is Obedience to the Command of Believing that is it is the Act or thing Commanded and that in order to Salvation He that Believeth shall be saved He that Believeth not shall be Damned He that Believeth on the Son hath Life He that Believeth not shall not see Life But then it follows not that it is the Condition of the new Covenant A Physitian bids his Patient to trust himself with him and he will Cure him The Patient by trusting in him doth what is Required yet this is not the condition of his Cure but the means of accepting and using the Physitians Care and kindness We bid a poor Man hold forth his hand and we will give him an Alms. His holding out the hand is a Means to receive the Alms and so required by us not a Condition of our giving it though in so doing he doth what we bid him If one should say to a hungry Man there is Meat which shall be yours to live by it if you will eat it and digest it else not Who will call this a Condition Since it is the very Partaking of the Meat it self whereby a Man makes it his own If a Man redeem a Captive from Slavery and lays down the Price will any Man call his bare acceptance of Liberty the Condition of his Ransom True it is that if he do not accept thereof he will never be freed But this is not therefore the Condition of his Ransom for that was performed by another hand So for a Father to say to one that he bestows his Daughter upon in Marriage Lo she is your Wife take her and Marry her This is not a Condition of her being his Wife as external to it but it is that very intrinsecal and essential Act whereby she becomes his and he her Husband Additional unto all which it ought to be duely observed that in all those foregoing instances there is to be supposed a Power or capacity in the Poor Sick or Hungry Man to receive the Alms make use of the Food or accept of the Physitians kindness and so in the rest But so there is not in us to believe being by nature Dead in Trespasses and in Sins and therefore utterly uncapeable to perform this supposed Condition unless the Power and and Vertue of the New Covenant Mercy be first set at Work to accomplish it in us From whence it is manifest that the New Covenant is wholly free and absolute Since Faith it self is the Fruit and therefore cannot be the Condition thereof As for that Scripture Mark 11. 26. But if ye for give not Men their Trespasses against you neither will your Heavenly Father forgive you with many other Scriptures that seem to require Repentance and good Works as the Conditions of Life and Salvation To this I Answer That it is true that the immediate causes of Salvation are those things which do prepare and dispose for the Possession of Heaven and the state of Happyness which is Sanctification For this is that that makes us meet to be Partarkers of the Inheritance of the Saints in Light And without Holyness no Man shall see God But then it doth not therefore follow that the New Covenant is a Conditional Covenant It is the Law of the Land and the Fathers love that Entitles an Heir to the Inheritance Consequently these are not the Prime but remote Causes of his actual enjoying the inheritance when he comes of Age But the Immediate Causes of his Possession are his being of full Age and being of capacity to use it these giving Jus in Re the other Jus ad Rem Doth it therefore follow that the full Age and capacity of the Heir are Causes or Antecedent Conditions of his Title to the Estate Without these 't is true if he live not or lack understanding he cannot Inherit the Estate or come to the full enjoyment thereof though never so Absolutely
of Promise but God gave it to Abraham by Promise Is the Law then against the Promise God forbid For saith he if there had been a Law which could have given Life verily Righteousness should have been by the Law So then the Law would but could not give Life and why could it not give Life but through our Weakness we were not able to perform it nor could the Law furnish us with power to Enable us thereunto But what the Law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh that Christ hath performed and by his Death and Sufferings made up the Breach between God and us And so in this respect there is only a Difference of Deficiency between the Law and the Gospel the one being strong and powerful the other weak and unable to Relieve us But yet say I this Difference notwithstanding through the satisfaction of Christ there is no Repugnancy or Hostile Contrariety betwixt the Law and the Promises or between the Law and Faith which hath respect to the Promises c. This you account strange Doctrin The Reason you give say you is as strange that this comes to pass through the satisfaction of Christ. Good Sir say you Enlighten us in this Rare Notion Did Christ Die to purchase a Reconciliation betwixt the Covenant of Works as such and the Covenant of Grace And I pray Sir why not Did not Christ satisfie the Law on our behalf Was he not made of a Woman made under the Law to Redeem them that were under the Law that we might receive the Adoption of Sons Doth or can the Law it self Impeach those for whom Christ Died and whom God himself pronounceth Righteous Doth not the Law it self that was before our Enemy against us and contrary to us stand up as our Friend through the Mediation of Christ And hath not God for this very purpose set forth his Son Christ unto us a Propitiation through Faith in his Blood to declare unto us his Righteousness that he might be Just and the Justifier of him that Believeth in Jesus And were not the Two Tables accordingly put into the Ark to shew their subserviency to Christ and in this sense its Consistency with him Typically demonstrating that though the Covenant of Works could not be kept or performed by us yet it should be perfectly fulfilled in Christ for us Is there not here a Perfect Reconciliation betwixt the Two Covenants Are not Mercy and Truth here met together And do not Righteousness and Peace sweetly Kiss and Embrace each other through the satisfaction of Christ And yet it follows not that to be Justified by Works and by Faith should after Christ's Death make no odds of Difference between them according to the Corrupt Inference which you unjustly draw from the Premises For though 't is true in a sense we may be said to be Justified by Works rightly and truly enough that is as Christ in his own Person hath fulfilled the Law for us yet your Inference is far enough from being truly deducible from the Premises according to the common and proper sense of Justification by Works Since as all our own Works are throughout the Scripture perfectly Excluded from any concern in that matter viz. as the meritorious or procuring cause of our Justification So they are according to the tenour of the foregoing Discourse also For if Christ hath satisfied the Law for us hence it follows that our Justification is only the fruit of Gods meer free Grace alone through the Redemption that is in Christ Jesus Thus much may suffice to have been spoken concerning the Absurdities or Self-contradictions which Mr. Flavell chargeth on on me Which so far as they have been already Examined the Reader may easily perceive that they do all of them return upon himself There is only one Passage more which doth more nearly touch the Heart of the Controversie betwixt us which is necessary also to be considered before we proceed unto what follows And that is this Whereas I have Affirmed and do still Affirm that there was no Promise of Pardon on Repentance in Moses's Covenant Mr. Flavell thinks he hath a mighty Advantage against me and supposes I do therein plainly contradict my self because I do yet grant that God promiseth Pardon on Repentance Lev. 26. which Mr. Flavell Affirms to belong to the Dispensation of the Law at Mount Sinai where the Jews are directed to the Covenant which God had made with Jacob Isaac and Abraham for their Relief in this respect For that is the Covenant saith God there that I will remember Well Be it so saith Mr. Flavell if you will needs have it so that the Promise mentioned Lev. 26. refers to Abraham's Covenant yet still it follows that the Covenant made with Abraham must be a Conditional Covenant of Grace For so it s made by this very Text If they accept the Punishment of their Iniquities and their Uncircumcised Hearts be humbled then will I remember my Covenant with Abraham c. You see then that no Unhumbled or Impenitent Person could have Relief from it till Confession and Contrition were wrought in him when you in the mean time stoutly deny that there are any Conditions required in a Gospel Covenant M. S. P. 5. Printed Reply P. 20. But then Mr. Flavell should have considered that this Contrition and Gospel Humiliation can by no means be Effected or Expressed till the Heart be first soundly wrought upon by the Grace of that Covenant which God hath made with Sinners in Jesus Christ. And accordingly this is one main Branch of that Covenant Deut. 30. 6. which I have already proved to be a Gospel Covenant and Essentially Different from that of the Law The Lord thy God will Circumcise thy Heart and the Heart of thy Seed to Love the Lord thy God with all thy Heart and with all thy Soul that thou mayst Live Compare this with the forementioned Text in Leviticus If their Uncircumcised Hearts be humbled c. The Sinner might Reply But Lord this we cannot do of our selves we cannot break our hard and flinty Hearts nor will it ever be performed until thou takest the Work into thine own Hand This therefore the Lord himself undertakes The Lord thy God will Circumcise thy Heart c. And what Condition can there be of that but that of the good Pleasure of God's own Goodness and Grace For whatever is Antecedent thereunto being only a Work or Act of Corrupted Nature can be no Condition whereon the Dispensation of Spiritual Grace is superadded From whence as I have already told you it plainly follows that I the Covenant of Grace is wholly Free and Absolute Eor as much as there is nothing that can be supposed as the Condition thereof whether it be Faith Repentance or new Obedience which is not therein Absolutely Promised Thus God himself is pleased to Represent unto us the Nature of that New and Evangelical Covenant which he Promised to make
