Absurdity I.

That Abraham, Moses, and all the Believers under the Old Testament, by standing absolutely under Adam's Cove­nant of Works, as a ministration of death and condemnation; and at the same time purely under the Covenant of Grace (as Mr. C. affirms they did) must necessarily, during their lives, hang mid­way betwixt Life and Death, Justifica­tion and Condemnation; and after death, midway betwixt Heaven and Hell. Du­ring life, they could neither be justified nor condemned. Justified they could not be, for Justification is the Soul's passing from death to life, 1 Iohn 3. 14. Iohn 5. 24. Upon a man's justification his Covenant and State are changed; but the Cove­nant and State of no man can be so changed as long as he remains absolutely under the severest Penalties and condem­nation of the Law, as Mr. C. affirms they did.

Again, Condemned they could not be, seeing all that are under the pure Co­venant of Grace (as he saith they were [Page 181] at the same time) are certainly in Christ; and to such there is no condemnation, Rom. 8. 1. nor ever shall be: Ioh. 5. 24. He that believeth, shall not come into con­demnation, but is passed from death unto life. What remains then, but that du­ring life, they could neither be perfectly justified, nor perfectly condemned; and yet being absolutely under the severest Penalties of Adam's Covenant, they were perfectly condemned; and again, being under the pure Covenant of Grace, they must be perfectly justified?

And then after death, they must nei­ther go to Heaven, nor Hell; but either be annihilated, or stick mid-way in Lim­bo Patrum (as the Papists fancy) betwixt both. No condemned Person goes to Heaven, nor any justified Person to Hell. His Position therefore, which necessarily infers this gross Absurdity, is justly re­nounced and detested by Learned and Or­thodox Divines.

The Learned and Acute Turrettine, Turret. pars 2^da, pag. 290. the late famous Professor of Divinity at Geneva, proving that the Sinai Law could not be a pure Covenant of Works, brings this very Medium to prove it, as a known truth, allowed by all men. ‘The Israelites (saith he) with whom [Page 182] God covenanted, were already under Abraham's Covenant, which was a Co­venant of Grace; and were saved in Christ by it; therefore they could not be under the Legal Covenant. Nemo enim simul potest duo [...]us foederibus totâ specie distinctis subesse; because no man can be under two Covenants specifically different at the same time, as these two are.’

That Great and Renowned Divine Mr. William Strong, Mr. Strong on the Co­venant, p. 66, 67. gives four irrefra­gable Arguments to prove, that no man can stand under both these Covenants at the same time, which in co-ordination actually destroy and make void each o­ther. ‘If the First Covenant stand, there is no place for the Second; and if the Second stand, the first is made void. And this (saith he) will fully ap­pear, if we consider the direct contrarie­ty in the terms of those two Covenants. For (1.) the Righteousness of the first Covenant is in our selves; but the Righteousness of the Second is the Righteousness of another, 1 Ioh. 5. 11. 12. (2.) In the Covenant of Works, acceptation is first of the Works, and afterwards of the Person; Gen. 4. 7. but in the Covenant of Grace, the ac­ceptation [Page 183] is first of the Person, and then of the Work, Gen. 4. 4. (3.) The First Covenant was a Covenant with­out a Priest, but the Second is a Cove­nant with a Priest. (4.) In the First Covenant there is matter of glorying, but in the Second there is none, Rom. 3. 27. So that these two can never consist, except you can compound, or reconcile these four Opposites in the ju­stification of the same Person.’

To the same purpose, saith that Ex­cellent Mr. Samuel Bolton. Bolton's Bounds, p. 133. ‘If the Law were a Covenant of Works, then were the Iews under a different Covenant from us, and so none of them were saved, which the Apostle gainsays, Acts 15. 11. or else they were both un­der a Covenant of Works, and a Cove­nant of Grace. But that they could not be;’ they are utterly inconsistent▪ Ergo. And thus all sound Divines speak. I may therefore say of Mr. Cary's Posi­tion, as Ruveus before me did, omnem ab­surditatem excedere videtur, it seemeth to exceed all Absurdities. A man may more rationally suppose two Natures and es­sential Forms in one Body, and place the same thing under divers Species in the predicament of substance: yea, 'twere more [Page 184] tolerable to affirm, That ex duobus enti­bus per se fit unum ens per se, than to place any (as Mr. C. places all) of God's People under two opposite Covenants. If Mr. C. were absolutely under the con­demnation of the Law, would he not be purely justified, think you? Yet he pla­ces Abraham, Moses, and all Believers with them, absolutely under the severest condemnation of the Law, and the pure Gospel [...]Covenant, at once.

But to cover the shame and nakedness of his Assertion, which places Believers absolutely under Adams Covenant, he is fain to make use of two Fig-leaves, as Adam did.

(1.) And the first attempt he now makes, p. 4, 5, 6, 7. of his Reply, is by way of retortion, by telling us, ‘That the same pretended Absurdities do fall as heavily, and a great deal more, on our Doctrine, who affirm the Sinai Law (com­plexly taken) to be a Covenant of Faith, or Grace, than upon his who makes them two essentially different Covenants: be­cause we are forced to comprize perfect doing, with the curse for non-performance, under the same Covenant with believing: and that it cannot be denied but that all the People of God were absolutely under [Page 185] the Sinai Covenant, Gal. 3. 23. and Gal. 4. 4, 5. and consequently under the curse, Gal. 3. 10.’ This is the sum and substance of his first Answer.

I will not be tempted to expose my Neighbour to derision for this his strange Answer;Reply. but rather propound two sober Queries to him, and the Reader, viz. (1.) What Orthodox Divines he ever met with, and what are their names, who are forced to comprize perfect do­ing, with the curse for non-performance, under the same Covenant with believing: and so make the two opposite Covenants to be specifically one and the same? Name your Men, with their Books and Pages; or retract with shame and sorrow what you have here abusively affirmed of them. Cameron indeed makes it a subservient Covenant; the most a true, though ob­scure Covenant of Grace; but none com­prize Adam's Covenant with its Curse, in the New Covenant. (2.) Whether it be imaginable, That the same Absurdity can follow from their Doctrine, that make the whole complex body of the Sinai Law a Covenant of Grace, though more ob­scure, and so place all the People of God in those Ages under it▪ as does necessa­rily follow his Doctrine, who makes it a [Page 186] pure Adam's Covenant of Works, and places the Church of God absolutely un­der the curse of it, and also under the pure Covenant of Grace at the same time? If Grace and Grace (how diffe­ferent soever in degrees of manifestation) be as opposite and repugnant, as Grace and Works, as Justification and Condem­nation are, 'tis time for me to lay down my Pen; for I have certainly lost my Understanding to guide it any further.

But Mr. Cary will say, If you do not, yet Mr. Roberts doth comprize both in one Covenant. I say, you abuse Mr. Ro­berts in so affirming: for he saith in that very place you refer toRoberts on the Co­venant, pag. 775, 776, 777., That believing in Christ was ultimately and chiefly in­tended in the Sinai Covenant; and per­fect doing was only urged upon Israel in subordination and tendency to that be­lieving. And upon that ground it is he affirms that Covenant to be a Covenant of Faith, and so denominates it from the chief scope and intent of it. He sets not doing and believing in co-ordination, or places the Church under two opposite Covenants, as you do; but places the Law, where it ought to be placed, in subordination to Faith and Christ. And therefore you have abused that good Man, [Page 187] as well as me, and your self most of all in this your first impertinent and silly Answer.

(2.) But you have one Evasion more, p. 7. where you say, ‘That how harsh and 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 efficacious, Rom. 5. 17, 20.’

Worse and worse.Reply. Your Discourse mends like sower Ale in Summer. Here you fancy the two Covenants (under which you place the whole Church of God) to be in a conflict one with the o­ther; Condemnation and Justification strugling one with another, as I told you before they would: but however, the Grace of the New Covenant pre­vails at last, and gets the victory over the Covenant of Works. Very good; but then pray, Sir, if you please, answer me a plain Question or two at your leisure.

First, How far did the Covenant of Grace prevail against the Covenant of Works? Was it so far prevalent and victo­rious as utterly to vanquish and disannul [Page 188] it, as a Covenant of Works to them? or was it not? Was the Victory you speak of, a compleat, or a partial one? If you say it was incompleat and partial, then you leave them (as I told you be­fore you must) partly under the Promise, and partly under the Curse; justified in part, and condemned in part. But if you say, it was a compleat and perfect Victory, then it utterly dissolved its ob­ligation as a Covenant of Works; then they did not remain under two opposite Covenants, as you affirmed they did; but on their believing, changed their state with their Covenant, as we affirm they did.

Secondly, If you say, it did not totally free them from the Curse of the Cove­nant of Works, but however prevailed so far that they were not actually damned by vertue of the Curse; then be pleased to answer me one Question more, How it was possi [...]le for them to be absolutely un­der the Curse of the Law (as you affirmed they were) and yet that Curse to be so su­perseded by the Covenant of Grace, as here you speak?

To supersede the Curse (though it be a Phrase I never met with before) if it sig­nify any thing, it must signify this; That [Page 189] the Covenant of Grace caused the Law to omit, forbear, or give over to curse that People any more. But did, or can the Law forbear or cease to curse those that are absolutely under it as a ministra­tion of death and condemnation? Pray consult, Rom. 3. 19. and Gal. 3. 10. Are you aware what you say, when you place Believers absolutely under the Curse of the Law, and then talk of the New Covenant's victory over it; and after all this, leave them as you do, ab­solutely under the cursing power of the one; and still under the victorious grace of the other? For shame, my Friend, give up your absurd notion, and repent of this folly. I would not willingly shame you before the World; I did all that lay in me to prevent it. But how­ever, Pudor est medicina pudoris, the only way you have left me to prevent your glorying in your shame, is this way, to make you ashamed of your vain-glory. As for that Scripture you alledge to coun­tenance your fancy, Rom. 5. 17, 20. you might to as good purpose have opened your Bible, and have taken the first Scri­pture that came to hand, and it would have done your Position less harm. For the Apostle's scope there, is to demon­strate [Page 190] the perfection of the abounding Righteousness of Christ, for the full dis­charge of Believers from the guilt of sin, and curse of Adam's Covenant; and cuts the throat of your Position, which it is alledged to prove.

I have stood the longer upon the clear­ing of this first Point; because this being fully cleared, it runs through and clears the whole Controversy betwixt us. For now it will be evident to all, That nei­ther Abraham's, nor Moses his Covenant (complexly taken, as Mr. Cary takes it) could possibly be for this reason, an Adam's Covenant of Works; and if not a Covenant of Works, then how dark or legal soever the Dispensations of them were, they must needs be the same Co­venant of Grace, for substance, under which we are, and so the main Contro­versy betwixt us is hereby at an end.

I know not how many Covenants of Works, or how many of Grace, Mr. C. fancies there are; But Orthodox Divines constantly affirmVid. Bol­ton's Bounds, p. 148., That as there never were but two ways of Life to mankind, the one before the Fall, by perfect do­ing▪ the other after the Fall, by sincere believing: So answerably there can be but two Covenants betwixt God and [Page 191] Mankind, viz. the Covenant of Works, and the Covenant of Grace. The last of which hath, indeed, been more obscure­ly Administred, and in that respect is called the Old Covenant; yet that and the New are essentially but one Cove­nant: And the Church of God, which for many Ages stood under that Old Co­venant, did not stand under it as an Adam's Covenant, or the First Covenant of works, for the undeniable Reasons above given. And therefor Abraham's Covenant, from whence we derive our Childrens Title to Baptism, must of ne­cessity be the very same Covenant for substance with this New Covenant, which all Abraham's believing off-spring, and their Infant-seed are now under. And in proving this one point, I have sufficiently confuted both Mr. C's Solemn Call, and this his feeble vindication of it, together.

But lest he should take this for the only Absurdity proved upon him, tho' it be tiresome to me, and must be un­grateful to him; give me leave to touch one more among many; and that the rather, because I make great use of it in this Controversy, and Mr. Cary both yields and denies it. If his own words [Page 192] be the Messengers of his meaning, ei­ther he, or I, must mistake their er­rand.

I had in my Prolegomena, distinguished of the Law, as strictly taken for the Ten Commandments; and more largely and complexly taken, as including the Cere­monial Law. The former I considered according to God's intention and design in the prom [...]lgation of it, which was to add it as an Appendix to the Promise, Gal. 3. 19. And the carnal Iews mista­king and perverting the end of the Law, and making it to themselves a Covenant of Works, by making it the very Rule and Reason of their ju­stification before God, Rom. 9. 32, 33. Rom. 10. 3. I told him, That the Con­troversy depended upon this double sense of the Law, for that it ought not to be denominated from the abused and mistaken End of it; but from God's chief scope and design in the promulgation of it, which was to add it as an Appendix to the Promise, as the word [...] there imports; and so must be pub­lished with Evangelical purposes. Let us now hear Mr. C's sense of this mat­ter.

I shall only ask Mr. Cary a sober Que­stion or two, instead of Recriminations, and rendring reviling for reviling.

First, How the Iews were right enough in reference to the true nature of the Law, as it was a Covenant of Works, and yet out in respect of its proper use and intention, which was not, that any should attain unto Life and Righteous­ness [Page 195] by it, but to convince them of Sin, and of the necessity of a Saviour; and yet the Law be a Covenant of Works, in­tentionally, as well as materially consider­ed; and that in respect of God's special designation and appointment? If God designed and appointed it in his Sinai dispensation, to be to them an Adam's Co­venant of Works, then certainly they were not out (as you say they were) when they sought Righteousness by the works of it; nor could that mistake of theirs be the ground of the Controversy betwixt the Apostle and them: For it seems it was no mistake, being by God's intention, as well as its own primitive nature, promulged at Sinai, as a true Adam's Covenant.

