Selected quad for the lemma: world_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
world_n	law_n	sin_n	transgression_n	4,002	5	11.2412	5	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A39697	Vindiciæ legis & fœderis: or, A reply to Mr. Philip Cary's Solemn call Wherein he pretends to answer all the arguments of Mr. Allen, Mr. Baxter, Mr. Sydenham, Mr. Sedgwick, Mr. Roberts, and Dr. Burthogge, for the right of believers infants to baptism, by proving the law at Sinai, and the covenant of circumcision with Abraham, were the very same with Adam's covenant of works, and that because the gospel-covenant is absolute. By John Flavel minister of the gospel in Dartmouth	Flavel, John, 1630?-1691.	1690 (1690)	Wing F1205A; ESTC R218689	64,584	175

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 Cov●… 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 ●…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

pardon upon repentance but rather threatens and inflicts the contrary Reply Either this is a direct Answer to my Argument to prove the Law at Sinai cannot be a pure Adam's Covenant because it had a promise of pardon annexed to it Lev. 26. 40. but Adam's Covenant had none If your Answer be direct then 't is a plain contradiction in saying it had and it had not a promise of pardon belonging to it or else it is a meer Evasion and an eluding of the Argument and your only meaning is That the Relief I speak of is not to be found in any promise belonging to the Sinai Dispensation but in some other Gospel-Covenant or Promise But Sir this will not serve your turn you see I cite the very promise of Grace made to the Israelites on Mount Sinai by the hand of Moses wherein God promiseth upon their humiliation to remember his Covenant for their good Now Sir you had as good have stood to your first Answer which is self-contradictory as to this which is no less so as will evidently appear by a nearer and more particular view of the place and gathering up your own Concessions about it that this Text Lev. 26. 40. hath the nature of a gracious Gospel-promise in it no Man can deny except he that will deny that Gods remembring of his Covenant for the relief of poor broken-hearted Sinners is no Gospel-promise pertaining to the Covenant of Grace That it was made to the penitent Israelites upon Mount Sinai and there delivered them by the hand of Moses for their relief is as visible and plain as the Words and Syllables of the 46th Verse are to him that reads them Let the Promise then be considered both ways 1. In your Sense as a plain direction to the Covenant of Grace made with Abraham for their relief for so you say it was p. 180. Or let it be considered absolutely as that which contained relief in it self for the penitent Israelites that should live towards the end of the World after they should be gathered from all their Dispersions and Captivities as you there speak and more fully explicate in your accommodation of a Parallel Promise p. 111 112 113. First let us view it in your sense as a relative promise to the Covenant of Grace made with Abraham Gen. 12. to which say you it plainly directs them and then this legal Dispensation can never be the same with Adam's Covenant for to that Covenant no such Promise was ever annexed which should guide and plainly direct them to Christ and Pardon as that Star which appeared to the Wise Men directed their way to Christ. If there be any such relative promise belonging to Adam's Covenant in Paradise as this which I plainly shew you was made on Mount Sinai be pleased to produce it and you end the Controversie but if you cannot as you know you can not then never say the legal Dispensation at Sinai and the Covenant of Work with Adam in Paradise are the very same Covenant Secondly Let us consider this Promise absolutely in it self an●… then I demand was there Mercy Relie●… and Pardon contained in it for any pen●… tent Sinner present or to come Ye●… say you it extends Relief to Penitent●… after God shall gather them from a●… their Captivities at the end of th●… World very Good Then 't is a ver●… vigorous Promise of Grace which no●… only reaches 430 years backward as fa●… as the first Promise to Abraham b●… also extends its Reliefs and Comfort●… many thousand years forwards even t●… the purest times of the Gospel just before Christ's coming to Judgment an●… can such a Promise as this be denie●… to be in it self a Gospel-Promise Su●… it can neither be denied to be such nor yet to be made upon Mount Sinai b●… the Hand of Moses This Dilemma is a●… pinching as the former Perhaps you will say this Promise did not belong to the Moral Law given at Sinai but to the Ceremonial Law if so then I