in Stones the Covenant of Works Sir I do not make it so nor do I say so I only say that it was a Covenant of Works and I do therefore so Express my self purposely respecting what follows in the same Page where I tell you that whereas the Apostle Heb. 9. speaking of the Ceremonial Covenant which was Dedicated by Blood and Sprinkling doth represent it to us under such Characters as he doth From all this said I it plainly appears that even the Ceremonial Covenant it self could be no other than a Covenant of Works as well as that Written in Stones And accordingly I tell you in the following Page That though it is plain that the Law Written in Stones and the Book wherein the Statutes and Judgments were contained were Two distinct Covenants and delivered at distinct Seasons and in a distinct Method yet it is as clear from the Premises that they were both of the same Nature that is no other than a Covenant of Works and accordingly both now Repealed and that under the Denomination of the First or Old Covenant Now let the Candid Reader Judg upon the whole of this Discourse the substance whereof I have here truly and faithfully recited not hiding the least Syllable that might make against me in this matter whether Mr. Flavell hath any just Reason to affirm as he doth That whatsoever is Dedicated by Blood is by me confessed not to be any part of the Covenant of Works Or let such as desire further satisfaction herein take the Book it self to which this refers and see if they can there find any the least Syllable that hath any such kind of signification Which yet Mr. Flavell is pleased to make the very Foundation of his forementioned Argument and by which he endeavours to render me Ridiculous and Repugnant to my self For if Circumcision saith he be a part of the Ceremonial Law and the Ceremonial Law was Dedicated by Blood and whatsoever is so Dedicated is by you confessed not to be any part of the Covenant of Works Then Circumcision is no part of the Covenant of Works even by your own confession But saith he it is so Ergo But Sir I must tell you that after this rate of Arguing you seem to have taken a Liberty to say what you please as if there were no future Judgment to be regarded Sir 't is plain matter of Fact that we are now contending about and I appeal unto all that shall Impartially read my Discourse whether I have not here given a Faithful Account thereof so far as it relates to this matter And if upon the whole there do not appear the least shadow of pretence for you to affirm as you do what Comfort can you expect another day without Repentance now when these things that have thus passed betwixt you and me shall be again Revised and set in order before you Indeed I am weary of noteing your Miscarriages of this kind your Reply abounds with Transgressions of this nature The Lord forgive you and lay it not to your charge But whereas in the close of your Discourse upon this Head you tell me that the Truth I oppose viz. That the Book of the Ceremonial Law was sprinkled by Typical Blood and therefore confirmed by the Blood of Christ for the time it was to continue shines like a bright Sun-beam in my Eyes from Heb. 9. 14 23. I must tell you for a Close That I do not oppose but acknowledge that the Ceremonial Law was sprinkled by Typical Blood But I utterly deny that it was therefore also confirmed by the Blood of Christ Typified thereby For if it had it would have made the Comers thereunto Perfect as pertaining to the Conscience which the Apostle expresly affirms it could not vers 9. and chap. 10. 1. I need say no more as to that and shall now therefore proceed to the Examination of your Second Argument Argum. 2. If Circumcision was a Seal of the Righteousness of Faith it did not pertain to the Covenant of Works for the Righteousness of Faith and Works are opposites and belong to two contrary Covenants But Cricumcision was the Seal of the Righteousness of Faith Rom. 4. 11. He that is Abraham received the sign of Circumcision a Seal of the Righteousness of Faith Therefore it pertains not the Covenant of Works but Grace Printed Reply p. 45. Reply Sir by way of Answer hereunto I must tell you That when the Apostle tells us of Abraham Rom. 4. 11. That he received the Sign of Circumcision a Seal of the Righteousness of the Faith which he had yet being uncircumcised from thence to infer That the Covenant of Circumcision was a Covenant of Faith and consequently that Circucision did not pertain to the Covenant of Works would be point blank to contradict the whole scope and design of the Apostle in the foregoing Passages of that Chapter Which as it was in the general to prove That Abraham was not justified by Works but by Faith onely vers 2 3. 4 5. So in particular to assure us That Faith was not reckoned to him for Righteousness when he was in Circumcision but in Uncircumcision Vers. 9 10. And what more convincing Testimony or Evidence can we desire that the Covenant of Circumcision was not a Covenant of Faith but of Works The Sign of Circumcision was indeed a Seal unto Abraham of the Righteousness of the Faith which he had in respect of the Promises made him yet being Uncircumcised But it doth not therefore follow that the Promises Gen. 17. 7 8. That God would be a God unto him and his Seed after him in their Generations c. upon Condition that He and His were Circumcised were any part of the Covenant of Faith For otherwise the Apostle would never have told us as he doth That Faith was not reckoned to him for Righteousness when he was in Circumcision but in Uncircumcision The Argument hence resulting therefore as I have already told you is Irresistible That Covenant in which Faith was not reckoned to Abraham for Righteousness could never be a Covenant of Faith and therefore must of necessity be a Covenant of Works But the Scripture is express That Faith was not reckoned to Abraham for Righteousness when he was in Circumcision but in Uncircumcision Therefore the Covenant of Circumcision must needs be a Covenant of Works Mr. Whiston's Cavils against which Argument I have answered in its proper place Besides it is evident that long before his Circumcision God had promised Abraham to Bless him to make his Name great that he should be a Blessing that in him should all the Families of the Earth be Blessed that he should be the Father of many Nations or as the Apostle explains it That he should be the Father of all them that believe according to that which was spoken so shall thy Seed be Gen 12. 2 3. Gen. 15. 5. And it is evident that these were the Promises upon the account of which we
A JUST REPLY TO Mr. John Flavell's Arguments BY WAY OF ANSWER TO A DISCOURSE Lately Published Entituled A SOLEMN CALL c. WHEREIN It is further plainly proved That the Covenant made with Israel at Mount Sinai as also the Covenant of Circumcision made with Abraham whereon so much stress is laid for the Support of Infants Baptism are no other than two several Editions of the Covenant of Works and consequently that no just Argument can thence be deduced for the Justification of that Practice Together with a Reply to Mr. Joseph Whiston's Reflections on the forementioned Discourse in a late small Tract of his Entituled The right Method for the proving of Infants Baptism As also a Reply to the several Propositions and Arguments by him insisted on in his Answer to Mr. Cox whereby he pretends to have clearly and fully proved That the Covenant of Circuncision established with Abraham Gen. 17. 7. is the Covenant of Grace By PHILIP CARY a Lover of Truth and Peace LONDON Printed for J. Harris at the Harrow in the Poultry 〈◊〉 ADVERTISEMENT A Confession of Faith put forth by the Elders and Brethren of many Congregations of Christians Baptized upon Profession of their Faith in London and the Country With an Appendex concerning Baptism Approved of and Recommended by the Ministers and Messengers of and concerned for upward of one hundred Baptised Congregations in England and Wales denying Arminianism THE PREFACE TO The Christian Reader It is well Noted by Mr. Whiston in his Preface to the Discourse which this gives Answer to That there is a time coming when the Fulness of the Gentiles shall come in and the Deliverer shall come out of Zion and turn away Ungodliness from Jacob When all the Diversities of Opinion shall cease and the Doctrin of the Gospel be taught in its Perfection Purity and Simplicity Whereon saith he shall ensue through the more plentiful pourings forth of the Spirit a perfect Unity of Mind Judgment and Practice in especial in the Worship of God among Saints wherein shall consist no small Part of the Happiness and Glory of the Church Whereunto he adds in the conclusion of his forementioned Preface That he cannot but hope the Day is now hastening when the Spirit shall be more plentifully poured forth from on high as the Issue whereof all Contests of this Nature shall cease In which Hope and Expectation I do most heartily concur with him though for the present so it is that his Apprehensions and mine do greatly differ as to the matters in Controversie between us Indeed were it not for this Hope such is the Impurity Defilement and Corruption that at present abounds in the World in reference to God's Worship and such is the Corruption also that prevails in the World in respect of that truly Evangelical Doctrin and Faith which was once delivered to the Saints from whence an innumerable Troop of many other Sins Miseries and Afflictions do Invade us that we have little reason to take any great Comfort in any long continuance here but rather to be hastning our Preparations for that Blessed State of Serenity and Felicity that is above into which as no Unclean thing shall enter so we shall there be Perfectly freed from all those Mistakes Infirmities and Distractions which do now prove so troublesome unto us during our absence from that Heavenly Rest But if God hath a design to set up his Son Jesus Christ in the World as King of Kings Lord of Lords that his Name may be one and his Glory one in all the Earth and if God hath a design to make the place of his Feet Glorious in the midst of his Sanctuary to pour forth of his Spirit as Rivers of Water upon the Dry Ground and as Floods upon the Thirsty Land I say if this be God's design and if he shall thus be pleased to send forth the Plentiful Showers of his Heavenly Blessing for the Refreshment of his Weary Heritage This may justly make the future Prospect of a further continuance here