To imâ—…ose new Conditions though never so â—…ild is a New Covenant of Works with me Mercy but not a Covenant of race properly so called Sol. T 's true if those Works or Acts ours which God requires be underâ—…od of meritorious Works in our own Strength and Power to perform it destroys the Free Grace of the Covenant but this we utterly reject and speak only of Faith wrought in us by the Spirit of God which receives all from God and gives the entire Glory to God Ephes. 2. 5 8. Obj. But you will say If Faith be the Condition and that Faith be not of our selves then both the Promise and the Condition are on Gods part if you will call Faith a Condition and so still on our part the Covenant is absolute Sol. This is a mistake and the mistake in this leads you into all the rest though Faith which we call the Condition on our Part â—…e the Gift of God and the power of Believing be derived from God yet the act of believing is properly our act though the power by which we believe be of God else iâ—… would follow when we act any Grace as Faith Repentance or Obedience thaâ—… God believes repents and obeys in us and it is not we but God that doth alâ—… these This I hope you will not darâ—… to assert They are truly our Works though wrought in Gods Strength Isâ—… 26. 12. Lord thou hast wrought all oâ—… works in us i. e. Though they be our Works yet they are wrought in us by thy Grace or Strength As for Dr. Owen 't is plain from the place you cite in the Doctrine of Justification pag. 156. he only excludes Conditions as we do in respect of the dignity of the Act and is more plain in his Treatise of Redemption pag. 103 104. in which he allows Conditions in both the Covenants and makes this the difference That the Old required them but the New effects them in all the Federates I know no Orthodox Divine in the World that presumes to thrust in any Work of Mans into the Covenant of Grace as a Condition which in the Arminian Sense he may or may not perform according to the power and pleasure of his own Free-will without the preventing or determining Grace of God which preventing Grace is contained in those Promises Ezek. 36. 25 26 27. c. Nor yet that there is any meritorious Worth either of Condignity or Congruity in the Popish Sense in the very justifying Act of Faith for the which God justifies and saves us But we say That though God in the way of preventing Grace works Faith in us and when it is so wrought we need his assisting Grace to act it yet neither this assisting nor preventing Grace makes the act of Faith no more to be our Act 'T is we that believe still tho in Gods Strength and that upon our believing or not believing we have or have not the Benefits of Gods Promises which is the very proper Notion of a Condition Argument IV. If all the Promises of the New Covenant be absolute and unconditional having no respect nor relation to any Grace wrought in us nor Duty done by us then the Trial of our Interest in Christ by Marks and Signs of Grace is not our Duty nor can we take comfort in Sanctification as an Evidence of Justification But it is a Christians Duty to try his Interest in Christ by Marks and Signs and he may take comfort in Sanctification as an evidence of Justification Ergo. The Sequel of the Major is undeniably clear for that can never be a Sign or Evidence of an Interest in Christ which that Interest may be without yea and as Dr. Crispe asserts according to his Antinomian Principles Christ is ours saith he before we have gracious Qualifications Every true Mark and Sign must be inseparable from that it signifies Now if the works of the Spirit in us be not so but an Interest in Christ may be where these are not then they are no proper Marks or Signs and if they are not it cannot be our Duty to make use of them as such and consequently if we should they can yield us no Comfort The Minor is plain in Scripture 1 John 2. 3. Hereby we do know that we know him if we keep his Commandments The meaning is we perceive and discern our selves to be sincere Believers and consequently that Christ is our Propitiation when Obedience to his Commands is become habitual and easie to us So 1 John 3. 19. Hereby we know that we are of the truth and shall assure our hearts before him i. e. by our sincere cordial love to Christ and his Members as v. 18. this shall demonstrate to us that we are the Children of Truth and again 1 John 3. 14. We know that we are passed from death to life because we love the Brethren With Multitudes more to the same purpose which plainly teach Christians to fetch the Evidences of their Justification out of their Sanctification and to prove their Interest in Christ by the works of his Spirit found in their own Hearts And this is not only a Christians Liberty but his commanded duty to bring his Interest in Christ to this Touch-stone and Test 2 Cor. 13. 5. Examine your selves prove your selves c. 2 Pet. 1. 10. Give all diligence to make your calling and election sure i. e. your Election by your calling No Man can make his Election sure a priori nor can any Man make it surer than it is in se therefore it is only capable of being made sure to us a posteriori arguing from the work of Sanctification in us to God's eternal choice of us And as the Saints in all Ages have taken this course so they have taken great and lawful Comfort in the use of these Marks and Signs of Grace 2 Kings 20. 3. 2 Cor. 1. 12. I am sensible how vehemently the Antinomian Party Dr. Crispe Mr. Eyre and some others do oppugn this truth representing it as legal and impracticable for they are for the absolute and unconditional Nature of the new Covenant as well as you but by your espousing their Principle you have even run Anabaptism into Antinomianism and must by this Principle of yours renounce all Marks and Tryals of an Interest in Christ by any work of the Spirit wrought in us You must only stick to the immediate Sealings of the Spirit which if such a thing be at all it is but rare and extraordinary I will not deny but there may be an immediate Testimony of the Spirit but sure I am his mediate Testimony by his Graces in us is his usual way of sealing Believers We do not affirm any of these his works to be meritorious causes of our Justification or that considered abstractedly from the Spirit they can of themselves Seal or evidence our Interest in Christ. Neither do we affirm that any of them are compleat and perfect Works but this we say that