Secondly, You deny the Law was ad­ded to the Promise, [...] posita, pro apposita, hoc est, Promissio­ni adjecta. Beza. and ask me why it might not be added to the first Cove­nant to re-inforce that? I answer, Be­cause the scope of the place will not bear it, nor any good Expositor countenance such a fancy. You make the Sinai Law to be the same with that first Covenant, and by so expounding the Apostle, you make him say, either that the same thing was added to it self, (which must in your own Phrase, be by a Correspondency [Page 196] of Identity) or else that there are two distinct Covenants of Works (when in­deed there is but one) and that the latter was added to the former. This is your way of Expounding Scripture, when driven to a streight by dint of Argument. Nothing beside such a pure necessity, could drive you upon such an Absur­dity.

It was added to the promise (saith Dr. Reynolds) by way of subserviency and attendance,Vid. Dr. Reynolds, Use of the Law, p. 378. full up to my sense, and p. 371. the better to advance and make effectual the Covenant it self. Mr. Strong upon the two Covenants, saith, the Apostle's meaning is, that the Law was added as an Appendix to the Promise. But it may be you had ra­ther hear Dr. Crisp's ExpositionDr. Crisp, Lib. 4. Serm. 9. than his; for you say, had it been added to the Promise, it would have given life. The Doctor will at once give you the true sense of the Text, and with it a full answer to your Objection. ‘Though Life (saith he) be not the end of the Law, yet there are other sufficient uses of it requiring the promulgation thereof: It was published to be an Appendix to the Gospel▪ Gal. 3. 19. And this sup­poses, (1.) The priority of the Gospel to the Law. (2.) The principality of [Page 197] the Promise of Life by Christ, above the Law. (3.) The Consistence of the Law and Gospel. They may well stand one by another, as an House, and the addition to it may.’ That it was with such an in­tention added to the Promise, I have met with no Man that had front enough to deny or scruple it before you. And that the Iews did mistake its chief scope and use, from whence we denominate it a Covenant of Grace, the generality of Godly and Learned Divines constantly affirm. See Mr. Anth. Burgess de Lege, p. 227. Bolton's Bounds, p. 160, 161. Mr. Samuel Mather on the Types, p. 11. with multitudes more, whose citations would even weary the Reader. And what you urge from Mr. Poole's Annota­tions, on 2 Cor. 3. 6, 7. it makes no­thing at all to your purpose: For it is manifest the Annotator there, takes the Moral Law in it self, strictly taken, and as set in opposition to the Gospel, which it never was since the Fall, but by the ignorance and infidelity of unregenerate Men.

You also labour to shelter your errone­ous fancy under the authority of Dr. Owen; but you manifestly abuse him in your Citation; for in that very place you re­fer [Page 198] to, he speaks strictly of the Covenant of Works made with Adam in Paradise; and plainly distinguishes it from the Si­nai Covenant, which sufficiently shews his judgment in this point. For these are his own words, which you suppres­sed in the Citation,Dr. Owen of Iustifica­tion, p. 396, 397. Vindi­cated from Mr. C's gross Misre­presenta­tions ‘As to the Sinai Covenant and the New Testament, with their privileges thence emerging, they belong not to our present Argument.’ This Paragraph you wilfully omit, that you might include that which his words plainly exclude. In the same place he tells you, that David and Abraham's Co­venant, was for essence the Covenant of Grace, notwithstanding the variations made in it: But you take and leave, as best suits your design [...]ut if you will see the Doctor's judgment, in concurrence with all his Brethren, you have it in these very words: ‘Although this Covenant hath been variously admi­nistred in respect of Ordinances and Institutions in the time of the Law, and since the coming of Christ in the flesh; yet for the sub­stance and efficacy of it, to all its spiritual and saving ends, it is one and the same; upon the account of which various dispensations it is called the Old and New-Testament.’ Vide Declaration of the Faith and Order of the Congregational Churches in England, p. 15. at the Savoy, Octob. 12. 1658..

Once more in p. 16, 17, &c. of my Vindiciae Legis, you find your self pinch­ed with another Dilemma, from Lev. 26. 40, 41, 46. whence I plainly proved, [Page 199] That there is a Promise of Pardon found in the Sinai dispensation, to penitent sinners. That this Promise was given at Mount Sinai by the hand of Moses, is undeniable from vers. 46. That it con­tained the Relief of a gracious remission to penitent sinners, is as undeniable from vers. 40, 41. If you say, this Promise belongs to Moses his dispensation (as verse 46. tells you it did) then there is remission of Sins found in the Sinai Laws. If you say, it only refers to Abraham's Covenant of Grace; then that Covenant of Grace appears to be conditional, which you utterly deny.

Now what is your Reply to this? (1.) You object my own words in the Method of Grace, p. 326. as if you had never read the just and fair Vindication I had before given you of them, p. 134, 135. of my first Reply to you. At this rate Men may continue Controversies to the Worlds end. Sir, there are many Witnesses, that you are very well ac­quainted with my Method of Grace. (2.) You say, p. 31. of your Reply, That that Covenant could not be condi­tional, because a Condition implies merit either of congruity or condignity. This is a further discovery of your ignorance of [Page 200] the nature of Conditions, as well▪ as Co­venants: But that Point belonging to the last Head of Controversy between us, I shall refer it thither.

It were easie for me to instance in many more Absurdities which Mr. C. cannot eluctate, and to prove them upon him as easily as to name them. But I will not press him too far; what hath been named and proved already, is more than enough to convince the Reader, that my first Argument is left standing in its full force and strength against him, viz.

Argument I.

That Proposition can never be true, which necessarily draws many and horrid gross absurdities after it by just conse­quence. But so doth this: Ergo.

Argument II.

My next Argument, Vindiciae, &c. p. 27. is as secure as the first. It was this. If Adam's Covenant had one end, name­ly, the Happiness and Justification of Men by their own Obedience, and the Law at Sinai had quite another end, namely to bring Sinners to Christ by Faith for their Righteousness; the one [Page 201] to keep him within himself, the other to take him quite out of himself; then the Sinai Law cannot possibly be the same with Adam's Covenant of Works in Pa­radise.

But so stands the Case, Rom. 10. 4. Christ is the end of the Law for righteous­ness to every one that believeth.

Therefore they cannot be the same, but two different Covenants.

All that touches this Argument, is but three Lines in the 49th page of your Re­ply; where you say you have sufficient­ly answered and cleared this in p. 169, 172. of your former Discourse, from the corrupt interpretation by me fastened thereon.

Now, if the Reader will give himself the trouble to examine those Pages, he shall find that Mr. C. there allows that very interpretation which he here calls corrupt; and saith it comes all to one reckoning with his own. If this will overthrow my second Argument, it is gone.

Argument III.

My third Argument was drawn from Acts 7. 38. in this Form:

[Page 202] If Christ himself were the Angel by whom the Laws were delivered to Moses, which are there called the lively Oracles of God; then the Law cannot be a pure Adam [...]s Covenant of Works: For it is never to be imagined, that ever Jesus Christ himself should deliver to Moses such a Covenant directly opposite to all the ends of his future Incarnation.

But it is more than probable from that Text, that it was Christ which delivered the Law to Moses on the Mount. Ergo.

To this Argument he saith not one word in p. 49. of his Reply, where he cites a part of it, nibling a little at that expression [The lively Oracles of God], thinking it unimaginable the Sinai Law should be such; when as the Apostle Paul, Rom. 7. 10. found the Command­ment to be unto death; and the Apostle 2 Cor. 3. 6, 7. calls it a Ministration of death. I must therefore leave Mr. C. to reconcile those two Scriptures. And withal,Fr. Span­hem. E­lench. Contro­vers. p. 552. I must tell him, that Spanhemius gives the same sense I do of Acts 7. 38. as the current judgment of Christians against the Iews, That it was not a crea­ted Angel, but Christ himself.

Argument IV.

The last Argument I urged, was from Rom. 9. 4. and thus it may run.

No such Covenant as by the Fall had utterly lost all its Promises, Privileges, and Blessings, and could retain nothing but Curses and Punishments, could pos­sibly be numbred among the chief Pri­vileges in which God's Israel gloried.

But the Law given at Sinai was num­bred among their chief privileges, Rom. 9. 4. Ergo.

To this he only saith, p. 57. of his Reply, ‘That the Law, even as it was a Covenant of Works, was a privi­lege inestimable, beyond what all others enjoyed; because the very Curses and Punishments annexed thereunto, in case of the least faileur, were of ex­cellent use to convince them of their sin and misery without Christ, and their necessity therefore of a Saviour; which was the proper work of the Law, as a Covenant of works; which advantage all other Nations wanting, it might well be numbred among the chief Privileges they were invested with.’

[Page 204] But (1.) If the Law were intended by God, to be an Adam's Covenant to them (as Mr. C. saith it was) where then is the Privilege of God's Israel a­bove other Nations? (2.) If their Pri­vilege consisted in the subserviency of that Law to Christ (as he here intimates it did) then he yields the thing I con­tend for. For this being its chief scope and end, we do hence justly denominate it a Covenant of Grace, though more obscure and legally administred. And in this judgment most of our solid Divines concur. Mr. Charnock on the Attributes, p. 390. is clear and judicious in the point.Bolton's Bounds, p. 130, &c. Mr. Samuel Bolton, in that ex­cellent Book called, The Bounds of Chri­stian Liberty, gives nine solid Arguments to prove the Law was not set up at Sinai as a Covenant of Works.Burgess, de Lege, p. 225. Greenhill, in Loc. Mr. Anth. Burgess gives us six Arguments to prove the same Conclusion. Mr. Greenhill on Ezek. 16. gives us demonstration from that Context, That since it was a Mar­riage-Covenant, as it appears to be v. 8. it cannot possibly be a distinct Covenant from the Covenant of Grace. The incom­parable Turrettine Learnedly and Judici­ously states this Controversy;Turret­tine, part 2. p. 288, 289. and both positively asserts, and by many Argu­ments [Page 205] fully proves, That the Sinai Law cannot be a pure Covenant of Works, or a Covenant specifically distinct from the Covenant of Grace. It were easie to fill Pages with Allegations of this kind; but I hope what hath been said, may suf­fice for this Point.

But still Mr. Cary complains, that I have all this while but threatned his Ar­guments to prove them fallacious, or to have four Terms in them; and therefore he hath drawn out some select Arguments, as he calls them, p. 37. to try my skill upon. I will neither tire my Reader in a foolish chase of such weak and imper­tinent Arguments as he there produceth, nor yet wholly neglect them, lest he glory in them as unanswerable. And therefore to shew him the fate of the rest, I will only touch his first Argument, which being his Argumentum Palmarium, deservedly leads the Van to all the rest. And thus it runs upon all four.

That Covenant that is not of Faith, must needs be a Covenant of Works, yea, the very same for substance with that made with Adam.

But the Scripture is express, That the Law is not of Faith, Gal. 3. 12. Ergo.

[Page 206] The Law is considered two ways in Scripture.Reply. (1.) Largely, for the whole Mosaical Oeconomy, comprehensive of the Ceremonial as well as Moral Pre­cepts; and that Law is of Faith, as the Learned Turrettine hath proved by four Scripture Arguments, Pars secunda, p. 292, 293.Lex dicitur non esse ex fide, Gal. 3. 12. non ut latè sumitur prout notat Oeconomiam Mosaicam; sed strictè, quum sumitur pro Lege Morali abstracte, & seorsim à promissionibus gratiae, quomodo illam in­telligebant Justiciarii, qui vitam ex eâ quaerebant. Nam fidem etiam in foe­dere Sinaitico praeceptam fuisse evincitur, &c. Be­cause it contained Christ the Object of Faith, &c. Because it impelled men to seek Christ by Faith. Be­cause it required that God be worshipped, which he cannot rightly be without Faith. And because Paul describes the Righteousness of Faith in those very words whereby Moses had declared the Precepts of the Law, Deut. 30. 11, 12, 13. Again, the Law in Scripture is taken strictly for the Moral Law only, considered abstractly from the promises of Grace, as the Le­gal Iusticiaries understood it. These are two far different senses and acceptations of the Law. Your Major Proposition takes the Law in its large complex body, as appears by your 3d page. Your Mi­nor Proposition, which you would con­firm by Gal. 3. 12. takes the Law strict­ly [Page 207] and abstractly, as it is set disjunctly from, yea in opposition to Faith and the Promises, and so there are two sorts of Law in your Argument, and consequently your Argument is fallacious, as all its fel­lows be, and runs (as I told you before) upon all four.

I hope this may suffice with respect to the Sinai Covenant controverted betwixt me and my Neighbour, to evince that it cannot be what he asserts it to be, even an Adam's Covenant of Works: and that I have discharged what I undertook to prove with respect to this Covenant, namely, That Mr. C. cannot free his Po­sition from the gross Absurdities with which I loaded it, but endeavouring to do that, hath incurred many more: that his Reply hath left my Arguments stand­ing in their full strength against him: and that the Position I have set up against him, is well founded in Scripture; and hath the general concurrence and consent of Learned, Holy and Orthodox Divines.