to be as desirable unto us as it was unto Moses in like Circumstances that before he went hence he might go over and see the Good Land that is beyond Jordan that goodly Mountain and Lebanon In the mean season Christian Reader so it is that there are Two Eminent Men whom I hope I may justly salute as my Christian Brethren whom yet neverless I am forced to grapple with hand to hand both at once before and behind in the open Field and that at Sword 's Point God knows whose Sword is longest and sharpest or comes nearest to the Scripture Standard theirs or mine that must be left to the Judgment of the Christian Spectators But whatever that may be I am not without hopes that the Supream Judg of Heaven and Earth will some way or other Umpire the present Controversie betwixt us as he did in Job's Case Else there is little likelihood how clearly soever the Truth may be stated in the present Discourse that this or any other Discourse of this Nature will put an Issue to the present Dispute as long as Men have a Disputing Faculty left them The Reader may easily perceive the necessity that lies upon me to Endeavour the Defence and Vindication of those Important Truths contained in the Discourse by me lately Published Entituled A Solemn Call c. This Discourse of mine is now by these Men violently Assaulted but with what Justice and Equity with what Christian Candor and Integrity is left unto the Reader 's Judgment Mr. Flavell tells me indeed in his present Reply that he is Resolved to Contend with me in Friendship and Courtesie Alexander like when he intended to fall on Taxiles an Indian Prince But as there was little of Justice in Alexander's Enterprize whatever Honesty or Courtesie was pretended by him So neither is there in Mr. Flavell's if he thinks to bereave Men of their Reason by his Martial Atchievements However this is certain the matters in Controvesy betwixt us are of the highest Importance that is Concerning the true Nature and Difference betwixt the two Covenants that of Works and that of Grace than which there can be nothing of greater Consequence to us whether in reference to the Issues of this World or that that is to come whatever Mr. Flavell's Opinion is concerning them He blames me indeed for affirming in the Conclusion of my former Discourse that these things will be found at length to have been of highest concernment unto us For it is of those things I am there speaking I do indeed therein also comprehend the matters of God's Worship whereof Baptism is no small part And if the Purity of the Gospel Doctrin and Worship be not things of highest concernment unto us let the Christian Reader judge To conclude I am not without hopes that in a little time the Mystery of God in this Respect will be finished as he hath declared to his Servâ—…ts the Prophets when the
Temple of God shall be opened in Heaven wherein shall be seen the Ark of his Testament And whatever Lightnings and Voices Thundrings or Earthquakes may be Coucomitant herewith to be sure the Issue must needs be Comfortable and Glorious to all that are upright in Heart Finally When the Pure and Uncorrupted Doctrin of the Grace of God in Jesus Christ shall be universally preached and all Corrupt Mixtures in Gods Worship shall be totally abolished then and not till then may we expect the Holy City New Jerusalem coming down from God out of Heaven prepared as a Bride adorned for her Husband having the Glory of God and her Light most precious clear as Christal When there shall be no more Curse But the Throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it and his Servants shall serve him In the Hope and Expectation of which day and state of Blessedness I take leave to Subscribe my self Christian Reader Thy Servant for Christ's Sake Philip Cary. PART I. Containing a Just and a Sober Reply to Mr. Flavell's Arguments by way of Answer to the forementioned Discourse SECT I. MR. Flavell tells me in the Manuscript Copy he sent me of his present Reply now in Print That his proper Province at this time is to Examine and Defend the Foundation on which our Divines have built the Right of Infants Baptism viz. Gods Covenant with Abraham Gen. 17. which saith he is the Covenant of Grace the same we are now under The Question hereon being the Articulus stantis vel Cadentis Paedobaptismi And that if I can make good my Thesis that it was not a Gospel Covenant but now abolished I have certainly destroy'd the principal Fort which defended the claim of our Infants to the priviledges of the Covenant He now tells me in his printed Reply That his proper Province is to discover that part of the Foundation meaning Abraham's Covenant whence our Divines deduce the Right of Infants Baptism So that I perceive he is not fixed in his Mind whether Abraham's Covenant be an Entire or Partial Foundation onely Sometimes it seems to him to be the sole Foundation of the Practice of Infants Sprinkling else the Question thereon cannot be the Articulus stantis vel Cadentis Paedobaptismi Otherwhile he is loath to venture it singly upon that Bottom However it be of this I am sure Every Plant which our Heavenly Father hath not planted shall in due season be rooted up And I suppose a little time will shew whether the present practice of Infants Sprinkling be not to be deservedly reckoned among that number That no small stress is and hath been laid upon the Arguments drawn from that Covenant by the Assertors of Infants Baptism for the justification of that practice cannot be denied How the Sinai Covenant came to be hooked into the Question Mr. Flavell himself hath accounted for p. 133. of his forementioned printed Reply as being occasioned by himself Accordingly he tells me in his Manuscript Copy that he is now to give his Reasons why he thinks I have not proved that the Sinai Covenant was a Covenant of Works As also why he thinks I have not proved Abraham's Covenant Gen. 17. to be a Covenant of Works nor that the New Covenant is Absolute and without Condition In his printed Reply the Expression is a little varied for there he saith that that which I affirm and he is to disprove is that the Sinai Covenant and Abraham's Covenant are no Gospel Covenants which is the same in effect with the other For if neither of them be Gospel Covenants they must needs be both a Covenant of Works He begins p. 10. of his printed Reply with the Sinai Covenant which I affirm to be a Covenant of Works the very same for substance with that made with Adam in Innocency For the clearing up of which Proposition and to prevent any further Disputes thereon as to the true state of the Question By the Sinai Covenant I understand the whole Complex Body of the Law as it was delivered on Mount Sinai The Moral part whereof contained a clear and plain manifestation of the Law written in the Heart of Man at the first The addition of the Ceremonial Precepts whereunto makes no alteration as to the true Nature or Essence of that Covenant For so long as this Rule is retained Do this and live as it was in respect of the whole Body of the Law it is still the same Covenant with Adam's for the Substance or Essence of it and is accordingly represented to us in the Scripture under the Denomination of the First or Old Covenant The whole Complex Body of the Sinai Covenant therefore is that which I affirm to be a Covenant of Works the very same for substance with that made with Adam in Paradise Now this Assertion of mine you tell me is attended with many gross Absurdities For first say you from hence it follows that either Moses and all Israel were damned there being no Salvation possible to be attained by that first Covenant or else that there was a Covenant of Grace at the same time running Paralel with the Covenant of Works And so the Elect People of God were at the same time under the First as a Covenant of Death and Condemnation and under the Second as a Covenant of Grace and Justification And this latter you tell me I am forced upon which you say is attended with many false and absurd Conclusions For during Life they must hang mid-way betwixt Justification and Condemnation And after Death they must necessarily hang between Heaven and Hell And so at last say you we have found the Limbus Patrum which the Papists so earnestly contend for and must send Moses and all Gods People to Purgatory so your Manuscript Copyruns How to avoid these Absurdities you say you see not according to my dangerous Concession Reply By way of Answer hereunto I must tell you Sir That I should greatly admire if you your self be not sensible that the same pretended Absurdities do attend and fall full as heavily and indeed a great deal more on your Doctrine than on mine Since that which I affirm to be two distinct and essentially different Covenants to wit Perfect doing with the consequent Curse upon the Non-performance and believing in Christ unto Life and Salvation you are forced according to your Doctrin to comprise in one and the same Covenant And then I would willingly know if you or any other Man can free the present Point as it is thus stated by your selves from the very self same Absurdities you would fasten on me If you can you will with the same breath discharge me and that far more effectually than you can with any shadow of Reason do it for your selves For your Conviction therefore in this respect In the first place It cannot be denied but that the Scriptures do plainly inform us that both Moses and all Gods People during the former Administration were all of