the Gospel Col. 2. 11 12. 4. They constantly affirm That none of those Grants or Priviledges made to the Infant-Seed of Abraham's Family were ever repealed or revoked by Christ or his Apostles and therefore Believers Children now are in the rightful Possession of them and that therefore there needed no new Command or Promise in Abraham's Command we find our Duty to Sign our Children with the Sign of the Covenant and in Abraham's Promise we find God's gracious Grant to our Children as well as his especially since the Apostle directs us in this very respect to the Covenant of God with Abraham Acts 2. 38 39. These Sir are the Principles on which we lay as you say great Stress and which to this day you have never been able to shake down here therefore you attempt a new Method to do it by proving this Covenant is now abolished and this is your Method in which you promise your self great Success Three things you pretend to prove 1. That the Sinai Covenant Exod. 20. 2. That Abraham's Covenant Gen. 17. are no Gospel-Covenants and that because 3. The Gospel-Covenant is Absolute and Unconditional How you come to hook in the Mosaick Covenant into this Controversie is not very evident unless you think it were easie for you to prove that to be a Covenant of Works and then Abraham's Covenant Gen. 17. being an Old Testament Covenant were the more easily proved to be of the same nature I am obliged to examine your three Positions above noted and if I evidence to the World the Falsity of them the Cause you manage is so far lost and the right of Believers Infants to Baptism stands firm upon its old and sure Foundation I begin therefore with your I Position That the Covenant made with Israel on Mount Sinai is the very same Covenant of Works made with Adam in Innocency P. 122. and divers other places of your Book the very same Now if I prove that this Assertion of yours doth naturally and regularly draw many false and absurd Consequents upon you which you are and must be forced to own then this your Position cannot be true for from true Premisses nothing but truth can naturally and regularly follow but I shall make it plain to you that this your Position regularly draws many false Conclusions and gross Absurdities upon you some of which you own expresly and others you as good as own being able to return nothing rational or satisfactory in your own defence against them 1. From this Assertion that the Sinai Covenant was a pure Covenant of Works the very same with Adam's Covenant it regularly and necessarily follows that either Moses and all Israel were Damned there being no Salvation possible to be attained by that first Covenant or else that there was a Covenant of Grace at the same time running parallel with that Covenant of Works and so the Elect People of God were at one and the same time under the first as a Covenant of Death and Condemnation and under the second as a Covenant of Grace and Justification This Dilemma pinches you to assert that Moses and all the Elect of God under that Dispensation were damned you dare not and if you had you must have expunged the 11th Chapter to the Hebrews and a great part of the New Testament together with all your hopes of sitting down with Abraham Isaac and Jacob in the Kingdom of Heaven The latter therefore seeing you cannot avoid you are forc'd upon and in plain words yield it p. 174 175. That Moses and the whole body of the Children of Israel without exception of any were under yea absolutely under the severest penalties of a dreadful Curse That the Covenant they were under could be no other than a Covenant of Works a ministration of Death and Condemnation when yet it is also evident from the same Holy Scriptures of Truth that at the same time both Moses and all the Elect among that People were under a pure Covenant of Gospel-grace and that these two Covenants were just opposite the one to the other but to this you have nothing to say but with the Apostle in another case O the depth Here Sir you father a pure and perfect contradiction upon the Holy Scriptures that it speaks things just opposite and contradictory the one to the other and of necessity one part or member of a contradiction must be false this all the rational World knows but so it is say you and fly to the infinite Wisdom to reconcile them for you say you know not what to say to it Just so the Papists serve us in the Controversie about Transubstantiation when they cannot reconcile one thing with another they fly to the Omnipotent Power to do it But Sir I wonder how you hold and hug a Principle that runs naturally into such gross absurdities Do you see what follows from hence by unavoidable consequence you must according to this Principle hold That Moses and all Gods peculiar elect People in Israel must during their Life hang mid-way between Justification and Condemnation and after Death between Heaven and Hell 1. During Life they must hang mid-way between Justification and Condemnation justify'd they could not be for Justification is the Souls passing from Death to Life 1 John 3. 14. John 5. 24. This they could not possibly do for the ministration of Death and Condemnation hindred He that is under Condemnation by the Law cannot during that state pass into Life And yet to be under Condemnation is as impossible on the other side for he that is justified cannot at the same time be under Condemnation Rom. 8. 1. John 5. 24. What remains then but that during Life they must stick mid-way betwixt both neither justify'd nor condemned and yet both so and so Justification is our Life and Condemnation our Death in Law Betwixt these two which are privatively oppos'd there can be no Medium of participation and yet such a Medium you here fancy 2. And then after Death they must necessarily hang betwixt Heaven and Hell to Heaven none can go that are under the very rigour and tyranny of the Law a pure Covenant of Works as you say they were To Hell they could not go being under the pure Covenant of Grace What remains then but some third state must be assigned them and so at last we have found the Limbus Patrum and your Position leads us right to Purgatory a Conclusion which I believe you your self abhor as much as I. 2ly This Hypothesis pinches you with another Dilemma viz. Either there was pardon on Repentance in Moses his Covenant and the Sinai Dispensation of the Law or there was none if you say â—…one you directly contradict Lev. 26. 40 46. If there were then it cannot be Adam's Covenant of Works You answer pag. 179. That God promiseth pardon for the Breach of Moses his Covenant and of Adam 's Covenant too but neither Adam 's Covenant nor the Jewish legal Covenant promised any