should reasonably conclude that you take the Ceremonial Law of which you seem to make this a Branch Page 181. to be a Covenant of Grace seeing one of its Branches bears such a gracious Promise upon it No that must not be so neither for say you Page 151. the Ceremonial Covenant is of the same nature with the Covenant of Works or Law written in Tables of Stone whither then shall we send this Promise To the Covenant of Grace we must not send it unless only as an Index or Finger to point to it because it was made upon Mount Sinai and delivered to Israel by the Hand of Moses to the Gospel-Govenant we must not therefore annex it and to the legal Dispensation at Sinai you are as loath to annex it because it contains so much Relief and Grace in it for poor Penitents and that will prove that neither the Moral nor Ceremonial Law place it in which you please can be a pure Covenant of Works as Adam's was Moreover In making this the Promise which must Relieve and Comfort the distressed Israelites in the purest Gospel-times towards the end of the World you as palpably contradict your self in another respect for we shall find you by and by stoutly denying that the Gospel-Promises have any Conditions or Qualifications annexed to them but so hath this which you say relates to them that shall live at the end of the World If their uncircumcised Hearts be humbled and if they accept the punishment of their Iniquities then will I remember my Covenant c. But be this Promise Conditional or Absolute two things are undeniably clear 1. That it is a Promise full of Grace for the relief of Law-Transgressors ver 40. 2. That it was a Mount Sinai Promise ver 46. and such a Promise as you can never shew in Adam's Covenant Besides It is to me an unaccountable thing that a Promise which hath a double comfortable Aspect 430 years back and some thousands of years forward should not cast one comfortable glance upon the Penitents of the present Age when it was made nor upon any till near the end of the World What think you Sir of the 3000 Jews prick'd at the Heart Acts 2. had they no Relief from it because their Lot fell not late enough in time Were the Penitent Jews in Moses and Peter's days all born out of due time for this Promise to relieve O what Shifting and Shuffling is here Who can think a Man that twists and winds every way to avoid the dint of an Argument can possibly have a Moral Assurance of the truth of his own Opinion 3. You say Page 134. That through Christ's satisfaction there is no repugnancy or hostile contrariety betwixt the Law and Promise but an Agreement betwixt them and that they differ only in respect of Strength and Weakness the Gospel is able to go through stitch with it which the Law cannot do Reply Well then the Law considered as a

a Righteousness of his own in the way of doing was pleased to revive the Law of Nature as to its matter in the Sinai Dispensation which was 430 Years after the first Promise had been renewed and further opened unto Abraham of whose Seed Christ should come and this he did not in opposition to the Promise but in subserviency thereto Gal. 3. 21. And though the matter and substance of the Law of Nature be found in the Sinai Covenant strictly taken for the Ten Commandments yet the Ends and Intentions of God in that terrible Sinai Dispensation were two-fold 1. To convince Fallen Man of the sinfulness and impotency of his Nature and the impossibility of obtaining Righteousness by the Law and so by a blessed necessity to shut him up to Christ his only Remedy And 2. To be a standing Rule of Duty both towards God and Man to the end of the World But if we take the Sinai Covenant more largely as inclusive of the Ceremonial with the Moral Law as it is often taken and is so by you in the New Testament then it did not only serve for a Conviction of Impotency and a Rule of Duty but exhibited and taught much of Christ and the Mysteries of the New Covenant in those its Ceremonies wherein he was prefigured to them 5. Whence it evidently appear that the Sinai Covenant was neither repugnant to the New Covenant in its scope and aim The law is not against the promise Gal. 3. 21. nor yet set up as co-ordinate with it with a design to open two different ways of Salvation to Fallen Man but was added to the Promise in respect of its Evangelical purposes and designs on which account it is call'd by some a Covenant of Faith or Grace in respect of its subserviency unto Christ who is the end of the Law for righteousness Rom. 10. 4. and by others a Subservient Covenant according to Gal. 3. 23 24. and accordingly we find both Tables of the Law put into the Ark Heb. 9. 