be so dispensed as to tender Life and Happiness upon two such opposite and contrary Conditions And â—…et this Absurdity all those must of necessity run into that will not allow the Sinai Covenant to be a Covenant of Works and on the contrary affirm it to be a Gospel Covenant or a Covenant of Faith in Christ Jesus Besides if the Law is a Covenant of Faith that is a Gospel Covenant we know that the Covenant of Faith justifies all that are in it that is all those who believe For being justified by Faith we have peace with God through Jesus Christ our Lord Rom. 5. 1. But the Apostle doth expresly testify That by the deeds of the Law there shall be no flesh be justified in God's sight Rom. 3. 20. And how is it then a Covenant of Faith or a Gospel Covenant as you affirm it is Again If the Law is a Covenant of Faith we know that though many were justified under it as Moses and the rest of the Elect then were yet none were ever justified by it or by vertue of it Rom. 3. 20. And how is it then a Covenant of Faith Moreover we know the Apostle calls it A ministration of Death and Condemnation and contrary to us And that which is therefore now done away taken out of the way and blotted out 2 Cor. 3. 6 7. Col. 2. 14. which thundring Expressions of his could not possibly be uttered because the Jews had perverted the chief Design and Scope of it as you affirm For Moses himself calls it a Fiery Law that proceeded from God's right-hand Deut. 33. 2. And God himself in the very first Sanction of it before the Jews could have perverted it pronounceth a dreadful Curse upon every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the Book of the Law to do them And 't is evident that from hence it is and not from the Reason by you suggested that the Apostle bestows the Epethites upon it he doth And how is it then a Covenant of Faith And if it is not a Covenant of Faith it must needs be a Covenant of Works there being no medium between these two You severely though unjustly blame me for several Self Contradictions in my former Discourse but why blame you not your self for such frequent palpable Contradictions of the Divine Truth contained in the word of Truth Yea if the Law is indeed a Covenant of Faith or a Gospel Covenant as you affirm it is how is it consistent with what your self have asserted p. 326. of your Book entituled The Method of Grace Where you are pleased to tell us That the Law required perfect working under the pain of a Curse accepted of no short endeavours admitted no Repentance and gave no strength If you say that the Covenant of Faith or the Gospel Covenant hath all these Properties you contradict the whole Scope and Design of the Scriptures If you cannot but acknowledge as you must that it can be no other than a Covenant of Works that hath all these Properties then you are guilty of Self Contradiction the same fault you blame in me since you now pretend to have disproved my Assertion that the Law could be no ot her than a Covenant of Works orcould be no Gospel Covenant Besides do you not now positively assert that there was Pardon upon Repentance in Moses his Covenant which you endeavour largely to prove from the Promise mentioned Lev. 26. affirming that it belongs to the Dispensation of the Law at Mount Sinai which you say doth contain in it self without doubt the fullest Relief a Sinner can desire even Pardon of Sin And yet do you not as positively assert in your forementioned Book That the Law admitted no Repentance If this be not a palpable Self-contradiction I know not what is But Sir I must tell you that you are not only guilty of Self-contradiction in this Passage but somewhat worse For when you tell me p 10. of your Manuscript Copy That I am forced to grant that there was Pardon on Repentance both in Moses's Covenant and in Adam's or the Conditionall Gospel Promise Lev. 26. given at Mount Sinai contains it and yet afterward contradict my self by affirming that there was no Pardon on Repentance in the one or the other you abuse your Neighbour also For in p. 179. of my former Discourse which hath been so much canvast on this account I only grant your Assertion that God promised Pardon Lev. 26. for the breach of Moses his Covenant adding that so it was in respect of Adam's Covenant also else we had ben all undone for ever But do I therefore say that there was Pardon on Repentance in either of these Covenants Is there not a palpable difference between my being forced to grant as you affirm I do That there was Pardon on Repentance in both these Covenants and my Concession that God promiseth Pardon in respect of either of them Do you not see that these two Assertions do widely differ as much as the East doth from the West Sir I gave you warning of this before when you and I spoke together upon this Subject and yet you have had the Confidence to send your Manuscript Copy to me so worded as I have before related And though you endeavour to extenuate the matter and excuse your self as well as you can in the latter end of your printed Reply yet even there also instead of mending you greatly aggravate your fault in your foregoing newly fram'd Discourse about my p. 179. So that you seem resolved to cast dirt enough right or wrong And aliquid adhaerebit some at least will stick whether you disprove what I affirm or no But all men of Reason will tell you That this is no Christian way of answering Books You ought rather to have answered my Arguments whereby I have proved that the Sinai Covenant could be no other than a Covenant of Works and those whereby I have proved that the Covenant of Circumcision was of the same stamp But instead of answering any one of my Arguments you fall upon pretended Absurdities and Self-contradictions which you fancy to your self may be found up and down in my Book But alas Sir how easy is it to fancy Contradictions in Books if a Critical Adversary do but set his Wits upon the Tenter-hooks to study and find them out and it may be where there are indeed none at all only in the Mind of him who is over solicitously desirous to make them appear to be such if he cannot find them such and that meerly to spoil his Adversaries Reputation thereby to advance his own or the Cause he hath espoused In this respect it is obvious to all understanding Men that the leaving out addition or misplacing but of one word and sometimes of one Syllable in a Sentence by him whose design it is to make it appear a Contradiction to what went before or follows after will render it very Odd and Ridiculous Many
Sinners to be their God in a way of special Interest but it being upon such hard terms that it is utterly impossible that way to attain unto Life he hath therefore been pleased to abolish that and to make a New Covenant which is not like or not according to the former which was Conditional but that which is wholly Free and Absolute wherein he hath promised to put his Laws into our Minds and to write them in our Hearts and that he will be to us a God and we shall be to him a People Ezek. 36. Jer. 31. Heb. 8. And this is a Covenant of Grace indeed sure and certain a Covenant truly Evangelical and not of the same Building as the Apostle speaks with the Sinai Covenant Heb. 9. 11. The like may be as justly said in reference to the Covenant of Circumcision as hath been now spoken in Reference to the Sinai Covenant For though there were Promises in it that were full and glorious enough I will be a God to thee and to thy Seed after thee all the Land of Canaan for an everlasting possession and I will be their God yet all these Promises though good enough in themselves being Conditional they were therefore failable and still liable to forfeiture as they were contained in that Covenant It being evident that it obliged all that were under it to perfect and universal Obedience as the Condition of obtaining the Mercies therein contained Gal. 5. 3. From whence as it is manifest that it could be no other than a Covenant of Works so it is as evident that it is not the Greatness or Goodness of the Promises contained therein that can excuse it from being such if Works be the Condition of obtaining the Mercies therein promised For as I have already told you what else maketh or wherein else consisteth the true Form or Nature of a Covenant of Works but that Works be the Condition of it This was the whole entire Nature of the first Covenant which alone renders the it Essentially or Specifically Different from the Promise of Grace or the Gospel Covenant But all this notwithstanding you are pleased to tell me That it is so clear that none can doubt or deny what you have asserted that understands the Nature of the two Covenants And now Sir say you what course do you take to avoid this Argument Such a one sure as no Man that ever I met with took before you and that is this You boldly cut Abraham's Covenant Gen. 17. into two parts and make the first to be the pure Covenant of Grace which is the Promisory part to the 9 th verse And the Restipulation to be as pure a Covenant of Works What a hard shift will some Men make to maintain their Opinions You say truly say you p. 205. that at the 7 th and 8 th verses was their Restipulation why then do you say p. 224. that at the 7 th verse he proceeds to speak of another Covenant than what he had been speaking of before Does the Promise and the Restipulation make two Covenants Or are they just and necessary parts of one and the same Covenant Sir all this I have answered before and there have plainly shewed you how greatly you do here abuse me and your self too by a gross misrepresention of my plain words and sense The like you do in that which follows You also tell us say you that the Covenant Gen. 17. 