Covenant of Works whose Terms or Condition is do this and live and the Promise or Gospel whose Condition is Believe and thou shalt be saved are not specifically different but only gradually in point of Strength and Weakness and the Reason you give is as strange that this comes to pass through the satisfaction of Christ. Good Sir enlighten us in this rare Notion Did Christ die to purchase a Reconciliation betwixt the Covenant of Works as such and the Covenant of Grace as if both were now by the Death of Christ agreed and to be justified by Works and by Faith should after Christ's Death make no Odds or Disserence between them If it be so why have you kept such a coil to prove Moses's and Adam's Covenant yea Abraham's too being Covenant of Works can never consist or mingle with the Gospel-Covenant And then I say you contradict the Apostle who so directly opposes the Covenant of Works as such to the Covenant of Grace and tells us they are utterly inconsistent and exclusive of each other and this he spake after Christ's Death and actual satisfaction But 4. That which more amazes me is the strange Answer you give to Mr. Sedgwick Page 132 133. in your return to his Argument That if the Law and the Promise can consist then the Law cannot be set up as a Covenant of Works You answer That the Law and the Promise having divers ends it doth not thence follow that there is an inconsistence betwixt them and that the Law even as it is a Covenant of Works instead of being against the Promise tends to the Establishment of it And Page 133. That by convincing Men of the Impossibility of obtaining Rest and Peace in themselves and the necessity of betaking themselves to the Promise c. the Law is not against the Promise having so Blessed a Subserviency towards the Establishment thereof Here you own a Subserviency yea a Blessed Subserviency of the Law to the Promise which is that Mr. Sedgwick and my self have urged to prove it cannot be so as it is a pure Adam's Covenant but that therefore it must come under another Consideration only here we differ you say it hath a Blessed Subserviency to the Promise as it is the same with Adam's Covenant we say it can never be so as such but as it is either a Covenant of Grace though more obscure as he speaks or though the matter of it should be the same with Adam's Covenant yet it is subserviently a Covenant of Grace as others speak and under no other Consideration can it be reconciled to the Promise But will you stand to this that the Law hath no Hostile Contradiction to the Promise but a Blessed Subserviency to it as you speak Page 173. where you say That if we preach up the Law as a Covenant of Life or a Covenant of Faith and Grace which are equipollent Terms let us distinguish as we please between a Covenant of Grace Absolutely aud Subserviently such then we make an ill use of the Law by perverting it to such a Service as God never intended it for and are guilty of mingling Law and Gospel Life and Death together Reply Here Sir my Understanding is perfectly posed and I know not how to make any tolerable Orthodox Sense out of this Position Is the Law preached up as a pure Covenant of Works that is pressing Men to the personal and punctual Obedience of it in order to their Justification by Works no way repugnant to the Promise but altogether so when preached in Subserviency to Christ and Faith This is new Divinity with me and I believe must be so to every Intelligent Reader Don't I oppose the Promise when I preach up the Law as a pure Covenant of Works which therefore as such must be Exclusive of Christ and the Promise and do I oppose either when I tell Sinners the Terrors of the Law serve only to drive them to Christ their only Remedy who is the end of the Law for Righteousness to every one that Believeth Rom. 10. 4. are Works and Grace more consistent than Grace with Grace Explain your meaning in this Paradoxical Expression and leave not your self and others in such a Maze I read Gal. 3. 19. for what end God published the Law 430 years after the Promise was made to Abraham and find it was added because of Transgression 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it was put to not set up by it self alone as a distinct Covâ—… nant but added as an Appendix to the Covenant of Grace whence it is plain that God added the Sinai Law to the Promise with Evangelical ends and Purposes If then I preach the Law to the very same Evangelical Uses and Purposes for which God added it to the Promise do I therein make an ill use of the Law and mingle Life and Death together But preaching it as a pure Covenant of Works as it holds forth Justification to Sinners by Obedience to its Precepts do I then make it blessedly subservient as you speak to the Promise or Covenant of Grace The Law was added because of Transgression that is to restrain Sin in the World and to convince Sinners under guilt of the necessity of another Righteousness than their own even that of Christ and for the same ends God added it to the Promise I always did and still shall Preach it and I am perswaded without the least danger of mingling Law and Gospel Life and Death together in your Sense 'T is plain to me that in the Publication of the Law on Sinai God did not in the least intend to give them so much 〈◊〉 a Direction how to obtain Justification â—…y their most punctual Obedience to its Precepts that being to Fallen Man utterly impossible and beside had he promulged the Law to that end and purpose he had not added it but directly opposed it to the Promise which its manifest he did not Gal. 3. 21. Is the law then against the promise of God God forbid And ver 18. makes it appear that had it been set up to that end and purpose it had utterly disannulled the Promise for if the inheritance be of the law it is no more by promise What then can be clearer than that the Law at Sinai was published with gracious Gospel-ends and purposes to lead Men to Christ which Adam's Covenant had no respect nor reference to and therefore it can never be a pure Adam's Covenant as you falsly call it neither is it capable of becoming a pure Covenant of Works to any Man but by his own Fault in rejecting the Righteousness of Christ and seeking Justification by the works of the Law as the mistaken carnal Jews did Rom. 10. 3. and other legal Justiciaries now do And upon this account only it is that Paul who so highly praises the Law in its subserviency to Christ thunders so dreadfully against it as it is thus set by ignorant mistaken Souls in direct Opposition to Christ. 5ly And