To conclude, Let the grave and learn­ed Dr. Edw. Reynolds, in his excellent Treatise of the Vse of the Law, deter­mine this Controversy betwixt us, p. 371, &c. where designedly handling this Do­ctrine from Rom. 7. 13. ‘That the Law [Page 208] was revived and promulgated anew on Mount Sinai by the Ministry of Moses, with no other than Evangelical and mer­ciful purposes,’ he abundantly confirms my Sense and Arguments, and saves me the labour of refuting the principal, and most of yours: where carrying before him the whole Context of Gal. 3. from the 15th to the 23d, he clearly carries his Doctrine with it, proving from v. 15. ‘That God's Covenant with Abraham was perpetual and immutable, and therefore all other subsequent Acts of God (such as the giving of the Law was) do some way or other refer unto it. (2.) From v. 16.P. 376. he further proves, That as God's Covenant with Abra­ham is most constant in regard of the wisdom and unvariableness of him that made it; so it can never expire for want of a Seed to whom it is made.P. 377. (3.) From v. 17. he proves, that if another Law be made after the Promise, which pri­ma specie, and in strict construction, doth imply a contradiction to the terms and nature of the former Law; then it is certain, that this latter Law must be understood in some other sense, and admit of some other subordinate use, which may well consist with the being [Page 209] and force of the former Covenant. (4.) From v. 18. he proves, that the com­ing of the Law hath not voided the Pro­mise, and that the Law is not of force (as you vainly dream) towards the Seed to whom the Promise is made; and there­fore if it be not to stand in a contradi­ction, it follows that it must stand in subordination to the Gospel; and so to tend to Evangelical Purposes.’ (5.) He further proves his Conclusion from v. 19. which shews for what end the Law was added, [...]. ‘It was not (saith he) set up alone, as a thing in gross by it self; as an adequate, compleat, solid Rule of Righteousness, as it was given to Adam in Paradise: much less was it published to void and disannul any precedent Covenant; but so far was it from abrogating, that it was added to the Promise by way of subser­viency, and attendance; the better to advance and make effectual the Cove­nant it self; and that until the Seed should come, which whether it respect Christ personal, or mystical; in either sense (saith he) it confirms the point we are upon, viz. That the Law hath Evangelical purposes. If the Seed be understood of the Person of Christ, [Page 210] then this shews that the Law was put to the Promise, the better to raise and stir up in men the expectations of Christ, the promised Seed. But if we understand by Seed, the Faithful (which I rather approve);P. 379. then the A­postle's meaning is this; That as long as any are either to come into the uni­ty of Christ's Body, and have the Co­venant of Grace applied to them, &c. so long there will be use of the Law, both to the Unregenerate, to make them [...]ly to Christ, and those that are already called, that they may learn to cast all their faith, hope, and expecta­tion of Righteousness upon him still. This then manifestly shews,P. 380. that there was no other intention in publishing the Law, but with reference to the Seed: that is, with Evangelical pur­poses to shew mercy: not with refe­rence to those that perish, who would have had condemnation enough with­out the Law.’ And further strengthens his Conclusion from the last words of vers. 19. ‘That it was ordained by An­gels in the hand of a Mediator. This (saith he) evidently declares, That the Law was published in mercy and pa­cification, not in fury or revenge; [Page 211] (for the work of a Mediator is to nego­tiate peace, and treat of reconcilement between Parties offended) whereas, if the Lord had intended death in the publishing of the Law, he would not have proclaimed it in the hand of a Mediator, but of an Executioner. (6.) From vers. 20.P. 381▪ Those words (saith he) shew why the Law was published in the hand of a Mediator, viz. that they should not despair and sink under the fear of his Wrath. For as he made a Covenant of Promise to Abraham, and his Seed; so he is the same God still, one in his grace and mercy towards Sinners. God is one, i. e. in sending this Mediator, he doth declare to Mankind, that he is at peace and unity with them again. Moses was the Representative, and Christ the substantial and real Mediator. God is one, i. e. P. 382. he carries the same purpose and intention both in the Law and in the Gospel;P. 384. namely, benevo­lence, and desire of reconcilement with men. (7.) To sum up all that hath been spoken touching the use of the Law in a plain similitude; Suppose we a Prince should proclaim a Pardon to all Traitors, if they would come in [Page 212] and plead it; and after this, should send forth his Officers to attach, imprison, examine, convince, arraign, threaten and condemn them: is he now contra­ry to himself? hath he repented of his Mercy? No, but he is unwilling to lose his Mercy, desirous to have the honour of his Mercy acknowledged unto him. The same is the Case be­tween God and us. To Abraham he made a promise of Mercy and Blessed­ness to all that would plead interest in it, for the remission of their Sins; but men were secure and heedless of their Estate,P. 385. &c. Hereupon the Lord pub­lished by Moses a severe and terrible Law; yet in all this, God doth but pursue his first purpose of mercy, and take a course to make his Gospel ac­counted worthy of all acceptation; which clears the general point, That God in the publication of the Law by Moses on Mount Sinai, had none but Merciful and Evangelical Intentions. And once more; The Law was not published by Moses on Mount Sinai, as it was given to Adam in Paradise, P. 386. to justify, or to save men. And p. 385. it is not given, ex primari [...] intentione, to condemn men. In consequence to [Page 213] all which he saith, p. 388, 389. that to preach the Law alone by it self, is to pervert the use of it; neither have we any power or commission so to do. It was published as an Appendant to the Gospel, and so must it be preached. It was published in the hand of a Me­diator, and must be preached in the hand of a Mediator. It was published Evangelically, and it must be so preached.’

See how this agrees now with p. 173. of your Call, and how the several parts of the discourse of this sound and emi­nent Doctor (which I have been forced to sum up and contract) do abundantly confute your vain Notions of the Law, and cut the very nerves of your best Ar­guments, if they had any nerves in them: for indeed it is moles absque nervis:

It were easy for me to represent the Sense of many other eminent Divines in perfect harmony with the Doctrine of this great and excellent Divine, who hath substantially proved the Point I defend against you: but 'tis enough.

II. Let us next examine what execu­tion his Reply hath done upon my second Position, set up in direct opposition to him; namely, That God's Covenant with [Page 214] Abraham,Abraham's Covenant, Gen. 17. the Cove­nant of Grace. Gen. 17. unto which Circumci­sion was annexed, is, for its substance, the self-same Covenant of Grace with that which Gentile-believers and their Infant-seed are now under.

Here I have abundant cause again to complain, that Mr. C. hath so formed his Answers, as if he had never read the Book he undertakes a Reply to. And I do verily believe, the greatest part of his Reply was made at random, before ever my printed Book was in his hands. For he hath not at all considered the state of the Question as I there gave it him; nor kept himself to the just and necessary Rules of Disputation, as I earnestly de­sired he would. However, 'tis not Com­plaints, but confirmation and vindication of my Arguments, which is my proper work. I shall therefore recite them briefly, and vindicate and confirm them strongly; contracting all into as few words as can express the sense and Argu­ment of the Point before me.

Argument I.

If Circumcision be a part of the Cere­monial Law, and the Ceremonial Law was dedicated by Blood; and whatsoever is so dedicated, is by you confessed to be [Page 215] no part of the Covenant of Works:Vindiciae Legis, &c. p. 42. then Circumcision can be no part of the Co­venant of Works, even by your own confession. But it is so. Ergo.

To this Mr.Reply. P. 68. Cary returns a Tragical Complaint instead of a Rational Answer. Insinuates my falsehood and gross abuse of him. Appeals to his Reader. Tells him I have taken a liberty to say what I please, as if there were no future Iudgment to be regarded. And that I can expect no com­fort another day without repentance now. For those things that have thus passed be­twixt him and me, shall again be revised, and set in order before me. That he is weary of noting my Miscarriages of this kind. That there is hardly a Page or Pa­ragraph in my whole Reply, but abounds with Transgressions of this nature. He begs the Lord to forgive me; and wishes he could say, Father, forgive him, for he knows not what he doth; as if my Sin were greater than the Sin of those that stoned Stephen, or crucified Christ.

Either I am guilty or innocent in the matters here charged upon me by Mr. C. If guilty, Reply. I promise him an ingenuous acknowledgment. If innocent, (as both my Conscience, and his own Book will prove me to be) then I shall only say, he [Page 216] knoweth not what spirit he is of. The Case must be tried by his own Book, and it will quickly be decided. These are the very words in his Solemn Call, p. 148. ‘He (that is, Mr. Sedgwick) makes no distinction betwixt the Ceremonial Cove­nant that was dedicated with blood, and the Law written in stones that was not so dedicated. How strangely doth he confound and obscure the word and truth of God, which ought to have been cleared and distinctly declared to those he had preached or written to?’ With much more, p. 149, 150, 151. where he saith, ‘It's plain, that the Law written in Stones, and the Book wherein the Statutes and Iudgments were contained, were two di­stinct Covenants, and delivered at di­stinct seasons, and in a distinct method; the one with, the other without a Media­tor; the one dedicated with blood and sprinkling, the other (that we read of) not so dedicated.’

Now let the Reader judge whether I have deserved such Tragical Complaints and dreadful Charges for inferring from these words, That the Ceremonial Law being by him pronounced a distinct Co­venant from the Moral Law, which he makes all one with Adam's Covenant; [Page 217] delivered at a distinct season, and in a di­stinct method; the Ceremonial Law with a Mediator, the Moral Law without a Mediator; the Ceremonial Law dedi­cated with blood and sprinkling, the Mo­ral Law not so dedicated: let him judge (I say) whether I have wronged him in saying, that by his own confession, Cir­cumcision being a part of this Ceremo­nial Law, it can therefore be no part of the Covenant of Works?

But Mr. Cary hath two things to say for himself.Exception. (1.) That in the same place he makes the Ceremonial Law no other than a Covenant of Works: And the wrong I have done him, is by not distin­guishing (as he did) betwixt A Covenant of Works, and The Covenant of Works. Here it seems lies my guilt upon which this dreadful out-cry against me is made.

But if I should chance to prove,Reply. that there never was, is, or can be any more than one Covenant of Works; and that any other Covenant which is distinguish­ed from it (as he confesses the Ceremo­nial Law was) by a Mediator, and the blood of sprinkling, can be no part of that Covenant of Works: what then will become of Mr. C's distinction of A Covenant of Works, and The Covenant of [Page 218] Works? Now the matter is plain and evident, That as there never were, are, or can be more than two common Heads appointed by God, namely Adam, and Christ, 1 Cor. 15. 45, 46, 47, 48. Rom. 5. 15, 17, 18, 19. so it is impossible there should be more than two Covenants, un­der which Mankind stands, under these two common Heads. And the First Co­venant once broken, it is utterly impos­sible that fallen Man should ever attain life that way, or that ever God should set it up again with such an intention and scope,Charnock on the At­tributes, p. 390. unless (as Mr. Charnock speaks) he had reduced man's Body to the dust, and his Soul to nothing, and framed another man to have governed him by a Covenant of Works; but that had not been the same man that had revolted, and upon his revolt was stained and disabled. If Mr. C. there­fore be not able to prove more Covenants of Works with Mankind than one, let him rather blush at his silly distinction betwixt a [...] Covenant of Works, and the Covenant of Works. For indeed he makes at least four distinct Covenants of Works, one with Adam, two with Moses; one Moral, the other Ceremonial; and a fourth with Abraham at the institu­tion of Circumcision, Gen. 17.

[Page 219] (2.) If it appear (as it clearly doth) that as there never was, is, or can be any more than one Covenant of Works, so whatsoever Covenant is distinguished from it by a Mediator, and dedication by the sprinkling of blood (as he saith the Ceremonial Law was) cannot possibly, for the Reasons he gives, be any part or member of Adam's Covenant of Works; then, I hope, I have done M. C. no wrong in my assumption from his own words, for which he so reviles and abuses me. But this will appear as plain as the Noon-day-light: for a Covenant with a Mediator, and dedicated by sprinkling of blood, doth, and necessarily must essen­tially difference such a Covenant from that Covenant that had no Mediator, nor dedication by blood. To deny this, were to confound Law and Gospel, Adam's and Christ's Covenant; but the distin­ction betwixt them is his own, therefore my assumption was just. That this blood was typically the blood of Christ, and that the Holy Ghost signified the one by the other, is plain from Heb. 9. 7, 8. And I never met with that man that scrupled it before Mr. Cary. So then my first Argument to prove Abraham's Cove­nant of Circumcision to be the Covenant [Page 220] of Grace, and not an Adam's Covenant, or any part thereof, stands firm after Mr. C's passionate Reply, which I hope the Lord will pardon to him, though he had scarce Charity enough left to desire a pardon for his Friend, who had neither wronged the Truth, nor him.

Argument II.

My second Argument was this. If Circumcision was the seal of the Righte­ousness of Faith, it did not pertain to the Covenant of Works; for the Righteous­ness of Faith and Works are opposite.

But Circumcision was the Seal of the Righteousness of Faith, Rom. 4. 11. Ergo.

The sum of what he answers to this, p. 72, 73, &c. (as far as I can pick his true sense out of a multitude of needless words) is this. ‘He confesses this Argu­ment seems very plausible; but however, Abraham was a Believer before Circum­cision; and tho indeed it sealed the Righ­teousness of Faith to him, yet it sealed it to him only as the Father of Believers: and denies that ever Jacob, or Isaac, or any other enrolled in that Covenant, were sealed by it; but to all the rest beside A­braham, it was rather a token of servi­tude [Page 221] and bondage.’ This is the sum and substance of his Reply.