4. which shews their Consistency and Subordination with and to the method of Salvation by Christ in the New Covenant 6. This design and intention of God was fatally mistaken by the Jews ever since God promulg'd that Law at Sinai and was by them notoriously perverted to a quite contrary end to that which God promulged it for even to give Righteousness and Life in the way of personal and perfect Obedience Rom. 10. 3. for they being ignorant of Gods righteousness and going about to establish their own righteousness have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God Hence Christ came to be slighted by them and his righteousness rejected for they rested in the Law Rom. 2. 17. were married to the Law as an Husband Rom. 7. 2 3. and so might have no Conjugal Communion with Christ. However Moses Abraham and all the Elect discerned Christ as the end of the Law for righteousness and were led to him thereby 7ly This fatal Mistake of the Use and Intent of the Law is the ground of those seeming Contradictions in Paul's Epistles Sometimes he magnifies the Law when he speaks of it according to Gods end and purpose in its Promulgation Rom. 7. 12 14 16. but as it was fatally mistaken by the Jews and set in opposition to Christ so he thunders against it calls it a ministration of Death and Condemnation and all its appendent Ceremonies weak and beggarly elements and by this distinction whatsoever seems repugnant in Paul's Epistles may be sweetly reconciled and 't is a distinction of his own making 1 Tim. 1. 8. We know that the Law is good if we use it lawfully There is a good and an evil use of the Law Had you attended these things you had not so confidently and inconsiderately pronounced it a pure Covenant of Works II Position Secondly you affirm with like Confidence That the Covenant of Circumcision is also the same viz. The Covenant of Works made with Adam in Paradise This I utterly deny and will try whether you have any better Success in the Proof of your second than you had in your first Position and to convince you of your mistake let us consider what the general nature of this Ordinance of Circumcision was what its ends were and then prove that it cannot be what you affirm it to be the very same Covenant God made with Adam before the Fall but must needs be a Covenant of Grace 1. Circumcision in its general Nature was 1. an Ordinance of God's own Institution in the 99th year of Abraham's Age at which time of its Institution God renewed the Covenant with him Gen. 17. 9 10. 2. That it consisted as all Sacraments do of an external Sign and a Spiritual Mystery signified thereby The external part of it which we call the Sign was the cutting off the Foreskin of the Genital part of the Hebrew Males on the eighth Day from their Birth The Spiritual Mystery thereby signified and represented was the cutting off the Filth and Guilt of Sin from their Souls by Regeneration and Justification called the Circumcision of the heart Deut. 10. 16. And though this was laid upon them by the Command as their Duty yet a gracious Promise of Power from God to perform that Duty was added to the Command Deut. 30. 6. The Lord thy God will circumcise thy heart to love him c. just as Promises of Grace in the New Testament are added to commands of Duty 3. Betwixt this outward visible Sign and Spiritual Mystery there was a Sacramental Relation from which Relation it is called the Token of the Covenant Gen. 17. 12. The Sign and Seal of the Covenant Rom. 4. 11. yea the Covenant it self Acts 7. 8. 2. Next let us consider the ends for which Circumcision was instituted and ordained of God of which these were the Principal 1. It was instituted to be a convictive Sign of their natural Corruption propagated by the way of natural Generation For which reason this natural Corruption goes in Scripture under the name of the Uncircumcision of the heart 〈◊〉 9. 26. 2. It also signified the putting off of this Body of Sin in the vertue of Christ's Death Col. 2. 11. 3. It was appointed to be the initiating Sign of the Covenant or a token of their Matriculation and Admission into the Church and Covenant of God Gen. 17. 9 10 11. 4. It was ordained to be a discriminating Mark betwixt God's Covenanted People and the Pagan World who were Strangers to the Covenant and without God in the World And accordingly both Parties were from this Ordinance denominated the Circumcision and the Uncircumcision Col. 3. 11. 5. It was also an obliging Sign to Abraham and his Seed to walk with God in the Uprightness and Sincerity of their Hearts in the performance of all covenanted Duties in which Duties Abraham and the Faithful wa●…ked Obedientially with God looking to Christ for Righteousness but the carnal Jews resting in and trusting to