these three Principles or Positions on which the other parts of his Discourse are superstructed and these being destroyed his other Discourses are but arenae sine calce I properly therefore begin with the Foundation Next I shall shew how far we are greed in the matters here controvertâ—…d and where it is in each of these that â—…he Controversie indeed lies betwixt us â—…nd as to I Position viz. That the Sinai-Law is the same with Aâ—…am's Covenant of Works made in Paraâ—…ice The difference betwixt us here is not 〈◊〉 Whether both these be called Coâ—…enants in Scripture nor 2. Whether there were no Grace at all in both or either of them For we are agreed it is Grace in God to enter into Covenant with Man whatever that Covenant be nor 3. Whether the Sinai-law be not a Covenant of Works to some Men by their own fault and occasion nor 4. Whether the Scriptures do not many times speak of it in that very sense and notion wherein Carnal Justiciaries apprehend and take it and by rejecting Christ make it so to themselves nor 5. Whether the very matter of the Law of Nature be not reviv'd and represented in the Sinai Law These are not the Points we contend about But the Question is Whether the Sinai Law do in its own nature and according to Gods purpose and design in the promulgation of it revive the Law of Nature to the same ends and uses it served to in Adam's Covenant and so be properly and truly a Covenant of Works Or whether God had not gracious and evangelical ends and purposes viz. by such a dreadful representation of the severe and impracticable terms of the first Covenant instead of obliging them to the personal and punctual observance of them foâ—… righteousness and life he did not rather design to convince them of the impossibility of legal righteousness humble proud Nature and shew them the necessity of betaking themselves to Christ now exhibited in the New Covenant as the only refuge to Fallen Sinners The latter I defend according to the Scriptures the former Mr. Cary seems to assert and vehemently argue for 2ly In this Controversie about the Sinai Law I do not find Mr. Cary distinguishing as he ought betwixt the Law considered more largely and complexly as containing both the Moral and Ceremonial Law for both which it is often taken in Scripture and more strictly for the Moral Law only as it is sometimes used in Scripture These two he makes one and the same Covenant of Works though there be some that doubt whether the meer Moral Law may not be a Covenant of Works yet I never met with any Man before that durst affirm the Ceremonial Law which is so full of Christ to be so and to this Law it is that Circumcision appertains 3ly The Moral Law strictly taken for the Ten Commandments is not by him distinguished as it ought to be and as the Scripture frequently doth according to Gods intention and design in the promulgation of it which was to add it as an Appendix to the promise Gal. 3. 19. and not to set it up as an opposite Covenant Gal. 3. 21. and the carnal Jews mistaking and perverting the use and end of the Law and making it to themselves a Covenant of Works by making it the very rule and reason of their Justification before God Rom. 9. 32 33. Rom. 10. 3. these things ought carefully to have been distinguished forasmuch as the whole Controversie depends on this double sense and intention of the Law yea the very denomination of that Law depends hereon For I affirm it ought not to be denominated from the abused and mistaken end of it amongst carnal men but from the true scope design and end for which God published it after the Fall And though we find such expressions as these in Scripture The man that doth them shall live in them And cursed is every one that continueth not in all things c. yet these respecting the Law not according to Gods intention but Mans corruption and abuse of it the Law is not thereby to be denominated a Covenant of Works Gods end was not to justifie them but to try them by that terrible dispensation Ezod 20. 20. whether they would still hanker after that natural way of self-righteousness for this end God propounded the terms of the first Covenant to them on Sinai not to open the way of self-justification to them but to convince them and shut them up to Christ just as our Saviour Matth. 19. 17. puts the young man upon keeping the Commandments not to drive him from but necessitate him to himself in the way of Faith The Law in both these Senses is excellently described Gal. 4. in that Allegory of Hagar and Sarah the figures of the two Covenants Hagar in her first and proper Station was but a serviceable Hand-maid to Sarah as the Law is a Schoolmaster to Christ but when Hagar the Hand-maid is taken into Sarah's Bed and brings forth Children that aspire to the Inheritance then saith the Scripture Cast out the bond-woman with her son So it is here take the Law in its primary use as God designed it as a School-master or Hand-maid to Christ and the promise so it is consistent with them and excellently subservient to them but if we marry this Hand-maid and espouse it as a Covenant of Works then are we bound to it for life Rom. 7. and must have nothing to do with Christ. The Believers of the Old Testament had true apprehensions of the right end and use of the Law which directed them to Christ and so they became Children of the Free-woman The carnal Jews trusted to the works of the Law for righteousness and so became Children of the Bond-woman but neither could be Children of both at once no more than the same Man can naturally be born of two Mothers This is the difference betwixt us about the first Position and as to the II Position That Abraham's Covenant Gen. 17. is an Adam's Covenant of Works also because Circumcision was annexed to it which obliged Men to keep the whole Law The Controversie betwixt us in this point is not whether Circumcision were an Ordinance of God annexed by him to his Covenant with Abraham nor 2. Whether Abraham's ordinary and extraordinary Seed ought to be and actually were signed by it nor 3. Whether it were a Seal of the righteousness of Faith to any individual Person for he allows â—…t to be so to Abraham nor 4. Wheâ—…he it pertain'd to the Ceremonial Law and so must cease at the death of Christ But the difference betwixt us is Whether â—…1 it was a Seal of the Covenant to â—…one but Abraham and 2. Whether â—…n the very nature of the Act or only from the intention of the Agent it did oblige men to keep the whole Law as Adam was obliged to keep it in innoâ—…ency 3. Whether it were utterly â—…bolished at the death of Christ as a
further to clear this Point the Apostle tells us Rom. 10. 4. That Christ is the end of the Law for righteousness to every one that believeth Whence I argue That if Adam's Covenant had one End namely the Justification of Men by their own personal Obedience and the Law at Sinai had a quite contrary End namely To bring Sinners to Christ by Faith for their Righteousness the one to keep him within himself the other to take him quite out of himself and bring him for his Justification to the Righteousness of another even that of Christ then the Sinai Law cannot possibly be the same thing with Adam's Covenant of Works but the Antecedent is true and plain in the forecited Text therefore so is the Consequent Christ is the end of the Law for Righteousness Take the Law here either more strictly for the Moral Law or more largely as it comprehends the Ceremonial Law still Christ is the end of the Law The Moral Law shuts up every Man to Christ for Righteousness by convincing him according to Gods design in the Publication of it of the impossibility of obtaining Justification in the way of Works And the Ceremonial Law many ways prefigured Christ his Death and Satisfaction by Blood in our room and so led Men to Christ their true Propitiation and all its Types were fulfilled and ended in Christ. Was there any such thing in Adam's Covenant You must prove there was else you will never be able to make them one and the same Covenant 6ly It seems exceeding probable from Acts 7. 