But,Reply. Sir, let me ask you two or three plain Questions. (1.) What is the reason you silently slide over the Question I asked you, p. 41. of my Vindiciae, &c? Did you find it an hot Iron, which you durst not touch? 'Tis like you did. My Question was this. Had Adam's Covenant a seal of the righteousness of faith annexed to it, as this had, Rom. 4. 11? The righteousness of faith is evangelical righteousness, and this Circumcision sealed. Say not it was to Abraham only that it sealed it, for 'tis an injurious restriction put upon the Seal of a Covenant which extended to the Fathers, as well as to Abraham: how­ever, you admit that it sealed evangelical righteousness to Abraham: but I hope you will not say, that a Seal of the Covenant of Works (for so you make Circumcision to be) ever did, or could seal evangelical righte­ousness to any individual person in the World.

I find you a man of great confidence, but certainly here it failed you: not one word in Reply to this. ‘(2.) I told you your distinction was invented by Bellarmine, and shew'd you where it was confuted by Dr. Ames: but not a [Page 222] word to that. (3.) I show'd, That the extending of that Seal to all Be­lievers as well as Abraham, is most agreeable to the drift and scope of the Apostle's Argument, which is to prove, that both Iews and Gentiles are justified by Faith, as Abraham was: and that the ground of [...]ustification is common to both: and that how great soever Abraham was, yet in this case he hath found nothing whereof to glory. And is not your Exposition a notable one, to prove the community of the privi­ledge of Justification, because the Seal of it was peculiar to Abraham alone?’ p. 47, 48.

Sir, You have spent words enough upon this Head to tire your Reader. But why can I not meet with one word a­mong them, that fairly advances to grap­ple with my Argument? or answer the important Questions before you, upon which the matter depends? If this be all you have to say, I must tell you, You are a weak manager of a bad Cause; which is the less hazard to Truth.

Argument III.

In the Covenant of Circumcision, Gen. 17. God makes over himself to A­braham, [Page 223] and his Seed, to be their God, or gives them a special interest in himself.

But in the Covenant of Works, God doth not since the Fall, make over himself to any to be their God by way of special interest.

Therefore the Covenant of Circumci­sion cannot be the Covenant of Works.

The sum of your Reply in p. 76. is under two Heads.

(1.) ‘You boldly tell me, That God doth in the Covenant of Works make over himself to Sinners to be their God by way of special interest: but it being upon such hard terms, that it's utterly impossible for Sinners that way to attain unto life, he hath therefore been pleased to abolish that, and make a new Covenant:’ and bring Exod. 20. 2. to prove it.

This is new and strange Divinity with me.Reply. (1.) That God should become a People's God by way of special interest, by vertue of the broken Covenant of Works. This wholly alters the nature of that Covenant; for then it was a Law that could give life, contrary to Gal. 3. 21. unless you can suppose a Soul that's total­ly dead in Sin, to have a special interest in God, as his God. (2.) This Answer of yours yields the Controversy about the [Page 224] nature of the Sinai Law: for this very Concession of yours, is the Medium by which our Divines prove it to be a Cove­nant of Grace. (3.) This Concession of yours confounds the two Covenants, by communicating the essential property and prime privilege of the Covenant of Grace; to Adam's Covenant of Works. Either therefore expunge Ier. 31. 33. as a Covenant of Grace, I will be their God, and they shall be my people; or allow that in Gen. 17. 7. to be specifically the same; and that Exod. 20. though more obscure­ly delivered. (4.) ‘You assert, That God may actually become a Peoples God by way of special interest, and yet the salvation of that People be suspended upon impossible terms.’ You sent them before to Purgatory, but by this you must send them directly to Hell: for if the salvation of God's peculiar Peo­ple be upon impossible terms, 'tis cer­tain they cannot be saved. And last­ly, It is an horrid reflection upon the Wisdom and Goodness of God, who ne­ver did, or will make any Covenant, wherein he takes fallen Men to be his pe­culiar People, and make over himself to be their God; and yet not make provi­sion for their Salvation in the same Cove­nant, [Page 225] but leave their Salvation for many Ages upon hard and impossible terms, (i. e.) leave them under damnation.

(2.) I told you in my Vindiciae, &c. p. 49. that you were fain to cut Abra­ham's Covenant, Gen. 17. into two parts; and make the first to be the pure Cove­nant of Grace, which is the promisory part to the 9th verse; and the Restipula­tion (as you call it, p. 205.) to be as pure a Covenant of Works. Which I truly said was a bold Action; and in so calling it, I gave it a softer name than the nature of it deserved.

The sum of what you reply to this,Mr. C's Defence, p. 79. is, (1.) By denying the matter of fact, and charging me with misrepresentation; and in the next page confessing the whole Charge, saying, Though the Promise and the Restipulation, mentioned vers. 7, 8, 9. make but one and the same Cove­nant of Circumcision; yet there are two Covenants mentioned in that Context, the first between God and Abraham him­self, vers. 2, 4. the other between God and Abraham, and his natural Posterity also, vers. 7, 8, 9, 10. The former you call a Covenant of Grace, the latter a Covenant of Works. And p. 81. you affirm, That after God had entred the [Page 226] Covenant of Grace with Abraham, v. 2, 4. that Abraham himself was required to be circumcised by the Command of God, as a Token of the Covenant of Works. And thenP. 81. (after some unbecoming Scoffs for misplacing vers. 7, 8. where vers. 9, 10. should be; as also of Gen. 12. for Gen. 17. (whether by the Scribe, my Self, or Press, I cannot say; but in each place sufficient light is given to set you right in the scope and Argument of my Discourse) you tell us, That how harsh and unlikely soever it may seem to man's carnal reason, that the latter, to wit, the Covenant of Works made with Abraham, vers. 9, 10. must needs make void the Covenant of Grace made with him, vers. 2, 4. yet the Apostle gives a quite contrary resolution of it, Gal. 3. 17. And after all, p. 79. in return to my Argument, That the Circumcision of Abraham, and his Seed, vers. 9, 10. could not possibly be a condition of A­dam's Covenant of Works from the nature of the act:☞ because Paul himself circumci­sed Timothy, Act. 16. 1, 2, 3. and asserts it to be a part of his Liberty, Gal. 2. 3. 4. which could never be, if in the very nature of the act it had bound Timothy to keep the Law for justification; and had been con­trary to the whole scope of the Apostle's [Page 227] Doctrine: but it became an obligation only from the intention of the Agent. All that you say to this, p. 95. is, ‘That as for Paul's compliance with the Iews, however the case stood in that respect, this is certain, That the blessed Apostle would never have expressed himself with that vehemency he doth, Gal. 5. 2, 3. if this had been only the sense of the Iewish Teachers, or that Circumcision in its own nature did not oblige to the keep­ing of the whole Law; and that this is only my corrupt gloss upon the Text.’

If there be but one Covenant made betwixt God and Abraham in that 17th of Genesis, Reply. and you make two, not only numerically, but specifically distinct, yea, opposite Covenants of it; then you bold­ly cut God's Covenant with Abraham in two, and are guilty of an insufferable abuse of the Covenant of God. But the former is true: therefore so is the latter. You say, p. 223, 224. of your Call, ‘That at the second and fourth Verses God made a Covenant with Abraham himself alone; but at verse 7. he makes the Covenant of Circumcision betwixt himself and Abraham, and his natural Seed also; and saith, vers. 7. And, or (according to the old Translation) [Page 228] Moreover; as proceeding to speak of another Covenant than what he had been before insisting on.’

Now I would soberly ask, (1.) What Vouchers you have amongst Expositors for this your rash and daring Assertion? I find not a man that hath trod this path before you, and I hope none will be hardy enough to follow. You certainly stand alone, and 'tis pity but you should. (2.) Where do you find the just parts of the New Covenant in the 2d and 4th verse? Is it not altogether promisory on God's part, without any restipulation on Abraham's? for you have excluded v. 1, 9, 10. from that which you call God's Covenant of Grace with him. And then for your Covenant of Works, vers. 7, 8, 9, 10. you make this to be the Promiso­ry part of that Covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy Seed after thee; and again vers. 8. I will be their God. Was ever such a Promise as this, found in a Cove­nant of Works? Tell me what-ever God said more in the New Covenant, than he saith here? Oh blessed Covenant of Works, if this be such! (3.) Tell me whether you can satisfy your own Con­science with the Answers you have given to my first Argument against your para­doxical, [Page 229] yea heterodoxical Exposition? I told you, That if vers. 7, 8, 9, 10. con­tain another Covenant, viz. of Works, entred by God with Abraham and his Seed, it must needs make void the former Covenant, vers. 2, 4. for where-ever the Covenant of Works takes place, the Co-Covenant of Grace gives place; they cannot consist, as I have abundantly pro­ved before. Do you verily think those words of the Apostle, Gal. 3. 17. which you bring as a foundation to support your singular and sinful Exposition, viz. And this I say, That the Covenant that was con­firmed before of God in Christ, the Law, which was four hundred and thirty years af­ter, cannot disannul that it should make the Promise of none effect; do you think (I say) that in that, or any other Text, the Apostle opposes the two Covenants made (as you fancy) with Abraham, Gen. 17? or doth he not there speak of God's Co­venant with Abraham, as distinguished from the Law made 430. years after­ward? (4.) Have you satisfied your own Judgment and Conscience in the Reply you make to that unanswerable Objection from Paul's circumcising of Timothy, Acts 16. 2, 3. where you have the plain matter of fact before you, that he was [Page 230] circumcised by Paul; and this Fact of his, justified as a part of the Liberty he had in Christ, Gal. 2. 3, 4. from whence it evidently ap­pears,Teneter non simpli [...]itèr & absolutè ex genere ope­ris, sed ex intentione ope­rantis, & suppositâ tali opinione, &c. Poole in loc. That Circumcision in its own nature did not simply and absolutely ob­lige men to the keeping of Moses his Law for Righteousness, but only from the intention or opinion of the Person. And though you call this my corrupt gloss upon the Text, therein you grosly abuse me. The gloss is nei­ther corrupt, nor my own; but the una­nimous Judgment of all sound Expositors of the Text, as you might see, were you capable of seeing it, in a Collection of their Judgments upon that Text, Gal. 5. 2, 3. in Mr. Poole's Synopsis. And tho Estius thinks the Act of Circumcision might be obligatory to the Gentiles, to whom the Law was not given; yet it was not so to the Iews that believed, and such was Timothy. But why do I refer you to the Judgment of Commentators? the very reason of it may convince you: For,

If the very Act of Circumcision did in its own nature oblige all on whom it passed, to keep the whole Law for their [Page 231] Righteousness, then Paul so obliged Ti­mothy, and all others on whom he passed it, to keep the Law for their Righteous­ness.

But Paul did not oblige Timothy, or any other on whom he passed it, by the very Act of Circumcision so to keep the Law.

Therefore the very Act of Circumci­sion in its own nature did not oblige all on whom it passed, to keep the whole Law for Righteousness.

You may ponder this Argument at your leisure, and not think to refute it at so cheap a rate, as by calling it a corrupt gloss of my own. And thus I hope I have sufficiently fortified and confirmed my Third Argument, to prove Abraham's Covenant to be a Covenant of Grace. My Fourth was this.

Argument IV.

That which in its direct and primary end teacheth Man the corruption of his Nature by sin, and the mortification of sin by the Spirit of Christ, cannot be a condition of the Covenant of Works.

But so did Circumcision in the very di­rect and primary end of it. Therefore, &c.

[Page 232] Your Reply to this is, ‘That when I have substantially proved that the Sinai Covenant, as it contained the Passeover, Sacrifices, Types and Appendages, under which were vailed many spiritual Myste­ries relating to Christ, and mortification of sin by his Grace and Spirit, to be no Co­venant of Works, but a Gospel-covenant; you will then grant with me, that the pre­sent Argument is convincing;’ p. 96, 97. of your Reply.

Sir,Reply. I take you for an honest man: and every honest man will be as good as his word. Either I have fully proved against you, that the Sinai Law (taken in that latitude you here express it) is not an Adam's Covenant of Works, or I have not. If I have not, doubtless you have reserved your more pertinent and strong Replies in your own breast, and trust not to those weak and silly ones which you see here baffled, and have on­ly served to involve you in greater Ab­surdities than before. But if you have brought forth all your strength (as in such a desperate strait no man can ima­gine but you would) then I have fully proved the point against you. And if I have, I expect you to be ingenuous and candid in making good your word, That [Page 233] you will then grant with me, that this Argument is convincing to the end for which it was designed. And so I hope we have fully issued the Controversy be­tween us, relating to God's Covenant with Abraham. You have indeed four Arguments, p. 59, 60, 61, 62. of your Reply, to prove Abraham's Covenant a Covenant of Works of the same nature with Adam's Covenant.

(1.) Because as life was implicitly pro­mised to Adam upon his obedience, and death explicitly threatned in case of his disobedience, which made that properly a Covenant of Works; so it was in the Covenant of Circumcision, Gen. 17. 7, 8. compared with vers. 10, 14.

This Argument or Reason can never conclude:Reply. because as God never requi­red of Abraham, and his Children, per­sonal, perfect, and perpetual obedience to the whole Law for life, as he did of Adam; so the death, or cutting off, spo­ken of here, seems to be another thing from that threatned to Adam. Circum­cision (as I told you before) was appoint­ed to be the discriminating Sign betwixt Abraham's Seed, and the Heathen World: and the wilful neglect thereof is here threatned with cutting off by Civil or [Page 234] Ecclesiastical Excommunication from the Commonwealth, and Church of Is­rael, as Luther, Calvin, Paraeus, Muscu­lus, &c. expounds; not by death of Body and Soul, as was threatned to Adam, without place for repentance, or hope of mercy.