1 2 3 4. was a plain Transcript of several Free Promises of the Gospel under the Denomination of a Covenant but why then don 't you take the Restipulation vers 7 8 9 10. to be a part of it The Nonsense of which Question I have already also shewen you But to this you make answer on my behalf Oh no say you there is something required on Abraham's and his Posterities Part and that spoiles all Well after you have laughed in your Sleeve at my Answer of your own forming you thus proceed Why but Sir If the requiring of Circumcision alters the Case so greatly as to make it a quite contrary Covenant how come it to pass that the Covenant to Abraham himself was a pure Gospel Covenant and yet Abraham himself was first required to be Circumcised Thus runs this Passage in your Manuscript Copy By way of Reply hereunto I must tell you Sir That whether the requiring of Circumcision alters the Case or no I am sure you have quite altered the Scope of my Discourse in reference hereunto For as I do no where boldly cut the Covenant of Circumcision Gen. 17. into two parts and make the first to be a pure Covenant of Grace which is the Promisory part to the 9 th verse and the Restipulation to be as pure a Covenant of Works as you would make the World believe I do So yet nevertheless I do plainly tell you that though the Promse and the Restipulation mentioned vers 7 8 9. make but one and the same Covenant of Circumcision yet there are two Covenants mentioned in that Context The first between God and Abraham himself as I have already proved vers 2 4. which could be made with no other The other between God and Abraham and his natural Posterity also vers 7 8 9 10. The former I call a Covenant of Grace or a Gospel Covenant wherein the Believing Gentiles are concerned For saith God ver 5. A Father of many Nations have I made thee Or as the Apostle explains it The Father of all them that believe that is both Jews and Gentiles The latter I call a Covenant of Works which was made betwixt God and Abraham and his natural Posterity onely who were all of them by Vertue thereof to be Circumcised as a token of their Obedience to the whole Law which Ordinance of Circumcision doth not concern the Gentiles at all So that when you ask me How comes it to pass that the Covenant to Abraham himself was a pure Gospel Covenant and yet Abraham himself was first required to be Circumcised I must tell you That your Question confounds the true state of the Question between us For you know well enough that I had made a Distinction of a twofold Covenant there mentioned the one a Gospel the other a Legal Covenant And therefore this is no other than to turn things upside down your general practice throughout your whole Reply How comes it to pass say you that the Covenant to Abraham himself was a pure Gospel Covenant I will tell you Sir how it came to pass if you rightly understand what you should Question me about If by the pure Gospel Covenant you mean the Covenant mentioned vers 2 4. I Answer It came to pass as the fruit of Gods own Free Grace and Mercy and that both unto Abraham himself and to the Believing Gentiles also that are concerned therein But then say you How comes it to pass that Abraham himself was first required to be Circumcised if the Covenant to Abraham himself was a
himselâ—… as you do the Case had been clear on your part but for you to impose your Conceits as of equal validity with Scripture Dictates 't is not to be endured If the Work-man'â—… hand were his Rule 't is certain he could never Erre in Working And if your Glosseâ—… were as Authentick as the Text you coulâ—… never Erre in the Interpretation But ' tiâ—… well we have a more sure word of Prophesy to Rely upon than your bare Ipse dixits oâ—… Arbitrary Dictates I now come to your fourth and last Argument whereby you pretend to prove that the Covenant of Circumcision could be no Covenant of Works which I find thus formed Printed Reply pag. 55. Argum. 4. That which teacheth Man the corruption of his nature by Sin and the mortification of Sin by the Spirit of Christ cannot be a condition of the Covenant of Works But so did Circumcision that in the direct and Primary end of it Ergo. Reply By way of Answer hereunto I shall need onely to tell you that you must first prove the Law or Sinai Covenant to be no Covenant of Works but a Gospel Covenant before you can prove the Covenant of Circumcision to be such by this Argument Since there were many things belonging to the Law as the Passeover and several other Sacrifices wherewith that Covenant was dedicated besides many other Types which were annexed as Appendages unto the Legal Administration under which were vailed many Spiritual Mysteries relating to Christ the true and onely Sacrifice as also concerning the Mortification of Sin by the Grace and Spirit of Christ Which yet do not therefore prove it to be a Gospel Covenant as hath been already declared and made Evident in my foregoing Discourse upon that Subject which when I see Substantially refuted I will then grant with you that the present Argument is convincing to the end for which it is Designed SECT IV. I Shall in the next place therefore proceed unto the third Point and that is concerning the Conditionality of the New Covenant In reference whereunto that Notion of yours that there is in it something as an Act required of us in point of Duty which is Antecedent to the Benefit of the Promese I have already Examined and Discussed in my foregoing Discourse which needs not here to be repeated Your first Argument for the proof whereof runs thus Printed Reply p. 65. Argum. 1. If we cannot be Justified or Saved till we believe then Faith is the Condition on which these consequent Benefits are suspended But we cannot be Justified or Saved till we believe Ergo. Reply Before I give a direct Answer to the present Argument there are some things necessary to be Premised in order thereunto In the first place then as to what concerns the Quality of the New Covenant whereof we are now to treat whether it is wholly Free and Absolute or Conditional It ought to be duely observed that in the Account or Description that is given us thereof both by Jeremy and the Author to the Hebrews Jer. 31. Heb. 8. it is too evident to be justly deny'd but that the whole of the New Covenant is there expressed For if it were otherwise it could not be proved thence that this Covenat was more excellent than the former especially as to Security that the Covenant Relation between God and that People should not be broken or disannulled For this is the principal thing which the Apostle designs to prove Heb. 8. where the New Covenant is for this very purpose industriously and punctually recited and compared with the Old The want of a due observation whereof hath led many out of the way in their Exposition of it If therefore this be not an entire Description of the Covenant there might yet be something reserved essentially belonging thereunto which might frustrate the End For some such Conditions might yet be required in it as we are not able to observe or could have no security that we should abide in the observation of them and thereon this Covenant might be frustrated of its End as well as the former which is directly contrary unto God's Declaration of his Design in it Secondly It is evident that there can be no Codition previously required unto our entring into our participation of the Benefits of this Covenant Antecedent unto the making of it with us For none think there can be any such with respect unto its Original Constitution nor can there be so in respect of its making with us For first this would render this Covenant Inferiour in a way of Grace unto that which God made with the People at Sinai For he declares that there was not any thing in them that moved him either to make that Covenant or to take them into it with himself Every where he asserts this to be an Act of his meer Grace and Favour Yea he frequently declares that he took them into that Covenant not onely without Respect unto any thing of good in them but although they were evil and stubborn See Deut. 7. 7 8. chap. 9. 4 5. Secondly It is contrary unto the Nature Ends and Express Properties of this New Covenant for there is nothing that can be thought or supposed to be such a Condition but it is comprehended in the Promise of the Covenant it self For all that God requireth in us is proposed as that which himself will effect by vertue of this Covenant Thirdly Though there is nothing that can be thought or supposed to be such a Condition of the Covenant but it is comprehended in the Promise of the Covenant it self yet it is certain that in the outward Dispensation thereof wherein the Grace and Mercy of it is proposed unto us many things are required of us in order unto a Participation or Enjoyment of the full End of the Covenant in Glory For God hath ordained that the full extent of that Grace and Mercy that is prepared in it shall be communicated unto us ordinarily in the use of outward means wherewith a Compliance is required of us in a way of Duty To this end hath he appointed all the Ordinances of the Gospel his Word and positive Institutions with all those Duties publick and private which are needful to render them effectual to us For he expects the Service of the Rational Faculties of our Natures that he may be glorified in them and by them which yet cannot be properly called Conditions of the Covenant For Frst God doth work the Grace of the Covenant and communicate the Mercy of it antecedently unto all Ability for the performance of any such Duty Secondly Amongst those who are equally diligent in the performance of the Duties intended he makes a Discrimination preferring one before another Many are called but few are chosen And what hath any Man that he hath not received Thirdly He actually takes some into the Grace of the Covenant whilst they are engaged in an opposition unto the outward dispensation of it An Example of
this Grace he gave in Paul From all which it is evident that the principal Grace of the Covenant or God's putting his Laws in our Hearts which is influential to all the rest can depend on no condition on our Part. These things then being thus premised the Answer which I shall return unto the forementioned Argument is this First That it is evident that unto a full and compleat enjoyment of all the Promises of the Covenant Faith on our part from which Evangelical Repentance is inseparable is required But then it must withal be considered that these also are wrought in us given to us and bestowed upon us by vertue of that Promise and Grace of the Covenant that depends on no Condition in us which renders it wholly free and absolute from the Foundation to the Topstone thereof Whereas therefore you are pleased to tell me That there is something as an Act required of us in point of Duty which is Antecedent to the Benefit of the Promise If you intend hereby that Faith from which Evangelical Repentance and Good Works are inseparable is such a Condition of the Covenant as to be by us performed Antecedently unto the participation of any Grace Mercy or Benefit of it as your words imply for you admit of no Benefit from the Covenant till this be performed It is most untrue and as I have already told you 't is not onely contrary to the express Testimonies of Scripture but destructive of the Nature of the Covenant it self For if so Men must do all those things before they receive the Remission of Sins Yea while they are as yet dead in Trespasses and Sins Yea then must they do them whilst they are under the Law and the Curse of it For so are all Men whose Sins are not pardoned But this is to make Obedience unto the Law and that to be performed by Men whilst under the Curse of it to be a Condition of Gospel Mercy which is to overthrow both the Law and the Gospel How notoriously false and absurd is that Doctrin which asserteth the possibility of Believing without the efficacy of Supernatural Grace saith Mr. Flavell himself p. 395. of his forementioned Book entituled The method of Grace the desire of Self-sufficiency saith he was the ruin of Aadam and the conceit of Self-sufficiency is the ruin of multitudes of his Posterity This Doctrin saith he is not only contradictory to the current stream of Scripture Phil. 2. 