37 38. That the Sinai Covenant was delivered to Moses by Jesus Christ there called the Angel This is he that was in the Church in the Wilderness with the Angel that spake to him in the Mount Sinai and with our Fathers who received the lively Oracles to give unto us Now if Christ himself were the Angel and the Precepts of the Law delivered by him to Moses were the Lively Oracles of God as they are there expresly affirm'd to be then the Law delivered on Mount Sinai cannot be a pure Adam's Covenant of Works For it is never to be imagined that Jesus Christ himself should deliver to Moses such a Covenant directly opposite to all the ends of his future Incarnation and that those Precepts which if they were of the same nature and revived to the same end at which Adam's Covenant directly aimed should be called the Lively Oracles of God When contrarywise upon your Supposition they could be no other than a Ministration of Condemnation and Death But that they were Lively Oracles viz. in their Design and Intention is plain in the Text and that they were delivered to Moses by Jesus Christ the Angel of the Covenant seems more than probable by comparing it with the former Verses 7ly Neither is it easie to imagin how such a Covenant which by the Fall of Adam had utterly lost all its Promises Priviledges and Blessings and could retain nothing but the Curses and Punishments annexed to it in case of the least Failure could possibly be numbred among the chief Priviledges in which Gods Israel gloried as it apparently was Rom. 9. 4. Who are Israelites to whom pertaineth the adoption and the glory and the covenants and the giving of the law and the service of God and the promises These things considered with many more which the intended Brevity of this Discourse will not now admit I am fully satisfy'd of the Falsity of your Position and so may you too when you shall review the many gross and palpable Absurdities with which I have clogg'd and loaded it with many more regularly and fairly deducible from it which I could easily produce did I not suspect these I have produced have already pressed your Patience a littly too far But if ever I shall see which I never expect a fair and Scriptural Solution of these weighty Objections you may expect from me more Arguments against your unsound Position which at the present I judge needless to add To conclude Those Premises as before I noted can never be true from whence such and so many gross and notorious Absurdities are regularly and unavoidably deducible For Ex veris nil nisi verum from true Premises nothing but Truth can regularly follow Had you minded those things which I seasonably sent you you had avoided all those Boggs into which you are now sunk and been able fairly to reconcile all those seeming Contradictions in Paul's Epistles with respect to the Law at Sinai But however by what hath been said your first Position That the Sinai Covenant is the same Covenant of Works with Adam 's in Paradise vanishes before the Evidence of Scripture-truth and sound Reason But yet though what I have said destroys your false Position I am not willing to leave you or the Reader ignorant wherein the Truth lies in this controverted Point betwixt us and that will appear by a due consideration of the following Particulars 1. 'T is plain and uncontroverted That Adam's Covenant in Paradise contained in it a perfect Law and Rule of natural Righteousness founded both in God's Nature and in Mans which in its perfect state of Innocency was every way enabled perfectly to comply therewith For the Scripture tells us Eccles. 7. 29. That God made Man upright and his punctual complying therewith was the Righteousness by which he stood 2. This Covenant of Works being once broken can never more be available to the Justification and Salvation of any Fallen Man There was not now a Law found that could give Righteousness the broken Covenant of Works lost immediately all the Blessings and Priviledges which before it contain'd and retain'd only the Curse and Punishment in token whereof Cherubims with flaming Swords turning every way were set to keep the way of the Tree of Life Gen. 3. 24. 3. Soon after the Violation of the Covenant of Works God was graciously pleased to publish for the relief of Mankind now miserable and hopeless the Second Covenant which we call the Covenant of Grace Gen. 3. 15. which is the first opening of the Grace of God in Christ to Fallen Man and though this first Promise of Christ was but short and obscure yet it was in every Age to be opened clearer and clearer until the promised Seed should come After the first opening of this new Covenant in the first Promise of Christ the first Covenant is shut up for ever as a Covenant of Life and Salvation and all the World are shut up to the only way of Salvation by Christ Gal. 3. 23. it being contrary to the Will of God that two ways of Salvation should stand open to Man at once and they so opposite one to another as the way of Works and the way of Faith are Acts 4. 12. John 14. 6. Gal. 2. 21. 4. 'T is evident however that after the first opening of the Promise of Christ Gen. 3. 15. God foreseeing the Pride of Fallen Man who naturally inclines to
Believer and that Abraham had nothing to glory in before God But to restrain as you do the publick Seal of a Covenant that comprehended and equally concerned the whole Church and People of God to one single Person so thaâ—… neither Isaac nor Jacob who were bâ—… name enrolled in that great Charter â—…hould have any right to the Seal of it â—…s such a Conceit as amazes an intelligent Reader We know Abraham was the â—…rst that received it but utterly deny â—…hat he received only for himself but â—…e received it as the Father of all them â—…hat Believe whether Jews or Gentiles â—…s the very next words tell us he reâ—…eived it that he might be the Father of â—…ll that Believe that is for himself and â—…ll his Spiritual Children One half of his Sacrament of Circumcision you allow â—…age 205. to the rest that were under 〈◊〉 viz. to be a sign of the Covenant but â—…e other half you cut off and say it â—…as only a Seal to him What good â—…ouchers have you for this Exposition â—…f the Text Have you the Concurrence 〈◊〉 Orthodox Expositors Or is it the rash â—…d bold Adventure of your own head â—…am sure it no ways agrees with the drift â—…d scope of the Apostles Argument â—…hich evidently is to prove that both â—…ws and Gentiles are justified by Faith as â—…braham was and that the Ground of â—…stification and Blessedness is common â—…th to the uncircumcised Gentiles and â—…cumcised Jews and that Abraham and all other Believers have but one way of Justification and Salvation and that