(2.) You say Abraham's Covenant could not be a Covenant of Faith, be­cause Faith was not reckoned to Abra­ham for Righteousness in Circumcision, but in Uncircumcision, Rom. 4. 9, 10.

This is weak reasoning.Reply. Circumcision could not belong to a Gospel-covenant, because Abraham was a Believer before he was circumcised. You may as well de­ny the Lord's Supper to be the Seal of a Gospel-Covenant, because the Partakers of it are Believers before they partake of it. Beside, you cannot deny but it sealed the Righteousness of [...]aith to Abraham: and I desired you before, to prove that a Seal of the Covenant of Works i [...] capable of being applied to such an use and ser­vice, which you have not done, nor ever will be able to do; but politickly slided by it.

(3.) You say it cannot be a Covenant of Grace, because it is contra-distinguish­ed to the Righteousness of Faith, Rom. 4. 13.

[Page 235] The Law in that place is put strictly for the pure Law of Nature,Reply. and Meta­leptically signifies the Works of the Law, which is a far different thing from the Law taken in that latitude wherein you take it. And is not this a pretty Argu­ment, that because the promise to Abra­ham, and his Seed, was not through the Law, but through the Righteousness of Faith; therefore the Covenant of God made with Abraham, and his Seed, Gen. 17. cannot be a gracious, but a legal Covenant? This Promise mentioned Rom. 4. 13. was made to Abraham long before the Law was given by Moses: and Free-grace, not Abraham's legal Righte­ousness, was the impulsive cause moving God to make that Promise to Abraham, and to his Seed: and their enjoyment of the Mercies promised, was not to be through the Law, but through the Righteousness of Faith. By what rule of art this Scripture is alledged to prove God's Covenant with Abraham, Gen. 17. to be a Covenant of Works, I am utterly to seek. If it be only because Circumci­sion was added to it, that's answered over and over before; and you neither have, nor can reply to it.

[Page 236] (4.) Lastly, It cannot (say you) be a Covenant of Grace, because it's repre­sented to us in Scripture as a Bondage-covenant, Acts 15. 10, &c. Gal. 5. 1.

'Tis time,Reply. I see, to make an end. Your discourse runs low, and dreggy. Do you think it is one and the same thing to say, That the Ceremonial Law was a yoke of bondage to them that were un­der it, and to say it was an Adam's Cove­nant? Are these two parallel distinctions in your Logick? Alas! Sir, there is a wide difference. The difficulty, varie­ty, and chargeableness of those Ceremo­nies, made them indeed burthensome and tiresome to that People; but they did not make the Covenant, to which they were annexed, to become an Adam's Co­venant of Works: for in the very next breath, vers. 11. the Apostle will tell you, they were saved; yea, and tells us, that we shall be saved even as they. So that either they that were under this yoke, were saved by Faith in the way of Free­grace, as we now are; or we must be saved in the way of legal Obedience, as they were. Take which you please, for one of them you must take. We shall be saved, even as they, Acts 15. 10, 11.

[Page 237] If you can make no stronger opposi­tion to my Arguments, than such as you have here made, your Cause is lost; though your confidence and obstinancy re­main. It were easy for me to fill more Paper than I have written on this Subject, with Names of principal note in the Church of God, who with one voice de­cry your groundless Position, and con­stantly affirm, that the Law in the com­plex sense you take it, as it comprehends the Ceremonial Rites and Ordinances whereunto Circumcision pertains, is, and can be no other than the Covenant of Grace, though more obscurely admini­stred. But because Latin Authors are of little use to you, and among English ones, the Judgment of Dr.Vol. 2. Serm. 2. pag. 247, 248, 250. Crisp, I sup­pose, will be instar omnium with you: I will recite it faithfully out of his Sermon upon the two Covenants, where he makes the Old and New Covenants to be indeed two distinct Covenants of Grace, (for which I see no reason at all) but proves the former to be so in these words.

‘It is granted of all men, That in the Covenant of Works there is no remission of Sin, there is no notice of Christ; but the whole business or imployment of [Page 238] the Priests of the old Law, was altoge­ther about remission of Sins, and the exhibiting and holding forth of Christ in their fashion unto the People. In the 15th of Numbers, vers. 28. (I will give you but one Instance) there you shall plainly see, That the administra­tion of that Priestly Office had remis­sion of Sins as the main end of that Ad­ministration. If a Soul sin through ig­norance, he shall bring a She-goat unto the Priest, and he shall make an atonement for the Soul that sinneth ignorantly, and it shall be forgiven him: See, the main end is administring forgiveness of Sins.’

‘And that Christ was the main Sub­ject of that their Ministry, is plain, because the Apostle saith in the Verse before my Text, That all that Admini­stration was but a Shadow of Christ, and a Figure for the present to represent him, as he doth express in the 9th Chapter of this Epistle. And the truth is, the usual general Gospel that all the Iews had, was in their Sacrifices and Priestly Observations.’—

‘So that it's plain, the administration of their Covenant was an administra­tion of Grace, and absolutely distinct [Page 239] from the administration of the Cove­nant of Works.’ And what can be said more absolutely and directly contradicto­ry to your Position, than this is? And yet again, p. 250. speaking to that Scri­pture, Heb. 8. 8. ‘where the Apostle distinguishes of a better and a faulty, of First and Second; he saith, Finding fault with them, The days come, when I will make a new Covenant with the House of Israel, and with the House of Judah, not according to the Covenant I made with their Fathers, when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the Land of Egypt; and (as Ieremiah adds it, for the Apostle takes all this out of Ier. 31. 31.) although I was an Husband to them; and in the close of all, Your Sins and Iniquities will I remember no more.—Here are two Covenants, a new Covenant, and the Covenant he made with their Fathers. Some may think it was the Covenant of works at the promulgation of the Moral Law; but mark well that Expression of Ieremiah, and you shall see it was the Covenant of Grace. For (saith he) not according to the Covenant I made with their Fathers, although I was an Husband unto them. How can God be considered [Page 240] as Husband to a People under the Cove­nant of Works, which was broken by man in innocency, and so became disannulled or impossible by the breach of it? The Co­venant of Works runs thus: Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things that are written in the Book of the Law; and, In the day thou sinnest, thou shalt die the death. Man had sinned before God took him by the hand to lead him out of the Land of Egypt, and Sin had separated Man from God: how then can God be called an Husband in the Covenant of Works? The Covenant therefore was not a Covenant of Works, but such a Cove­nant as the Lord became an Husband in, and that must be a Covenant of Grace,’ &c.

How the Doctor makes good his two distinct Covenants of Grace, I see not, nor expect ever to see proved, and is not my present concernment to enquire; but once it is evident by what he hath here said, That the Ceremonial Law, where­of Circumcision is a branch, can be no other than the Covenant of Grace. And nothing is more common among our Di­vines, than to prove not only the Sinai Law, but God's Covenant with Abra­ham, Gen. 17. to be the Covenant of [Page 241] Grace by this Medium, That God having entred into a Covenant of Grace with Abra­ham before, would never bring him under a Covenant of Works afterwards, which must nullify and void the former. And beside, such a Covenant of Works as you make this, was never heard of in the World, wherein God promises to be a God to A­braham, and his Seed, in their Genera­tions, upon the rigorous and impossible Terms of Adam's Covenant.

By this time, I presume, you must feel the force of those Arguments produced against your vain and groundless notion; and how little you are able to do to de­liver your Thesis from them, but the more you struggle, the more still you are intangled. Go which way you will, your Absurdities follow you as your Sha­dow. —haeret lateri lethalis arundo. Leaving therefore all your Absurdities upon you, till God shall give you more illumination and ingenuity to discern and acknowledge them; I shall pass on to the examination of your third Position, which led you into these other gross Mistakes; and if God shall convince you of your Er­ror in this point, I hope it may prove a means of recovering you out of the rest: [Page 242] which in love to your Soul, I heartily desire.

III. Your third Position is, That God's Covenant with Abraham, Gen. 17. can be no other than the Covenant of Works, be­cause Circumcision was the Condition of it: For (say you) the new Covenant is altoge­ther absolute, and unconditional.

Of the Conditionality of the New Covenant.

This Question, Whether the Covenant of Grace be conditionate or absolute, was moved (as a learned Man observes) in the former Age, by occasion of the Con­troversy about Justification, betwixt the Protestants and Papists. Among the Protestants, some denied, and others af­firmed the Conditionality of the Gospel-covenant. Those that denied it, did so for fear of mingling Law and Gospel, Christ's Righteousness and Man's, as the Papists had wickedly done before. Those that affirmed it, did so out of fear also; lest the necessity of Faith and Holiness being relaxed, Libertinism should be that way introduced. But if the Question were duly stated, and the sense of its [Page 243] Terms agreed upon, the Gospel-Covenant may be affirmed to be conditional, to se­cure the People of God from Libertinism, without the least diminution of the Righ­teousness of Christ, or clouding the Free­grace of God.

I did in my first Answer to your Call, endeavour to prevent the needless trou­ble you have here given your self, by a succinct state of the Question: telling you the Controversy betwixt us, is not, (1.) Whether the Gospel-covenant re­quires no duties at all of them that are under it? nor (2.) Whether it requires any such Conditions as were in Adam's Covenant, namely, perfect, personal, and perpetual Obedience under the pe­nalty of the Curse, and admitting no place of Repentance? nor (3.) Whether any Condition required by it on our part, have any thing in its own nature meri­torious of the Benefits promised? nor (4.) Whether we be able in our own strength, and by the power of our Free-will, without the preventing, as well as the assisting Grace of God, to perform any such work or duty as we call a Con­dition? These things I told you were to be excluded out of this Controversy. But the only Question betwixt us, is, [Page 244] Whether in the New Covenant, Quest. some act of ours (though it have no merit in it, nor can be done in our own single strength) be not required to be performed by us antecedently to a blessing or privilege consequent by ver­tue of a promise? And whether such an act or duty, being of a suspending nature to the blessing promised, it have not the true and proper nature of a Gospel-condition?

In your Reply (contrary to all rule and reason) you include and chiefly argue against the very Particulars by me there excluded; and scarcely (if at all) touch the true Question, as it was stated, and by you ought accordingly to have been considered. I might therefore justly think my self discharged from any fur­ther concernment with you about it: for if you will include what I plainly exclu­ded, you argue not against mine, but ano­ther man's Position, which I am not con­cerned to defend. You here dispute a­gainst meritorious Conditions, which I explode and abhor as much as your self. You say, p. 34. of your Reply, that a Condition plainly implies something of merit, by way of condignity or congruity; which is false, and turns the Question from me to the Papists. And were it not more for the clearing up of so great a [Page 245] Point for the instruction and satisfaction of others, than any hope you give me of convincing you, I should not have touch­ed this Question again, unless I had found your Replies more distinct and pertinent. But finding the Point in controversy of great weight, I will once more tell you,

• 1. What the word [Condition] sig­nifies.
• 2. In what sense it is by us used in this Controversy.
• 3. Establish my Arguments for the conditionality of the New Cove­nant.

(1.) And first we grant, That nei­ther our word [Condition] nor your term [Absolute] are either of them found in Scripture, with respect to God's cove­nanting with Man; so that we contend not about the signification of a Scripture term. But though the word Conditional be not there, yet the thing being found there, That brings the word Conditional into use in this Controversy. For we know not how to express those [...] sacred Particles, [...] &c. If, If not, Vnless, But if, Ex­cept, Only, and the like, which are fre­quently used to limit and restrain the [Page 246] Grants and Privileges of the New Co­venant, Rom. 10. 9. Matt. 18. 3. Mark 5. 36. Mark 11. 26. Rom. 4. 24. I say, we know not how to express the true sense and force of these Particles in this Controversy, by any other word so fit and full as the word Conditional is. Now this word Condition being a Law-term, is variously used among Iurists; and the various use of the word, occasions that confusion which is found in this Con­troversy. He therefore that shall clearly distinguish the various senses and uses of the word, is most likely to labour with success in this Controversy. I shall therefore briefly note the principal senses and uses of the term, and shew in what sense we here take it. Of Conditions there be two sorts.

• 1. Antecedent
• 2. Consequent

As to the latter, namely, consequent Conditions, you your self acknowledge, p. 100. ‘That in the outward dispen­sation of the Covenant, many things are required of us in order unto the participation or enjoyment of the full end of the Covenant in glory.’

[Page 247] So then the Covenant is acknowledg­ed to be consequently conditional,Si promis­siones foe­derisintel­liganturde fine, nemo negare po­test esse conditio­nale [...]; quià fiunt sem­per sub conditio­ne fidei. & poeniten­tiae. Tur­rettine. which is no more than to say with the Apostle, Without holiness no man shall see God; or, that if any man draw [...] back, his soul shall have no pleasure in him, &c. Our Contro­versy therefore is not about consequent Conditions, laid by God upon Believers, after they are in Christ and the Cove­nant; the Covenant so considered, à po­steriori, will not be denied to be Condi [...]tional. The only Question is about An­tecedent Conditions; and of these we are here to consider,

• 1. Such as respect the first Sanction of the Covenant in Christ.
• 2. Such as respect the application of the benefits of the Covenant unto Men
  Si foedus specterur ratione sanctionis primae in Christo, nullam habet conditionem praeviam; sed solâ gratiâ Dei, & Christi merito nititur. Sed si attendatur ratione acceptationis & applicationis in fideli, condi­tionem habet Fidem, quae hominem unit Christo, & sic in commu­nionem foederis mittit. Turret. vol. 2. p. 203.
  .