13. 1 Jo. 1. 13. with many other Scriptures but it is also contradictory to the common Sense and Experience of Believers yet saith he the Pride of Nature will strive to maintain what Scripture and Experience plainly contradict and overthrow I shall need to make no other Descant upon these words of his but this If that Doctrin is notoriously false and absurd which asserteth the possibility of Believing without the efficacy of Supernatural Grace Then so is that Doctrin which asserteth that Faith is required of us in point of Duty antecedent to the benefit of the Promise Secondly If Jesus Christ fulfilled the Law and purchased Heaven and Happiness for Men as all true Protestants hitherto have taught then nothing can remain but to declare this to them to incline them to believe and accept it and to prescribe in what way and by what means they shall finally come to inherit Eternal Life To affirm therefore that Faith and Repentance are the Conditions of the New Covenant required of us in point of Duty antecedent to any Benefit of the Promise doth necessarily suppose that Christ hath not done all for us nor purchased a right to Life for any but onely made way that they may have it upon certain terms or as some say He hath merited that we might merit But the Conditions of the Covenant are not to be performed by the Head and Members both The Scriptures do assure us That when the fulness of time was come God sent forth his Son made of a Woman made under the Law to redeem them that were under the Law that we might receive the Adoption of Sons Gal. 4. 4. Christ therefore having in our stead performed the Conditions of Life there remains nothing but a Promise and the Obedience of Children as the Fruit and Effect thereof to them that believe in him together with means of obtaining the full possession which here we want Well but as under the Old Covenant Man was bid to do this and live So under this New Covenant he is commanded to Believe and live And as Death was threatened to the failure of Obedience to the Law So it is now threatened to the want of Faith under the Gospel Faith being the Condition on which the consequent Benefits of Life and Salvation are suspended Mar. 16. 15 16. Go preach the Gospel He that believeth and is Baptized shall be saved He that believeth not shall be damned Jo. 3. 36. He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting Life and he that believeth not shall not see Life Where Faith seemeth to be put into the room of perfect Obedience and therfore to be as proper a Condition of Life as that was So Rom. 10. 9. That if thou shalt consess with thy Mouth and believe in thine Heart thou shalt be saved Mat. 18. 3. Except ye be converted and become as little Children ye shall not enter into the Kingdom of Heaven Mar. 11. 26. But if ye forgive not neither will your Heavenly Father forgive you With multitudes more saith Mr. Flavell of such kind of Expressions which are all Conditional Particles inserted into the Grants of Benefits it being not possible to put words into a frame more lively expressive of a Condition than these are Reply First whereas it is supposed that Faith under the Gospel seemeth to be put into the room of Perfect Obedience unto the Law and therefore to be as proper a Condition of Life as that was This cannot be for as much as it is Christ's Perfect Obedience onely which is put into the room of ours to justify and save us as our own should have done had we been able to perform it And so his Sufferings take away the Curse which our Disobedience brought upon us Secondly It must also be observed that God having promised Salvation upon the account of his Sons satisfaction to all that come to him or believe in him Faith is therefore no other than a Coming Believing or Trusting in this Promise of God and so in the Righteousness of Christ exhibited in the Promise whereby it is applied unto us Wherefore Faith is not properly put into the room of Perfect Obedience nor doth it what Perfect Obedience was to do which was to be the Condition of Life For though that was to be our Righteousness under the Law yet it is evident that Faith on the other hand is appointed onely as an Instrument to receive and apply the Righteousness of Christ which is the alone matter of our Justification before God
Purchased But none will say they are therefore Antecedent Conditions of his Title or Interest therein it being plain that Life and Discretion are not Conditions of the Purchase but Qualifications of the Subject necessary to enjoy it Sir you cannot be ignorant of Bernard's famous speech concerning good Works Sunt via Regni non Causa Regnandi They are the way to the Kingdom not the Cause of Reigning I know it is usual with many besides your self to call them Conditions of Life But Dr. Ames gives a Distinction which might fairly end all this Controversy To require Conditions saith he as the Causes of our Right to Life is proper to the Law But to require them as Concomitants or Effects of what God hath Promised and the Actual Bestowing it is agreable to the most mild Kingdom of Grace If it be said God cannot forgive Sin till Man resolves to leave it and so Repentance must be before forgiveness I Answer this is untrue as is evident in Infants And as for the Adult It is true God cannot Pardon Sin and suffer Men to go on in Sin but it is sufficient that he Pardoneth and together with Forgiveness he giveth a Heart to Repent and obey And Faith it self which apprehendeth Pardon doth implicitely contain Repentance and all other Graces Forasmuch as unfeigned flying to and Trusting in the Mercy of God for Pardon and Eternal Life is a turning of the Heart to God and Spiritual things and doth naturally dispose the Heart to use all the Means which God hath Prescribed for the Obtaining of his Kingdom The same Answer is to be given to those Scriptures that require Men to Forgive their Enemies and if they do not Forgive neither shall they be Forgiven For First This doth at the most but shew that Christians must be Merciful and disposed to Forgive as they expect Mercy and Forgiveness from God But it proveth not that a Man is not Forgiven or Justified till he doth actually Forgive all Enemies at least in Purpose much-less that it is a Condition of his being Reconciled to God For Secondly The Scripture supposeth a Man to be first Forgiven and maketh that an Argument to incline him to Forgive others Eph. 4. 32. Forgive one another even as God for Christ's sake forgave you And this is the Scope of that Parable Mat. 18. 23 24 c. The Servant is himself first Forgiven and therefore it was Judged meet that he should Forgive his Fellow Servant vers 32 33. Thus much by way of Answer to your first Argument whereby you pretend to have proved the Conditionality of the New Covenant your second follows Argum. 2. If God's Covenant with Abraham Gen. 12. 2 3. and that Gen. 17. 2 3. were as you say pure Gospel Covenants of Grace and yet in both some things are required as Duties on Abraham's part to make him Partaker of the Benefits of the Promises then the Covenant of Grace is not Absolute but Conditional But so it was in both these Covenants Ergo Reply This Argument I have already dispatcht in my Answer to your third Argument upon the former Head in reference to the Covenant of Circumcision And therefore I need say nothing to it here I shall accordingly proceed to your third Argument whereby you labour to prove the Conditionality of the new Covenant which runs thus Printed Reply pag. 69. Argum. 3. If all the Promises of the Gospel be Absolute and Unconditional requiring no Restipulation from Man then they cannot properly and truly belong to the New Covenant But they do properly and truly belong to the New Covenant Therefore they are not all Absolute and Unconditional Reply That the New Covenant is wholly Free and Absolute I have already Proved by way of Answer to your foregoing Argument there being noCondition at all Annexed thereunto neither in Jeremy nor in the Apostles Recital thereof Heb. 8. In respect whereof your present Argument might more justly and truly have been thus formed If all the Promises of the Gospel do properly and truly belong to the New Covenant then they must needs be absolute and unconditional as that was But they properly and truly belong to the New Covenant therefore they are all absolute and unconditional as that was The sequel of the Major say you is only liable to doubt or denial namely That the absoluteness of all the Promises of the New Testament cuts off their relation to a Covenant You should have said That the Absoluteness of all the Promises of the Gospel cuts off their relation to the New Covenant according to the scope of your forementioned Argument if you had kept close to that And then you must have examined the New Covenant and have compared the Promises of the Gospel therewith But you knew well enough that there are no Conditions annexed to the New Covenant whether in Jer. 31. or in Heb. 8. the consideration whereof it may be startled you off when you came to prove the Sequel of your Major from that expression of the New Covenant to their relation to a Covenant in general That the absoluteness of all the Promises in the New Testament cuts off their relation to a Covenant This by the way looks with no good Countenance and â—…s indeed no other than a plain Shuffle But to proceed And that it doth so say you no Man can deny that understands the difference betwixt a Covenant and an Absolute Promise A Covenant is a mutual Compact or Agreement betwixt Parties in which they bind each other to the performance of what they Respectively promise So that there can be no proper Covenant where there is not a Restipulation or Re-obligation on one part as well as a Promise on the other But an absolute Promise binds onely one Party and leaves the other wholly free and un-obliged to any thing in order to the enjoyment of the Good promised So then if all the New Testament Promises be Unconditional and Absolute they are not part of a Covenant nor must that word be applied to them they are Absolvte Promises binding no Man to whom they are made to any Duty in order to the enjoyment of the Mercies promised But those Persons that are under these Absolute Promises must and shall enjoy the Mercies of Pardon and Salvation whether they Repent or Repent not Believe or Believe not Obey or Obey not Reply You might have added Although God hath therein promised to put his Laws in our Hearts and his Fear in our inward parts and that as he will not depart from us So neither shall we depart from him But that this would have marred and overthrown all your foregoing Discourse For these are the Promises of the New Covenant as well as the Mercies of Pardon and Salvation Nay therefore God hath promised to put his Laws in our Hearts and to write them in our Minds because he will freely pardon our Sins Now if our Sins are freely pardoned and if in the self same Covenant God