how great soever Abraham was in this case he hath found nothing whereof to Glory ver 1 2. and is not your Exposition a notable one to prove the Community of the Priviledge of Justification because the Seal of it was peculiar to Abraham alone rectifie it and better consider it Argument III. In the Covenant of Circumcision Gen. 17. God makes over himself tâ—… Abraham and his Seed to be their God or give them a special Interest in himself But in the Covenant of Works God doth not since the Fall make over himself to any to be their God by way oâ—… special Interest Therefore the Covenant of Circumcision cannot be the Covenant of Workâ—… This is so plain and clear that noâ—… can doubt or deny it that understand the nature of the two Covenants Aâ—… now Sir what course do you take 〈◊〉 avoid this Argument such a one sure 〈◊〉 no Man that ever I met with took before you and that 's this you boldly cut Abraham's Covenant Gen. 17. into two parts and make the first to be the pure Covenant of Grace which is the promissory part to the ninth Verse and the Restipulation as you call it Page 205. â—…o be as pure a Covenant of Works What hard shift will some Men make â—…o maintain their Opinion You say â—…ruly Page 205. that at the seventh and â—…ighth Verses was their Restipulation why â—…hen do you say Page 224. that at Verse â—…he seventh he proceeds to speak of anoâ—…her Covenant than what he had been â—…eaking of before Does the Promise â—…nd the Restipulation make two Coveâ—…ants or are they just and necessary parts â—…f one and the same Covenant You â—…lso tell us that the Covenant Gen. 17. 〈◊〉 2 3 4. was a plain Transcript of â—…veral free Promises of the Gospel under â—…e denomination of a Covenant But â—…hy then don 't you take the Restipulaâ—…on verse 7 8 9 10. to be a part of 〈◊〉 Oh no there is something required 〈◊〉 Abraham's and his Posterities part â—…ey must be circumcised and that spoils â—…l Why but Sir if the requiring of Circumcision alters the case so greatly as to make it a quite contrary Covenant how comes it to pass that in the Covenant to Abraham he himself was first required to be circumcised Why this is the reason here is somewhat required on their part as a Condition and a Condition quite alters the nature of the Covenant Very well but tell me then why you say Page 223. and in many other places that the Covenant made with Abraham in Gen. 12. was a Gospel-Covenant and yet there Abraham is obliged to walk before God and be perfect Does not that also there alter the nature of the Covenant as well as here in the seventeenth Chapter You also grant the Covenant made with Abraham Gen. 22. was a pure Gospel-Covenant or if you deny it the Apostle proves it Heb. 6. 13. and yet there is more appearance of respect to Abraham's Obedience in that Covenant than is in submitting to Circumcision see Gen. 22. 16 17. By my self have I sworn saith the Lord for because thou hast done this thing c. That in Blessing I will bless thee and in multiplying I will multiply thee I will trouble you on this Head but with one Query more If the four first Verses of the Seventeenth of Genesis contain a pure Gospel-Covenant as you say and the Restipulation in the following Verses make a Covenant of works because it thereby becomes Conditional Then tell me if you please whether what God graciously granted to Abraham in the former Verses be not all null'd and made void again by their Restipulation Does not this seem Harsh Here you have brought Abraham Isaac and Jacob and all the believers of Abraham's race just into the same case you brought Moses and all the Israelites before under two opposite Covenants where one cuts off all that the other granted But there is a stronger reason urged than the conditionality of the Covenant to prove it a Covenant of Works and that is Circumcision is made the Condition of Abraham's Covenant and that 's the worst of all conditions for it obliges a man to keep the whole Law Gal. 5. 3. 't is the yoke of bondage and to whatsoever Covenant it be so annexed it makes it become a bondage Legal Covenant If we be circumcised Christ shall profit us nothing Thus it was in the Covenant Gen. 17. Great use is made of this in many parts of your Discourse but Sir you are greatly mistaken in applying these Texts to the Purposes you do For the Apostle all along in that Epistle to the Galatians argues against the false Teachers who taught and pressed the necessity of Circumcision as a Bond obliging them to the strict and perfect Obedience of the Law in order to their Justification thereby or at least to joyn it with the Righteousness of Christ as a Con-cause of Justification see Gal. 2. 4 5. and the 3. 1. Now against this Abuse of Circumcision it is that the Apostle argues thus and tells them that in submitting to it on that account they made the Death of Christ of no Effect and obliged themselves by it to the whole Law for Circumcision did not simply and absolutely in the nature of the work or action oblige Men to the whole Law in the way of Justification by it but it did so from the Intention of the worker
Works forasmuch as our Divines are so far from conceiting the Covenant with Abraham to be a Covenant of Works that they will not allow the Sinai Law it self to be so and to convince you of it I lent you Mr. Roberts and Mr. Sedgewick on the Covenant to enlighten and satisfie you about it But little did I think you had had Confidence enough to enter the Lists with two such learned and eminent Divines and make them to follow your triumphant Chariot shackled with the incomparable Baxter and Allen Sydenham and Burthogg like three pair of Noble Prisoners of War But whatever was the occasion setting aside your Sin I am not sorry you have given a fit opportunity to enlighten the World in that Point also 2. You seem to fancy in your Letter that I was once of your Opinion about the Moral Law because you find these Passages in a Sermon of mine upon John 8. 36. If the Son therefore shall make you free then are you free indeed viz. That the Law required perfect working under pain of the Curse accepted no short Endeavours admitted no Repentance and gave no Strength But finding me here pleading for the Law you think you find me in a Contradiction to that Doctrine The Words I own the Contradiction I positively deny for I speak not there and here ad idem For in that Sermon and in those very Words you cite I speak against the Law not as God intended it when he added it to the Promise but as the Ignorance and Infidelity of unregenerate Men make it to themselves a Covenant of Works by looking upon it as the very rule and reason of their Justification before God This was the Stumbling Stone at which all Legal Justiciaries then did and still do stumble Rom. 9. 