As to the first Sanction of the Cove­nant in Christ, we freely acknowledg [...]t hath no previous Condition on Man [...]s part; but depends purely and only upon the Grace of God, and Merit of Christ. So that our Question proceeds about such [Page 248] antecedent Conditions only as respect the Application of the Benefits of the Cove­nant unto Men. And of these Antece­dent Conditions there are likewise two sorts, which must be carefully distin­guished.

• 1. Such Antecedent Conditions which have the force of a meritorious and impulsive Cause, which being performed by the proper strength of Nature, or at most by the help of common assisting Grace, do give a Man a right to the reward or blessings of the Covenant. And in this sense we utterly disclaim antecedent Conditions, as I plain­ly told you, p. 61. of my Vindiciae, &c. Or,
• 2. An Antecedent Condition signify­ing no more than an Act of ours, which though it be neither per­fect in every degree, nor in the least meritorious of the benefit con­ferred; nor performed in our own natural strength; yet according to the constitution of the Covenant, is required of us in order to the blessings consequent thereupon by vertue of the Promise: and conse­quently [Page 249] the benefits and mercies granted in the Promise in this or­der are, and must be suspended by the Donor or Disposer of them, un­til it be performed. Such a Con­dition we affirm Faith to be. But here again, Faith [...] the Condition of the New Cove­nant, is considered,
  • 1. Essentially. Or,
  • 2. Organically and Instrumentally.

In the first consideration of Faith, ac­cording to its Essence▪ it is contained un­der Obedience, and in that respect we exclude it from justifying our persons, or entitling us to the saving-mercies of the New Covenant, as it is a work of ours; and so I excluded it, p. 133. of my Method of Grace, which you igno­rantly or wilfully mistake, when in your Reply, p. 88, 89. you object it against me. Faith considered in this sense, is not the Condition of the Covenant, nor can pretend to be so, more than any o­ther Grace. But

We consider it Organically, Relatively, and (as most speak) Instrumentally, as it receives Christ, Ioh. 1. 12. and so [Page 250] gives us power to become the Sons of God; it being impossible for any Man to partake of the saving benefits of the Covenant, but as he is united to Christ. For all the Promises of God in him are yea; and in him, Amen, 2 Cor. 1. 20. And united to Christ no Man can be, be­fore he be a believer; for Christ dwel­leth in our hearts by Faith, Eph. 3. 17. Upon which Scriptural Grounds and Reasons it is, that we affirm Faith to be an Antecedent Condition, or, Causa sine quâ non, to the saving benefits of the new Covenant; and that it must go before them, at least in order of nature, which is that we mean, when we say Faith is the antecedent Condition of the New Covenant. And those that deny it to be so, as the Antinomians do, who talk of actual and personal Justification from Eternity, or at least from the death of Christ, must consequently assert the actual Justification of Infidels; and not only disturb, but destroy the whole order of the Gospel, and open the Sluces and Flood-gates to all manner of licentious­ness.

And thus our Pious and Learned Di­vines generally affirm Faith to be the condition of the Covenant.Moses's Self-denial. p. 188. So Mr. Iere­miah [Page 251] Burroughs, ‘Faith (saith he) hath the great honour above all other Graces, to be the Condition of the second Cove­nant; therefore certainly it is some great matter that Faith enables us to do. Whatsoever keeps Covenant with God, brings strength, though it self be never so weak; as Sampson [...]s Hair. What is weaker than a little Hair? Yet because the keeping that, was keeping Covenant with God; therefore even a little Hair was so great strength to Sampson. Faith then, that is the Con­dition of the Covenant, in which all Grace and Mercy is contained, if it be kept, it will cause strength indeed to do great things.’

And as this excellent Man, Mr. Bur­roughs, is in this sense for the Conditio­nality of the New Covenant; so are the most Learned and Eminent of our own Divines. Dr. Edward Reynold's assigning the differences betwixt the two Cove­nants, gives this for one:Dr. Rey­nold's his Life of Christ. p. 512. ‘They differ in the Condition (saith he); there Le­gal Obedience, here only Faith; and the certain consequent thereof, Repen­tance. There is difference likewise in he manner of performing these Con­ditions: For now God himself begins [Page 252] first to work upon us, and in us, be­fore we move or stir towards him. He doth not only command us, and leave us to our created strength to obey the Command; but he furnisheth us with his own Grace and Spirit to obey the Command.’

Of the same judgment is Dr. Owen. Dr. Owen Treatise of Redemp­tion. Book 3. chap. 1. p. 103, 104. And in his Tract of Iu­stification, p. 299, &c. ‘Are we able (saith he) of our selves to fulfil the Condition of the New Covenant? Is it not as easie for a Man by his own strength to fulfil the whole Law, as to repent, and believe the Promise of the Gospel? This then is one main difference of these two Co­venants, That the Lord did in the Old only require the Condition; now in the New, he also effects it in all the foederates to whom the Covenant is ex­tended.’ This is the Man you pretend to be against Conditions.

Mr. William Pemble opening the na­ture of the two Covenants,Pemble, of Iustif. Sect. 4. Chap. 1. p. 214, 215, 216, 217. saith, ‘The Law offers Life unto Man upon con­dition of perfect Obedience; the Go­spel offers Life unto Man upon ano­ther condition, to wit, of Repentance, and Faith in Christ.’ And after his proofs for it, saith, ‘From whence we conclude firmly, That the difference [Page 253] between the Law and the Gospel, as­signed by our Divines, is most certain and agreeable to the Scriptures, viz. That the Law gives Life unto the just, upon condition of perfect obedience in all things; the Gospel gives Life unto sinners, upon condition they repent and believe in Christ Jesus.’

Learned and judicious Mr. William Perkins thus;Perkins, Order of Causes, Chap. 31. p. 17. ‘The Covenant of Grace is that whereby God freely promising Christ and his Benefits, exacts again of Man, that he would by Faith receive Christ. And again, in the Covenant of Grace two things must be consider­ed, the Substance thereof, and the Con­dition. Reformed Catholick, of Iustif. p. 570. The Substance of the Covenant is, That Righteousness and Life Ever­lasting, is given to God's Church and People by Christ. The Condition is, That we for our parts are by Faith to receive the foresaid Benefits; and this Condition is by Grace, as well as the Substance.’

That Learned, Humble, and Painful Minister of Christ Mr. Iohn Ball, Mr. J. Ball of the Co­venant of Grace, Chap. 1. Of the Ne [...] Covenant, p. 198. stating the difference betwixt the two Cove­nants, shews, that in the Covenant at Sinai, in the Covenant with Abraham, and that with David, that in all these [Page 254] Covenant expressures, there are for sub­stance the same Evangelical conditions of Faith and Sincerity.

Dr. Davenant thus:Davenant De Justif. Act. cap. 30. ‘In the Cove­nant of the Gospel it is otherwise; for in this Covenant, to the obtainment of Reconciliation, Justification, and Li [...]e Eternal, there is no other condition required than of true and lively Faith, Iohn 3. 16. Therefore Justification, and the right to Eternal Life, doth de­pend on the Condition of Faith alone.’

Dr. Downame harmonizeth with the rest in these words: ‘That which is the only Condition of the Covenant of Grace,Tract. 1. Of Iustif. Lib. 6. cap. 8. Sect. 10. and Lib. 7. cap. 2. Sect. 6. by that alone we are justified: But Faith is the Condition of the Co­venant of Grace, which is therefore called Lex Fidei. Our Writers (saith he) distinguishing the two Covenants of God, that is, the Law and the Gospel, whereof one is the Covenant of Works, the other the Covenant of Grace, do teach, That the Law of Works is that which to Justification requireth works as the Condition thereof: The Law of Faith that, which to Justification re­quireth Faith as the Condition thereof. The former saith, Do this, and thou shalt live; the latter, Believe in Christ, and thou shalt be saved.’

[Page 255] But what stand I upon particular, though renowned names? You may see a whole Constellation of our sound and famous Divines in the Assembly, thus ex­pressing themselves about this Point. ‘The Grace of God (say they) is ma­nifested in the second Covenant, in that he freely provideth, and offereth to sinners a Mediator,Larger Ca­tech. 4^to. London 1648. p. 8. and Life and Salvation by him, and requiring Faith as the Condition to interest them in him, promiseth and giveth his Holy Spirit to all his Elect, to work in them that Faith, with all other saving Gra­ces, and to enable them to all holy Obedience, as the evidence of the truth of their Faith, &c.’

I could even tire the Reader with the Testimonies of eminent foreign Divines, as Cameron de triplici foedere, Thes. 82. Vrsinus & Paraeus explicatio Catech. Quest 18. de foedere. Wendeline, Chri­stian Theology, Lib. 1. cap. 19. Thes. 9. Poliander, Rivet, Wallaeus, and Thysius, the four learned Professors at Leyden, Sy­nops. Disp. 23. Sect. 27, &c. And as for those Ancient and Modern Di­vines, whom the Antinomians have corrupted and misrepresented, the Reader may see them all vindicated, [Page 256] and their concurrence with those I have named, evidenced by that Learned and Pious Mr. Iohn Graile, in his Modest Vin­dication of the Doctrine of Conditions in the Covenant of Grace, from p. 58. on­ward; a Man whose name and memory is precious with me, not only upon the account of that excellent Sermon he Preached, and those fervent Prayers he poured out many years since at my Ordi­nation; but for that Learned and Judi­cious Treatise of his against Mr. Eyre, wherein he hath cast great light upon this Controversy, as excellent Mr. Baxter, and Mr. Woodbridge have also done. But alas, what evidence is sufficient to satisfy ignorant and obstinate Men!

Sir, it pities me to see the lamentable confusion you are in. You are forced by the evidence of truth to yield and own the substance of what I contend for. You have yielded the Covenant to be consequently Conditional in p. 84. of your Reply. You have also as plainly yielded, that the Application of Pardoning Mercy unto our Souls, is in order of nature conse­quent unto believing; p. 31. of your Re­ply. From both which concessions in your own words recited, this Conclusion is evident and unavoidable, viz.

[Page 257] That no adult person, notwithstand­ing God's Eternal Election, and Christ's meritorious death and satisfaction, ac­cording to the Constitution and Order of the New Covenant, can either be justi­fied in this World, or saved in the World to come, unless he first believe.

For if the Application of Pardoning Mercy unto our Souls, is in order of Na­ture consequent unto believing (as you truly affirm it to be) then according to the Constitution and Order of the New Covenant, no application of pardoning Mercy can be made to our Souls before we believe. And if it be evident (as you say it is, p. 84.) that unto a full and com­pleat enjoyment of all the Promises of the Covenant, Faith on our part is required; then as no Man can be actually justified in this World, so neither can he be saved before, or without Faith in the World to come. And if you did but see the true suspending nature of Faith, which you plainly yield in these two concessions; you would quickly grant the conditional nature of it: For what is the proper na­ture and true notion of a Condition, but to suspend the benefits and grants of that Covenant in which it is so inserted? And thus the Controversy betwixt us is fairly [Page 258] issued. But I doubt you understand not what you have here written, or are troubled with a very bad memory: Be­cause I find you in a far different note from this in p. 103. of your Reply, where you say, ‘That if Iesus 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 the benefit of the Promise, doth necessarily suppose, that Christ hath not done all for us, nor purchased a right to Life for any; but only 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, 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 [Page 259] to them that believe in him, together with means of obtaining the full possession, which here we want.’

Either these passages I have here cited and compared,Reply: were fetched at a great distance of time, out of Authors differ­ing as much in judgment as you and I do; and so the dissonancy of them is the meer effect of oblivion, and incogitancy: Or else your Intellectuals are more con­fused and weak than I am willing to su­spect them to be. For if the applica­tion of Pardoning Mercy to our Souls▪ is in order of Nature consequent to Be­lieving (as you truly say it was); then certainly, notwithstanding Christ's ful­filling the Law, and purchasing Heaven and Happiness for Men, something else must remain to be done, besides declaring this to them, to incline them to believe and accept it, or prescribing to them in what way they shall finally come to in­herit Eternal Life. For besides those declarations and prescriptions you talk of, Faith it self must be wrought in the Souls of Men, or else Pardoning Mercy is not in order of Nature consequent un­to believing, as you said it was: For all the external Declarations and Prescrip­tions in the World are not Faith it self, [Page 260] but only the means to beget it; which may, or may not, become effectual to that end.

Secondly, Whereas you say, that this (senseless notion) is consequent upon the Doctrine of all true Protestants, you therein grosly abuse them, and make all the true Protestants in the World guilty of worse than Arminian or Antinomian dotage. The Antinomian, indeed, makes our actual justification to be nothing else but the manifestation or declaration of our Justification from Eternity, or the time of Christ's death. And the Armi­nian tells us, That the Declaration of the Gospel to Men, is sufficient to bring them to Faith by the assisting Grace of the Spirit.▪ But your notion is worse than the very dregs of both, and yet you tack it as a just consequent to the Do­ctrine of all true Protestants.