our Hopes and Expectations in reference to all our own Covenants would soon fail us and expose us to the greatest of Disappointments at last Thus I have at length gone through your Discourse concerning the Covenants And in particular I have shewn you that the Covenant of Circumcision which God made with Abraham Gen. 17. 7. which you tell me is the Foundation on which our Divines have built the Right of Infant 's Baptism was so far from being a Gospel Covenant reaching Gentile Believers and their Seed that it could be no other than a Covenant of Works as that at Sinai was which was built thereon and consequently both now Repealed From hence therefore as I have already told you it unavoidably follows that all the Arguments for the Support of Infant 's Church-Membership and Baptism under the Gospel which are founded upon the like Priviledges granted unto the Natural Posterity of Abraham under the former Administration do of themselves fall to the ground forasmuch as the Covenants themselves which those Priviledges were then Bottomed on are now Repealed Neither is there any room left for any other Argument to infer the Baptism of Infants the Obligation upon Believers concerning the Gospel Sign being wholly left unto the time of its Institution which Determines both the Duties and Subjects thereof to the Exclusion of Infants as I have already Proved Your Foundation therefore being destroyed you might have saved your labour in the following Part of your Present Reply as I shall do mine by way of Return thereunto except further occasion be offered and then the Impertinency as well as Fallacy of your present Reasonings may be yet further detected The substance of what you now offer having been already sufficiently Answered had you been pleased to take notice of it in the same Discourse you pretend to Answer The End of the First Part. PART II. Containing a Reply to Mr. Joseph Whiston's Reflections on my forementioned Discourse in a late small Tract of his Entituled The right Method for the proving Infant Baptism As also a Reply to the several Propositions and Arguments by him insisted on in his Answer to Mr. Cox whereby he pretends to have clearly and fully proved That the Covenant of Circumcision established with Abraham Gen. 17. 7. is the Covenant of Grace IN the first place then As to what concerns Mr. Whiston's Reflections on my forementioned Discourse in his late forementioned Tract After he had dealt with Mr. Grantham he thus bespeaks the World I thought saith he I might justly expect something extraordinary in Mr. Cary's Book being recommended as it is and I shall not deny but my Expectations were somewhat high But if ever that Proverb Parturiunt Montes were verified it is here Alas what do I meet with but Ridiculus Mus For I have yet observed but two Arguments Syllogistically framed by which he attempts the Confirmation of that Notion of his That the Covenant Gen. 17. 7. is not the Covenant of Grace and the very Recital of them may in the Judgment of all unbyassed Persons be a sufficient Confutation of them Thus Mr. Whiston begins but how he makes good these Taunting Florishes and Scornful Reflections will appear in the Sequel In the mean season I do acknowledge that there are but two Arguments Syllogistically framed in my forementioned Discourse by which I attempted the proof of the forementioned Proposition to wit That the Covenant Gen. 17. 7. is not the Covenant of Grace though the Intelligent Reader may easily perceive that I could soon have dress'd up many more in the same form out of the Substance of my Discourse upon that Subject and should so have done but that I thought plain Reasonings from the Scriptures had been sufficient However since nothing will be taken notice of that is Argumentative in my Discourse but what is dress'd up in Mood and Figure let us attend to what he saith to these two My first Argument is this If the Covenant of Circumcision Recorded Gen. 17. 7 8 9 10. was as much a Covenant of Works as that at Mount Sinai and that mentioned Deut. 29. 9. nay as much as the Covenant made with Adam before his Fall then it is not a Covenant of Grace But it was as much a Covenant of Works as either of the Covenants before mentioned were Therefore c. Letting pass Mr. Whiston's scornful Reflection on this as a lusty Argument if it would stand Let us try the strength of it by the opposition he hath made thereunto In the first place then Mr. Whiston hath thought fit positively to deny the Minor Proposition as that concerns the Covenant made with Adam and that entred with the People of Israel at Mount Sinai Mr. Cary saith he attempts to prove his Minor thus It must needs be as much a Covenant of Works as that entred with the People of Israel at Mount Sinai Yea as that made with Adam in Innocency because although God promised to be a God to Abraham and to his Seed yet it was upon Condition of Obedience with an Answearable Threatning But saith he can Mr. Cary or any other Man of Common Sense think that the bare requiring of Obedience in any Covenant or threatening of Judgments in case of Disobedience makes it presently a Covenant of Works Well suppose it do not what then Not to waste time saith he Mr. Cary must know that it is not the bare requiring of Obedience nor yet the denouncing Threatnings that makes a Covenant a Covenant of Works but the Commanding a Perfect Sinless Obedience to all that is written therein and threatning Death unto all in case of the least failure in such an Obedience Well then say I If this be that that truly denominates a Covenant to be a Covenant of Works Doth not Mr. Whiston know that thus stood the Case in respect of Adam's Covenant yea that thus stood the Case in respect of the Sinai Covenant when God pronounceth a Curse upon every one that continued not in all things that are written therein to do them which I did upon this occasion expresly prove from Gal. 3. 10 12 And did I not also upon this very occasion and in the self-same place expresly prove that this was the very nature of the Covenant of Circumcision from Gal. 5. 3. For I testify to every Man that is Circumcised that he is a Debtor to do the whole Law And did I not observe from thence that it is evident that Circumcision indispensably obliged all that were under it to a Perfect Universal Obedience to the whole Revealed Will and Law of God And did I not also evpresly prove unto you that the breach of this Covenant was attended with an Answerable Threatning from Gen. 17. 14. The uncircumcised Man-child whose flesh of his foreskin is not Circumcised that Soul shall be cut off from his People he hath broken my Covenant And what would Mr. Whiston have more according to his own Concession to prove a Covenant to
absolutely Free and Sovereign is received there is an Order 't is true which for the most part God Observeth in the Communication of ensuing Graces and Priviledges namely that Faith and Obedience shall Precede the Increase and Inlargement of them Thus it was with Abraham in the Instance before us who received this last great signal Promise and Priviledg Gen. 22. upon that signal Act of his Faith and Obedience in Offering up his Son upon God's Command But yet nevertheless In the first place 't is Evident that the Gospel Covenant in the First Discovery thereof is wholly Free and Absolute So it was to Abraham Gen. 12. 2 3. where there is no such Obligation laid upon Abraham to walk before God and to be Perfect as you Affirm there was which nevertheless you Insinuate was the Condition or Qualification then required of him in order to his Participation of the Gospel Mercies there Promised him If God had indeed there told Abraham as you suggest he did That he would Bless him and make him a Blessing c. provided he walked before God and was Perfect Then it had been a Covenant of Works as much as the Covenant of Circumcision was which obliged both Him and His to do the whole Law But as I have already told you there is nothing of that Nature there to be found God only tells him Vers. 1. Get thee out of thy Country and from thy Kindred and from thy Father's House unto a Land that I will shew thee and I will make of thee a great Nation and I will Bless thee c. which is far from that Perfection which you say God there Obliged him to 'T is true afterward this charge was laid upon him Gen. 17. 1. I am the Almighty God walk before me and be thou Perfect For God requireth many things of them whom he Actually takes into Covenant and makes Partakers of the Promises and Benefits of it Of this Nature is that whole Obedience which is prescribed unto us in the Gospel in our walking before God in Uprightness There being an Order in the things that belong hereunto Some Acts Duties and Parts of our Gracious Obedience being appointed to be Means of the further Additional Supplies of the Grace and Mercies of the Covenant Of this Nature is that General Obligation here laid upon Abraham Gen. 17. 1. Walk before me and be thou Perfect and hereunto also appertaineth that famous Act of his Obedience mentioned Gen. 22. 16 17. But then it follows not that the Gospel Covenant is a Conditional Covenant For as it is wholly Free and Absolute in the First Discovery thereof so it is as Free and Absolute still From the Foundation to the Topstone thereof 't is all of the same Piece And the Reason is because whatever Duties God requireth of us in order to the Enjoyment of the full end of the Covenant in Glory yet even those Duties or Acts of Obedience which God thus requireth of us must be Performed by us if they be Performed aright in and by vertue of the First Grace of the Covenant already received Col. 2. 