31 32 33. In this Sense the Apostle in his Epistles to the Romans and Galatians argues against the Law and so do I in the Words you cite but vindicate the Law in the very same Sermon you mention as consistent with and subservient to Christ in the former Sense and there tell you The Law sends us to Christ to be justified and Christ sends us back to the Law to be regulated The very same double Sense of the Law you will find in this Discourse and from the mistaken end and abuse of the Law which the Apostle so vehemently opposeth I here prove against you that the Law in this Sense cannot consist with or be added to the Promise and therefore make it my Medium to prove against you That the true Nature and Denomination of the Sinai Law can never be found in this Sense of it but it must be estimated and denominated from the Purpose and Intention of God which I have proved to be Evangelical Try your skill to fasten a Contradiction betwixt my Words in that Sermon and this Discourse I know you would be glad to find the shadow of one to make some small Excuse or Attonement for the many faults of that nature you have here committed 3. Your Letter also informs me that you hear you are answered by one hand already and for ought you know many more may be employed against you and I for one and so we shall compass you about like Bees Reply I have only seen Mr. Whiston's little Book against your Brother Grantham wherein he hath baffled two of your principal Arguments but you only come in collaterally there and must not look upon it as a full Answer to your Book but only as a Lash for your Folly en passant And for our compassing you about like Bees methinks you seem to be greatned in your own Fancy by the supposition or expectation of a multitude of Opponents You know as well as I who it is that glories in this Motto Unus contra omnes Sir I think your Mind may be much at rest in that matter Of all the six famous Adversaries mentioned in your Title Page there are but two living and you know mortui non mordent and of the remaining two one of them viz. Mr. Baxter is almost in Heaven living in the daily Views and chearful Expectations of the Saints everlasting rest with God and is left for a little while among us as a great Example of the Life of Faith And it is questionable with me whether such a great and Heavenly Soul can find any leisure or disposition to attend such a weak and trivial Discourse as this And as for my self you need not much fear me I have not neither do I intend to vibrate my Sting against you unless I find you infecting or disturbing that Hive to which I belong and to which I am daily gathering and carrying Honey and then who but a Drone would not sting 4. To conclude in the Close of your Letter you fall into the former strain of Love assuring me That the ancient Friendship of so many years shall still continue on your part Reply All that I shall return to this is only to relate a short Story out of Plutarch in the Life of Alexander where he tells us That whilst he was warring in the Indies one Taxiles an Indian King came with his Company to meet him and saluting Alexander said What need you and I to fight and war one upon another if thou comest not to take away our Water and the necessaries of Life from us for which we must needs fight As for other Goods if I am richer than thee I am ready to give thee of mine and if I have less I will not think scorn to thank thee for thine Alexander highly pleased with his Words made him this Reply Thinkest thou that this meeting of ours can be without fighting no no thou hast won nothing by all thy fair words for I will fight and contend with thee in Honesty and Courtesie and thou shalt not exceed me in Bounty and Liberality I say with Taxiles I had never armed against you had you not come to take away our Water and the necessaries of Life I mean the Covenant of God with Abraham which contains the rich Charter of the Gentile Believers Children and make it an abolished Adam's Covenant and told us that we must come up to the Primitive Purity in these things that is in renouncing it as a Covenant of Grace and relinquishing Infants Baptism as grounded thereon Sir Were my one Father alive I must and would oppose him should he attempt what here you do Infant Baptism with you is not Singing of Psalms that plain and Heavenly Gospel-Ordinance with you is not and will you take away our Benjamin also What! the Covenant of God with Abraham and his Children in their Generations all these things are against us No Sir we cannot part with that Covenant as an abolish'd Adam's Covenant nor will I give it up for all the Friendship in the World And yet I will say with Alexander I will contend with you in Friendship and Courtesie even whilst I earnestly contend against you for the Truths of God which you have here opposed and I have endeavoured to vindicate One Word more before I part with you I do assure you and the whole World that in this Controversie with you I have not knowingly or advisedly misrepresented your Sense If you shall say I did so in my second Argument from the Words p. 179. I assure you both my self and others could understand you no otherwise than I did in the Papers I sent you and when you told me you meant there was no pardon in either of those Covenants but that it plainly directed to Abraham's Covenant you will find I have given you as fair a Choice as you can desire either to stand to your words in the first Sense wherin I understood them or which will be the same to me to your own Sense in which you afterwards explained it to me And whereas I blame you over and over in my Epistle and Conclusion for putting the proper Subject of Baptism among the highest things in Religion Let the Reader view your Conclusion and see whether you do or not If you say you speak of the Covenant there as well as of baptism I allow that you do so yet I hope 't is equally as bad nay indeed and truth a great Aggravation of your Fault to make this Article viz. Gods Covenant with Abraham Gen. 17 is an abolished Adam 's Covenant one of the highest concernments of a Christian the Baptism only of Adult Believers another My consequences from your Words are just and regular how startling soever they seem to you If you think fit to rejoyn to this my Answer I desire you will avoid as much as you can a tedious Harangue of Words and speak strictly and regularly to my Arguments by limiting distinguishing or denying as a Disputant ought to do If so I promise you a Reply but if I find no such thing it shall pass with me but for waste Paper nor will I wast time about it The Lord give us Unity in things necessary Liberty in things indifferent and Charity in all things FINIS Gal. 3. 18. Rom. 10. 3. Rom. 2. 17. * Conditio est suspensio alicujus dispositionis tantisper dum aliquid futurum fiat Navarr Enchirid. 482. †Est verborum adjectio in futurum suspendentium secundum quam disponens vult dispositum regulari Dr. Crispe 2d Vol. of Christ exalted Serm. 14. Infant-Baptism pag. 45 45.