Thirdly, You say,Reply. P. 104. That to affirm Faith and Repentance to be the Conditions of the New Covenant required of us in point of Duty, antecedent to the benefit of the Pro­mise, doth necessarily suppose that Christ hath not done all for us, nor purchased a right to Life for any; but only made way that they may have it upon certain terms, or merited that we might merit. Here, [Page 261] Sir, you vilely abuse all those worthy Divines before mentioned, who have made Faith the Condition of the New Covenant, pinning upon them both Po­pery and Iudaism. Popery, yea, the dregs of Popery, in supposing their Doctrine necessarily implies that Christ hath merited that we might merit. And Iudaism to the height, in saying, their Doctrine necessarily supposes that Christ hath not purchased a right of Life to any. What can a Iew say more? Ah, Mr. C. can you read the words I have recited out of blessed Burroughs, Owen, Pemble, Perkins, Davenant, Downame, yea, the whole Assembly of Reverend and Holy Divines, with multitudes more (who have all with one mouth asserted Faith to be the Condition of the New Co­venant required on Man's part, in point of Duty; and that Men must believe before they can be justified; which is the very same thing with what I say, That it is antecedent to the benefit of the Promise) and not tremble to think of the direful char­ges you here draw against them? The Lord forgive your rash presum­ption.

[Page 262] Fourthly, Whereas you say, Christ hath in our stead performed the Conditions of life, and that there remains nothing but a Promise,Sal [...]marsh, of Free­grace. p. 126, 127. &c. you therein speak at the highest dialect of Antinomianism; Hath not Christ by his Life and Death per­formed the Conditions of Life in our stead? yet you your self confess, that pardoning Mercy is in order of nature consequent to our believing; certainly then there is something more to be done beside the mere making, or being of a Promise: there must be the effect of the Promise in our hearts; yea, the effects of those absolute Promises of the first Grace, Ezek. 36. Ier. 32. Or else notwithstand­ing Christ's performance of Redemption on his part, we can neither be justified nor saved. For I don't think you intend to lay the Conditions of Repentance or believing upon Christ, who in the New Covenant hath laid them upon us, tho in the same Covenant he graciously under­takes to work them in us: and yet your words sound in that wild Antinomian Note.

But,Objection. I suppose, you take my Notion to be as self-repugnant as your own, when I say Faith is an antecedent Condi­tion to Justification: because I also say, [Page 263] this Grace is also supernaturally wrought in us, and is not of our selves. This staggers you, and is the very stone you stumble at all along this Controversie: for in your sense, p. 34. every Condition is meritorious by condignity or congruity.

First, What do I say more in all this,Reply. than what those Worthies before-men­tioned do expresly affirm? Doth not Dr. Owen (the man whom you deserved­ly value) make Conditions both in Adam's Covenant and the New, with this difference, that Adam's Covenant requi­red them, but the New Covenant effects them in all the Foederates? Sir, We take it for no contradiction to assert, That the planting of the Principle, and the assi­sting and exciting of the Acts of Faith, are the proper Works of the Spirit of God, and are also contained in the abso­lute Promises of the New Covenant, Ezek. 36. 26, 27. Ier. 32. 39, 40. And yet Faith, notwithstanding this, is truly and properly our work and duty; and that upon our believing, or not believing, we have, or have not, an actual interest in Christ, Righteousness, and Life. For though the Author of Faith be the Spirit of God, yet believing is properly our Act, and an Act required of us by a [Page 264] plain Command, 1 Iohn 3. 23. This is the Command of God, That ye believe. And if its being wrought in God's strength makes it cease to be our Work, I would fain know what Exposition you would give of that place, Phil. 2. 12, 13. Work out your own Salvation, &c. for it is God that worketh in you both to will and to do. And as this Faith is truly and properly our work, though wrought in God's strength (for it is not God, but we, that do believe) so it is wrought in us by him (by your own confession) before the ap­plication of pardoning Mercy, which is consequent in order of nature thereunto: and therefore hath the true nature of an antecedent Condition, which is that I contend for; and did you but understand your own words, you would not contend against.

Oh,Object. 2. but say you, p. 34. every Con­dition is meritorious, either by way of congruity or condignity.

This is your ignorance of the nature of a Condition,Reply. with which I find you as unacquainted as with the nature of a Co­venant. A Condition, whilst unper­formed, only suspends the act of the Law or Testament: it being the will of the Testator, Legislator, or Donor, that [Page 265] his Law or Testament should act or ef­fect, when the Condition is performed, and not before: but it is not essential to a Condition, to be a meritorious or impul­sive cause moving him to bestow the be­nefit for the sake thereof. A man freely gives another out of his love and bounty such an Estate or Sum of Money, which he shall enjoy if he live to such a year, or day; and not before: is this quando dies veniet, this appointed time the meritori­ous or impulsive cause of the gift? sure­ly no man will say it: but that it is a causa sine quâ non, or a Condition suspend­ing the enjoyment of the gift, no man will deny that knows what the nature of a Condition is. An act meritorious by way of Congruity, is that to which a re­ward is not due out of strict justice, but out of decency, or some kind of meetness. Merit of condignity is a voluntary action, for which a reward is due to a man out of justice, and cannot be denied him with­out injustice. Our Faith is truly the Con­dition of the New Covenant, and yet we detest the meritoriousness of it in either sense.

But you object my words to me in my Method of Grace, Object. 3. where I assert the im­possibility of believing without the ef­ficacy [Page 266] of supernatural Grace, p. 102, 103.

Sir, I own the words you quote,Reply. and am bold to challenge the most envious Eye that shall read those lines, to shew me the least repugnancy betwixt what I said there, and what I have said in my Vindiciae Legis, &c. p. 9. of the Prolego­mena, and p. 61. of that Book. You shew your good-will to make an advan­tagious thrust; but your Weapon is too short, and can draw no blood. But lea­ving these weak and impertinent Cavils, let us come to your Solution of my Argu­ments, p. 98. by which I proved the Conditionality of the New Covenant. My first Argument was this.

If we cannot be justified or saved till we believe,Argu­ment 1 and are justified when we believe; Then Faith is the Condition on which those consequent Benefits are su­spended, &c.

The sum of your Answer (without denying,Answer. distinguishing, or limiting one Proposition) is this, That, ‘here Faith is properly put into the room of perfect Obedience, and is to do what perfect Obedience was to do under the Law: whereas (say you) Faith is only ap­pointed as an Instrument to receive and [Page 267] apply the Righteousness of Christ, which is the alone matter of our Justi­fication before God; and Faith it self is not our Righteousness, as it would be if it were a Condition, p. 105, 106.’

Not to note the weakness and imper­tinence of this Answer,Reply. I shall only take notice of what you here allow, and grant, That Faith is appointed as an In­strument to receive and apply the Righte­ousness of Christ, which is the alone matter of our Iustification before God. Whence I infer three Conclusions.

First, That we cannot be justified be­fore God till we believe, except you can prove, that the unaccepted and unapplied Righteousness of Christ doth actually ju­stify our persons before God.

Secondly, That the justification of our persons before God, is, and must be su­spended (as by a non-performed Condi­tion) untill we actually believe. Which two Conclusions yield up your Cause to my Argument, which you here seem to oppose.

Thirdly, That hereby you perfectly renounce and destroy your Antinomian Fancy before-mentioned, That if Christ have fulfilled the Law, and purchased Heaven for men, nothing can remain but [Page 268] to declare this to them, &c. for it seems by this, they must receive and apply Christ's Righteousness by Faith, or they cannot be justified (you say not declaratively in their own Consciences, but) before God. And thus instead of answering, you have confirmed and yielded my first Argument, and only oppose your own Mistakes, not the sense or force of my Arguments, in all that you say to it, or the Scriptures pro­duced to prove it.

To my second Argument, Argu­ment 2. recited p. 94. where I argued from God's Covenant with Abraham, and proved it to be con­ditional; and yet by you acknowledged to be a pure Gospel-covenant: all that you say, is, That you have dispatched that before, in your Discourse about the Covenant of Circumcision, and there­fore will say nothing to it here.

In saying nothing to it here,Reply. you have said as much as you did before in the place you refer to; and therefore find­ing nothing said here or there, I con­clude you can say nothing to it at all.

My third Argument was this.Argu­ment 3. If all the Promises of the Gospel be absolute and unconditional, then they do not pro­perly belong to the New Covenant. That cannot properly and strictly be a Cove­nant [Page 269] which is not a mutual Compact, and in which there is no restipulation, nor reobligation: 'tis a naked Promise, not a Covenant.

To this you answer three things.Answer. p. 113, 114. In the first branch of your Answer you im­pudently beg the Question, by saying, That ‘you have proved already in your Replies to my former Arguments, that the New Covenant is wholly free and abso­lute. Upon this absurd Petitio Princi­pii you make bold to invert my Argu­ment thus in your second Reply. If all the Promises of the Gospel be wholly abso­lute and unconditional, they do properly and truly belong to the New Covenant: But so they are. Therefore, &c. Oh rare Disputant! In the last place, in opposition to the Sequel of my Major Proposition, you tell me you will oppose the Judgment of Dr. Owen on Heb. 8. 10. where he saith, That a Covenant pro­perly is a Compact or Agreement on certain terms stipulated by two or more Parties, &c.’ and that the word [...] there used, it signifies a Covenant im­properly, &c.

If you call this an opposition to the Se­quel of my Major, Reply. either your Brains or mine do want Hellebore. Doth he not [Page 270] say the very same thing I do, that there must be a restipulation in [...] proper Cove­nant? And as for the word [...], which (he saith) signifieth a Covenant improperly, but prop [...]rly is a Testamen­tary Disposition, I fully concur with him therein. But I hope a Testamentary Dis­position may have a Condition in it; to be sure such a one as I assert Faith here to be, which is the free gift of God; and in this sense I shewed you before where the Doctor yields Faith to be the Condition of the New Covenant.

My fourth Argument was this.Argu­ment 4. If all the Promises of the New Covenant be absolute and unconditional, and have no respect nor relation to any grace wrought in us, or 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 it is an evidence of our Justification, &c.

Your Answer is,Answer. p. 120. That ‘at this rate I may prove quidlibet à quolibet: for it doth not follow, that, because the New Covenant is absolute, therefore it hath no respect nor relation to any Grace wrought in us, nor Duty done by us, or that we may not justly take comfort in Sanctification as an evidence of our Justification.’

[Page 271] If I had a mind to learn the art of pro­ving quidlibet à quolibet, Reply. and make my self ridiculous to others by such foolish attempts, I know no Book in the World fitter to instruct me therein, than yours. Certainly you have the knack of it, and gave us an instance of it but now, in con­futing the Sequel of my Major by an Al­degation out of Dr. Owen, which expresly confirms and establishes it. But to the Point, I would willingly know how it is possible for Sanctification to be a true and certain mark and sign of Justification, when (according to the Antinomian Principle, which you here too much comprobate and espouse) a man may be justified before he believe, yea, before he is a man, even from the time of Christ's death, and (as others of them speak) from eternity. A true mark and sign must be proper to, and inseparable from that which it signifies. Now if that be true which you said before, That after Christ's fulfilling of the Law in his own person, &c. nothing can remain but to declare this to men to incline them to believe and accept it, and to prescribe in what way they shall come to inherit eternal life. If this be all that can remain to us, then no­thing but the Declarations and Prescrip­tions [Page 272] of the Gospel, which are things without us, can remain to be marks and signs of Justification to us: and conse­quently all those to whom those Declara­tions and Prescriptions are made and given, have therein the marks and evi­dences of their Justification. But I am truly weary of such stuff. I am sure the Apostle places Vocation before Iustifica­tion, Rom. 8. 30. Whom he called, them he justified. And without an immediate Testimony from Heaven, I know not how to evidence and prove my Justifi­cation, but from, and by my faith, and other parts of Sanctification; whereby I apprehended and applied the Righte­ousness of Christ: if you can prove it from the Declarations and Prescriptions of the Gospel, I cannot.

My Fifth and last Argument ran thus.Argu­ment 5. 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, to the terms of this Covenant: for where there are no terms at all (as in absolute Promises there are none) there can be [Page 273] none to deliberate. But I shewed you, this is man's duty, from clear and unde­niable Scriptures, &c.

You say by way of answer hereunto,Answer. p. 122, 123. that, ‘you must tell me, that the Scri­ptures do make a plain distinction be­twixt the New and Everlasting Cove­nant which God hath been pleased to make with Sinners in Jesus Christ; and the return of that sincere and duti­ful obedience which he requires of us, by way of answer thereunto. (2.) You say, there are many things, which tho promised in the Covenant, and wrought in us by the Grace of God; are yet du­ties indispensably required of us in or­der to the participation of the full end of the Covenant in glory: and in re­spect hereof, we are indeed to delibe­rate the terms, count the cost, and give up our selves solemnly to him with sincere resolutions, &c. But then you thought I had understood there had been a vast difference betwixt God's Covenant with us, and our Co­venant with God, citing Ezek. 16. 59, 60, 61. where God promiseth to give them their Sisters for Daughters, but not by their Covenant. And with this you compare Psal. 89. My Covenant [Page 274] will I not break; where (you say) we find a plain distinction betwixt God's Covenant with them, and their duty to God. And lastly, you say, p. 105. that the want of a due observation of this plain Scripture-distinction, be­twixt God's free and absolute Cove­nant made with Sinners in Christ, and our Covenants with God by way of return thereunto; is the true reason of all our mistakes about the true nature of the Gospel-Covenant, whilst we jumble and co [...]found together that which the Scriptures do so plainly di­stinguish.’