6 7. As ye have therefore received Christ Jesus the Lord so walk ye in him Rooted and Built up in him and stablished in the Faith as ye have been Taught So likewise Gal. 3. 2 3. This only would I Learn of you Received ye the Spirit by the Works of the Law or by the Hearing of Faith Are ye so Foolish having begun in the Spirit are ye now made Perfect by the Flesh which First Grace of the Covenant must therefore also be continued and Renewed upon us Day by Day Else we shall certainly Faint and Perish in our own Corruption at last 2 Cor. 4. 16. Psal. 36. 10. In this respect it is Evident that the Gospel Covenant is so far from being at all Conditional that it is expressed in the Nature and Form of a Promise throughout the Scripture Thus it was to our First Parents soon after the Fall a Promise that the Seed of the Woman should overcome the Devil and his Seed No Terms no Conditions added but a bare Declaration of a Way of Mercy to their Dejected Self-condemned Consciences Next when the Covenant was Revealed to Abraham Gen. 12. 2 3. It is a Formal Absolute Promise that God would Bless him and all Nations in his Seed And ever after it is called the Promise made to Abraham which Israel waited to see accomplished And so the Apostle stiles it in the forementioned Heb. 6. 13. when God made Promise to Abraham saying Surely in Blessing I will Bless thee c. And accordingly the Apostle Gal. 3. 18. affirms that the Inheritance was given to Abraham by Promise and not by Law For saith he If the Inheritance be of the Law it is no more of Promise but God gave it to Abraham by Promise which clearly Argues the Absoluteness of this Gospel Covenant For wherein differs the Law from a Free Promise but that the one is Conditional the other Absolute the one Promiseth Life upon Condition of Obedience the other without Money and without Price The like doth the same Apostle tell us Rom. 4. 13 14 15 16. For the Promise that he should be the Heir of the World was not to Abraham or to his Seed through the Law but through the Righteousness of Faith For if they which are of the Law be Heirs Faith is made void and the Promise made of none Effect And why Because the Law worketh Wrath. And how doth the Law work Wrath Why as it is a Conditional Covenant wherein alone it is opposed unto the Promise which is Free and Absolute For as the Apostle rightly adds Where no Law is there is no Transgression that is where no Conditions are added there can be no Violation or Breach of Covenant And consequently It is therefore of Faith that it might be by Grace to the end the Promise might be sure to all the Seed which else it could not be For if any Conditions be added though never so mild and gentle we are still in hazard Nay had it been so it would have rendred the Gospel Covenant worse then that made with Adam himself Since we have now no strength to Obey nor Power to fulfil these Conditions though in the least or lowest degree no not so much as to a thought So Paul acknowledgeth of himself and that even after his acquaintance with New Covenant Mercy 2 Cor. 3. 5. Not saith he that we are sufficient of our selves to think any thing as of our selves whereas Adam was furnished with a Capacity sufficient for the discharge of the most Perfect Obedience And if you say that God requireth nothing of us but what he giveth Strength and Grace to Perform having Promised to put his Laws in our Hearts c. This doth but so much the more clearly Evince the Absoluteness of the Gospel Covenant Since the Gospel Promise can depend on no Condition on our part For as I
have already told you in reference to the first Discovery of New Covenant Mercy whatever is Antecedent thereunto being only a Work or Act of Corrupted Nature can be no Condition whereon the Dispensation of Spiritual Grace is superadded And indeed so it is also even in reference to the after Discoveries thereof Since in us that is in our Flesh there dwelleth no good thing So Paul himself acknowledgeth concerning himself even after his Conversion unto God Rom. 7. 18. For to will saith he is present with me but how to perform that which is good I find not So that as it was at first with us so it is still further than the Free Sovereign and Absolute Grace of the Covenant is still set at Work for our Relief Thus it was with Paul himself He could find no Condition or Pre-disposition in himself to Plead it out with God why the further Dispensations of Spiritual Grace should be afforded unto him Our sufficiency saith he is not of our selves In me that is in my Flesh dwelleth no good thing How to perform that which is good I find not The good that I would I do not but the evil which I would not that I do and when I would do good evil is present with me In respect whereof let who will betake themselves to the Pharisees Plea God I thank thee I am not as other Men. For my own part I am resolved to make use of none other but that of the poor Publican Lord be Merciful to me a Sinner Upon the whole you see that the Apostle expressly Affirms that the Inheritance was given to Abraham by Promise not by Law And you can Assign no other Difference betwixt the Law and the Promise but that the one was Conditional the other Absolute From whence it unavoidably follows that the Gospel Covenant made with Abraham was wholly Free and Absolute So it was at first and so it is at last Rom. 4. 1 2 3 4 5. But I have so far anticipated what I have to offer by way of opposition to your following Arguments concerning the conditionality of the Gospel Covenant which I intend Anon to take distinctly to task In the mean Season you tell me you 'il trouble me on this Head but with one Query more and that is this If the four first verses of the 17 th Gen. contain a pure Gospel Covenant and the Restipulation in the following verses make a Covenant of Works because it thereby becomes conditional still crookedness For is there nothing but Restipulation in the following verses Do not the 7 th and 8 th vers contain the Promises of the Covenant of Circumcision distinct from the Restipulation mentioned vers 9 10 Well but what then Then tell me say you if you please Whether what God granted to Abraham in the former verses be not all nulled and made void again by their â—…estipulation No say I if the Question be stated a right The Gospel Covenant mentioned ves 2. 4 5 6. cannot be nulled or made void by the Covenant of Circumcision that followed after and is accordingly mentioned vers 7 8 9. 10. And my Reason is the same the Apostle gives in Reference to the Law Gal. 3. 17. The Covenant which was Confirmed before of God in Christ the Law which was 430 Years after cannot Disannul that it should make the Promise of none effect The like may be said in reference to the Covenant of Circumcision as I have already told you And therefore how harsh soever it may seem unto you as you say it doth withal telling me that I have brought Abraham Isaac and Jacob and all the Believers of Abraham's Race just into the same case I brought Moses and all the Israelites before under two opposite Covenants where one cut 's off all that the other granted Yet as I have already detected the vanity of this Notion of yours that the one of these Covenants cut 's off all that the other granted And as I have already also plainly and justly Returned the same Absurdity which without cause you charge on my Doctrin on your own in respect of Moses So I may as justly and for the same Reason in respect of Abraham also But say you There is a stronger reason urged than the conditionality of the Covenant to prove it a Covenant of Works and that is Circumcision is made the condition of Abraham's Covenant and that 's the worst of all conditions for it obliges a Man to keep the whole Law Gal. 5. 3. 't is the yoke of Bondage and to whatsoever Covenant it be so annexed it makes it become a Bondage Legal Covenant If we be Circumcised Christ shall proffit us nothing Printed Reply pag. 51. Reply Sir you seem to Express your self in this Paragraph at a scoffing rate Circumcision say you is made the Condition of Abraham 's Covenant and that 's the worst of all Conditions But as I have already told you however you deal with me you must withall remember God's truth will not be so mocked Great use you tell me is made of those Scriptures by you now mentioned in many parts of my Discourse but that I am greatly miâ—…aken in applying those texts to the purposes 〈◊〉 do for that the Apostle all along in the Epiâ—…tle to the Galathians argues against the false Teachers who taught and pressed the necessiâ—…y of Circumcision as a bond obliging them to the strict and perfect obedience of the Law in order to their Justification thereby And withal you tell me of the Circumcision of Timothy which had not been in case Circumâ—…ision had bound Men to keep the Law for â—…ustification Reply As for Paul's compliance with the â—…ews in the Circumcision of Timothy however â—…e case stood in that respect This is certain â—…hat the Blessed Apostle would never have expressed himself with that vehemency as he doth Gal. 5. 2 3. For I testify again to every Man that is Circumcised that he is a Debtour to do the whole Law If this had been onely the â—…ense of the Jewish Teachers or the Opinion â—…at they had concerning the nature of Cirâ—…umcision as you would have it It being plain that he expresseth it as his own Sense â—…n reference to the true nature of that Covenant No way contradicting theirs which yet without doubt he would have done had not this been the true state of the Case From whence therefore the conclusion is evident that it could be no other than a Covenant of Works as that at Sinai was You are pleased to tell me indeed that Circumcision in its own nature did not oblige to the keeping of the whole Law but from the intention of the Agent But the Apostle saith not so This is onely your corrupt Gloss upon thaâ—… Text. The Apostle tells us expressly If yâ—… be Circumcised you are Debtours to do the wholâ—… Law Plainly shewing that let Men desigâ—… what they will this is the true nature of thâ—… thing in it self Had Paul expressed