they being true and sincere though imperfect Graces they are our usual and standing Evidences to make out our Interest in Christ by And I hope you and the whole Antinomian Party will find it hard yea and impossible to remove the Saints from that comfortable and scriptural way of examining their Interest in Christ by the Graces of his Spirit in them as the Saints who are gone to Heaven before them have done in all Generations Argument V. If the Covenant of Grace be altogether Absolute and Unconditional requiring nothing to be done on our part to entitle us to its Benefits then it cannot be Man's Duty in entring Covenant with God to deliberate the Terms count the Cost or give his consent by word or writing explicitly to the Terms of this Covenant But it is Man's Duty in entring Covenant with God to deliberate the Terms and count the Cost Luke 14. 26. to 34. and explicitly to give his consent thereto either by Word or Writing Ergo The Sequel of the Major is self-evident for where there are no terms or Conditions required on our part there can be none to deliberate or give our consent to and so a Man may be in Covenant without his own consent The Minor is undeniable in the Text cited If you say these are Duties but not Conditions I reply they are such Duties without the performance of which we can have no Benefit by Christ and the new Covenant Luke 14. 33. and such Duties have the true suspending nature of Conditions in them If you say they are only subsequent Duties but not antecedent or concomitant Acts the 28th Verse directly opposes you Let him first sit down and count the cost And for those overt acts whereby we explicitly declare our consent to the terms of the Covenant at our first entring into the Bond of it I hope you will not say that 's a legal Covenant too Isa. 44. 3 4. I will pour water upon him that is thirsty and flouds upon the dry ground I will pour my spirit upon thy Seed and my Blessing upon thine Off-spring and they shall spring up as among the grass as willows by the water-courses One shall say I am the Lords and another shall call himself by the name of Jacob and another shall subscribe with his hand unto the Lord c. A plain allusion to Souldiers when they List themselves under a Captain or General What remains now to reply to these Arguments but either that the places by me cited and argued upon do not intend the new Covenant under which we are or that this new Covenant hath its Conditions and is not altogether Absolute as you have asserted it to be And thus Sir you are fairly beaten off if I mistake not from the new Ground you had chosen and marked out to raise your Battery upon to demolish that strong Fort which secures the Right of Believers Infants to Baptism and you must return again to the old answers of Mr. Tombes and others to our solid and substantial Arguments from Abraham's Covenant Gen. 17. which have been bassled over and over by Baxter Blake Sydenham and many other stout Champions for Infants Baptism All that I am further concerned about is to examine so many of those Scriptures as you have spoken to which are by us produced in defence of those four Grounds or Principles mentioned in the beginning of this Discourse whereon we establish the Right of Infants Baptism and to vindicate those Scriptures from your strained and injurious Interpretations of them Which being done they will each of them stand in those eminent places of Service where they have been so long useful to the Cause we defend As for your pretended Solutions of the incomparable Mr. Baxter's and the learned and acute Dr. Burthogg's Arguments I admire at your Confidence therein and let me tell you without breach of Charity 't is an high piece of Confidence in you to throw the Gantlet and bid Defiance to two such Worthies yet alive and easily able to detect your Folly in the Weakness and Impertinency of your Answers Alas my Friend you little know what it is to have such weak and inartificial Discourses as yours brought under the strict Examen of such acute and judicious Eyes But Sic Dama leonem Insequitur audetque viro concurrere Virgo Nor will I presume to anticipate either of their Answers to your Discourse if they shall think it worthy of an Answer but rather briefly reflect upon what you return to the Arguments of those eminent Divines that are gone to Glory in the Faith of that Truth you oppose and are not capable of defending their solid and regular Interpretations of Scriptures against the Notions you force upon them contrary both to the Grammar and Scope of several of them And here Sir in the beginning let me mind you what a learned and judicious Person saith about all Interpretations of Scriptures Four things saith he commend an Interpretation and establish it as a King upon the Throne against whom there is no rising up 1. If the Letter and Grammar of the Text will fairly bear it 2. If the Scope and Argument of the place will close directly with it 3. If the Interpretation set up against it cannot stand before both or either of the former 4. If the Judgment of learned wise and impartial Men be found generally agreeable to it According to these Rules whereat you can have no just Exception I shall briefly yet I hope clearly and sufficiently answer some of the Replies you make to the Arguments of those deceased Worthies And 1. In Page 1. you produce Mr. William Allen's Argument ad hominem against your Practice He tells you your own Principle condemns you for you reject the Baptizing of Infants because there is no Example in the New Testament for it and yet baptize Persons at Age whose Parents were Christians which is as much without a Gospel-president or example as the former The Sum of your Reply is That though it should be granted that there is no express example for the Baptizing of such in Scripture yet there are Examples enough concerning the Baptism of Believers Reply Here you grant all that Mr. Allen objects viz. That you are altogether without Example or President for your Practice And object to him and us what neither he nor we ever scrupled or denied viz. The Baptizing of some adult Persons upon the personal Profession of their Faith I have done it my self and in like Circumstances am ready to do it again Once you clearly yield it that you have no President nor Example for your Practice in the Gospel That 's all that he seeks and what he seeks you plainly grant As to the Precept and Examples of Baptizing adult Believers whose Parents were Unbelievers and themselves never baptized in Infancy that 's not the Point you are now to speak to Nor have we any Controversie about it Certainly you are none of the fittest Persons