To your first Answer, I say:Reply. It is true, the Scriptures do distinguish be­twixt Covenant, and Covenant; that of Works, and that of Grace. It also distinguishes the same Covenant of Grace for substance, according to its va­rious administrations, into the Old, and New Covenant. It also distinguishes betwixt the promissory part of the same Covenant of Grace, and the restipulatory part; not as of two opposite Covenants, (as you distinguish them, Gen. 17.) but as the just and necessary parts of one and the same Covenant. It also distinguishes betwixt Vows made by Men to God in [Page 275] some particular Cases, and the Cove­nant of Grace betwixt God and them. But what's all this to your purpose? Or in what point doth it touch my Argu­ment? You desire me to cast mine eye upon Ezek. 16. and Psal. 89. I have done so, and that impartially; and do assure you, I admire why you produce them against my Argument. That in Ezek. speaks of the enlargement of the Church by the accession of the Gentiles to it; and the sense of those words seems to me to be this; That this enlargement of the Church is a gracious addition, or something beyond what God had ever done in his former dispensations of the Covenant to that People. And for Psal. 89. I know not what you meant to produce it for, unless it be to prove what I never denied, That notwithstand­ing our failures in duty towards God, God will still keep his Covenant with us; though he will visit the Iniquities of his Covenant-p [...]ople with a Rod.

To your second Answer, That we are to deliberate the terms, and count the cost, with respect to those duties, which are in order to the participation of the full end of the Covenant in glory: by which, I suppose, you mean Self-denial, Perse­verance, [Page 276] &c. I have no Controversy with you about that. Our Question is, Whether there be no deliberations re­quired of, or to be performed by men, who are not yet in Christ by justifying Faith, but under some preparatory works towards Faith? And whether at the very time of their closing with Christ, there be not a consent of the Will unto those terms required of them? If you say there be (as by the places I alledged it evidently appears there are) then you yield the point I contend for. If you say they are not before, or at the time of believing, to consider any terms, or give their consent to them by word or wri­ting; such an Answer would fly in the very face of those Scriptures I produced: for then a man may be in covenant with­out his own consent: he that deliberates not, consents not; non consentit, qui non sentit. And therefore you durst not speak it out (for which modesty I com­mend you) and so leave me with half an answer, not touching that part, viz. An­tecedent deliberations which were con­cerned in this Argument. And now let your most partial Friends judge, Whe­ther from this performance of yours, you have any just ground for that vain boast [Page 277] which concludes your Answer, viz. ‘That the Covenants themselves, which those Privileges are bottomed on, are now repealed, and that there is no room left for any other Argument to infer the Bap­tism of Infants:’ at least, I shall willingly commit it to the judgment of all intelligent and impartial Readers, Whether Mr. Cary hath any real ground in this performance of his, for such a Thrasonical Conclusion, such a vain and fulsome Boast?

I find that with like confidence he hath also attempted a Reply to Mr. Ioseph Whiston, a Reverend, Learned, and Aged Divine, who hath accurately and successfully defended God's Covenant with Abraham, against Mr. Cox; and doubt not, if Mr. Cary, and his Party, have but confidence enough to expose it to the publick view, and to adventure the Cause of Infant-baptism upon it, the World will quickly see an end of this long-con­tinued and unhappy Controversy, which hath vexed the Church of God, and alie­nated the Affections of good Men: and that the Wisdom of Providence hath per­mitted and over-ruled this last Attempt, to the singular advantage of the Truths of God, and tranquillity of good Men, whose concernment (at this time especi­ally) [Page 278] is rather to strengthen their Faith, and heighten their Encouragements from God's gracious Covenant, than to un­dermine it, when all things beside it are shaking and tottering round about them.

And now, Sir, for a Coronis to all those things that have been controverted betwixt us about the Covenants of God, and the right of Believers Infants to Bap­tism resulting from one of them, which I have asserted and argued against you in my first Answer, and you have silently and wholly pass'd over in your Reply, hoping to destroy them all at once, by proving God's Covenant with Abraham, Gen. 17. to be a pure Adam's Covenant of Works; I judge it necessary, as mat­ters now lie between us, to give the Rea­der the grounds and reasons of my Faith and Practice with respect unto the Ordi­nance of Infant Baptism, and that as succinctly and clearly as I can, in the following Theses; which being laid to­gether by an unprejudiced and considera­tive Reader, will, I think, amount to more than a strong probability, That it is the will of God, that the Infant-seed of Believers ought now to be baptized.

[Page 279] But here I must remind the Reader,P. [...]1, 62. and beg him to review what I have said before in th [...] third Cause of Errors, That to arrive to satisfaction in this point, re­quires a due and serious search of the whole Word of God, with a sedate, ra­tional, and impartial mind; comparing one thing with another, though they lie scattered at a distance in the Scriptures; some in the Old Testament, and some in the New. Bring but these things to an interview, as we do in discovering the change of the Sabbath, and we may arrive unto a due satisfaction of the Will of God herein. This, I confess, calls for strength of mind, great sedulity, attention and impartiality; and yet what man would think all this too much, if it were but to clear his Childrens Title unto a small Earthly Inheritance? I intend not to give the Reader here an account of all the Arguments drawn from several Scripture Topics by the strenuous Defenders of In­fants Baptism; but to keep only to the Arguments drawn from God's Covenant with Abraham, Gen. 17. which is the Scripture mainly controverted betwixt us: You affirming boldly and dange­rously, that Covenant to be no other than an Adam's Covenant of Works; and I [Page 280] justly denying and abhorring your Posi­tion upon the grounds and reasons before given, which you neither have, nor ever will be able to destroy. Now that the Reader, who hath neither time, nor ability, to reade the Larger, and more elaborate Treatises on this Subject, may [...], in one short view, see the deduction of Believers Infants right to Baptism from this Gospel-covenant of God with Abraham, I shall gather the substance of what I contend for, and lay it as clearly as I can before the Eyes of my Reader in the following Theses; which being distinctly considered as to the evident truth of each, and then ra­tionally compared one with the other, he will see how each fortifies other, and how all together do strongly confirm this Conclusion, That the Infants of Believers under the Gospel, as they naturally des­cend from Abraham's Spiritual Seed, are therefore Partakers at least of the Exter­nal Privileges of the visible Church, and therefore ought now to be baptized.

Thesis I.

It hath pleased God in all Ages of the World, since man was created, to deal with his Church and People by way of Covenant, [Page 281] and in the same way he will still deal with them unto the end of the World.

God might have dealt with us in a su­pream way of mere Sovereignty and Do­minion, commanding what Duties he pleased, and establishing his Commands by what Penalties he had pleased, and never have brought himself under the tye and obligation of a Covenant to his own Creatures: but he chuses to deal fa­miliarly with his People, the way of Co­venanting being a familiar way, 2 Sam. 7. 19. Is this the manner of men, O Lord God! or (as Iunius renders it) and that after the manner of men, O Lord God! 'Tis a way full of condescending grace and goodness: he is willing hereby his People should know what they may cer­tainly expect from their God, as well as what their God requires of them. Here­by also he will furnish them with mighty Pleas and Arguments in Prayer, suc­cour their Faith against Temptations; strengthen their hands in duties of Obe­dience, sweeten their Obedience to them, and discriminate his own People from the World.

As soon therefore as man was created and placed in Paradise, being made up­right, and throughly furnished with Abi­lities [Page 282] lities perfectly and compleatly to obey all the Commands of his Maker; the Lord immediately entred into the Covenant of Works with him, and with all his natu­ral Posterity in him: and in this Cove­nant his standing or falling was accord­ing to the perfection and constancy of his personal Obedience, Gen. 2. 17. Gal. 3. 10. But in this First Covenant of Works no provision at all was made for his reco­very (in case of the least failure) by his repentance or better obedience; but the Curse immediately seized both Soul and Body: and Sin by the Fall entring into Man's nature, totally disabled him to the perfect performance of any one Duty, as that Covenant required it to be done, Rom. 8. 3. nor would God accept any Repentance, or after-endeavours, in lieu of that perfect Obedience due by Law. So that from the Fall of Adam, to the end of the World, this Covenant ceaseth as a Covenant of Life, or a Co­venant able to give Righteousness and Life unto all Mankind for evermore, Rom. 3. 20. Therefore by the deeds of the Law there shall no stesh be justified in his sight. Gal. 2. 16. [...]y the works of the Law shall no [...] justified. Gal. 3. 11. But that no Man is justified by the Law in the sight [Page 283] of God, is evident. And it being so evident, that Righteousness and Life being for ever impossible to be obtained upon the terms of Adam's Covenant, it must therefore be a self-evident truth, That since the Fall, God never did, and to the end of the World he never will open that way or door to Life (thus block'd up by an absolute impossibility) for the justifi­cation and salvation of any Man.

Thesis II.

Soon after the violation and cessation of this first Covenant, as a Covenant of Life, it pleased the Lord to open and publish the second Covenant of Grace by Iesus Christ, the first dawning whereof we find in Gen. 3. 15. where the Seed is promised which shall bruise the Serpent's head. And though this be but a very short, and somewhat obscure discovery of Man's Remedy and Salvation by Christ; yet was it a joyful sound to the ears of God's people, it was even life from the dead to the Believers of those times. For we may rationally conclude, That that space of time be­twixt the breaking of the first, and ma­king of the second Covenant; was the most dismal period of time that ever the World did, or shall see. This Covenant [Page 284] of Grace now took place of the Covenant of Works, comprehended all Believers in the bosom of it. The Covenant of Works took place from the time it was made until the fall of Adam, and then was abolished as a Life-giving Covenant. The second Covenant took place from the time it was made soon after the fall, and is to continue to the end of the World. And these only are the two Covenants God hath made with Men; the latter succeeding the former, and commencing from its expiration; but both cannot possibly be in force together at the same time, and upon the same persons, as co­ordinate Covenants of Life and Salvation. For in co-ordination they expel and de­stroy each other, Gal. 5. 4. Whosoever of you are justified by the Law, ye are fallen from Grace. The first Covenant was a Covenant without a Mediator; the se­cond is a Covenant with a Mediator. Place a Believer under both at once, or put these two Covenants in co-ordina­tion, and that which results will be a pure contradiction, viz. That a Man is saved without a Mediator, and yet by a Mediator. Moreover, if there be a way to Life without a Mediator, there was no need to make a Covenant in and [Page 285] with a Mediator; nor can those words of Christ be true, Ioh. 4. 6. I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh to the Father but by me.

The Righteousness of the first Cove­nant was within Man himself; the Righ­teousness of the second Covenant is with­out Man in Christ. Put these two in co-ordination, and that which results is as pure a contradiction as the former; viz. That a Man is justified by a Righteous­ness within him, and yet is justified by a Righteousness without him; expresly contrary to the Apostle's conclusion, Rom. 3. 20. Therefore by the deeds of the Law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight. It is therefore an intolerable ab­surdity to place believers under both these Covenants at the same time; under the Curse of the first, and Blessing of the second. For whensoever the state of any person is changed by Justification, his Covenant is changed with his State, Col. 1. 13. 'Tis as unimaginable that a Believer should thus stand under both Covenants, as it is to imagine that a Man may be born of two Mothers, Gal. 4. 22, 23, 24, 25. or a Woman lawfully Mar­ried to two Husbands, Rom. 7. 1, 2, 3, 4. and more absurd (if it be possible any [Page 286] thing can be more absurd) to attribute the most glorious privilege of the Cove­nant of Grace, (viz. I will be a God to thee, and to thy seed after thee, Gen. 17. 7.) to the impotent and abolished Cove­nant of Works; both which absurdi­ties are asserted in defence of Antipoedo­baptism.

And though it be true, that after the first Edition of the Covenant of Grace, the matter of the first Covenant was re­presented to the Israelites in the Moral Law; yet that representation was in­tended and designed to be subservient, and added to the Promise, Gal. 3. 19. and so (as an Acute and Learned Divine Turret­tini, Pars 2^da. loc. 12. p. 248. speaks) the very Decalogue or Moral Law it self pertained to the Covenant of Grace; yea, in some sort flowed out of this Covenant, as it was promulged by the Counsel of God to be serviceable to it; both anteccdently to lead Men by the conviction of sin, fear of wrath, and self-despair, to the Covenant of Grace; and also consequently as it is a pattern of Obedience and Rule of Holiness. For had it been published as a Covenant de­signed intentionally to its primitive use and end, it had totally frustrated the Co­venant of Grace.

Thesis III.

Though the primordial Light or first glimmerings of this Covenant of Grace, were comparatively weak and obscure; yet from the first publication of it to Adam, God in all Ages hath been amplifying the privileges, and heightning the glory of this second Covenant in all the after expressures and editions of it unto this day, and will more and more amplify and illustrate it to the end of the World.

That first Promise, Gen. 3. 15. is like the first small Spring or Head of a great River, which the farther it runs, the big­ger it grows by the accession of more Waters to it. Or like the Sun in the Heavens, which the higher it mounts, the more bright and glorious the day still grows.

In that period of time, betwixt Adam and Abraham, we find no token of God's Covenant ordered therein to be applied to the Infant-Seed of Believers. But in that second Edition of the Covenant to Abraham, the privileges of the Covenant were amplified, and his Infant-Seed, not only taken into the Covenant (as they were before) but also added to the visi­ble Church, by receiving the token of [Page 288] the Covenant, which then was Circum­cision; and so here is a great addition made to the visible Church, even the whole Infant Off-spring of adult Belie­vers.

From that period, until the coming of the Messiah in the flesh, the Iewish Church, and their Infant-Seed, except only some few Proselytes out of the Gen­tile Nations, made up the visible Church of God, and the poor Gentiles were with­out Christ, being aliens from the Com­mon-wealth of Israel, and strangers from the Covenants of Promise, having no hope, and without God in the World, Ephes. 2. 12. but in this glorious third period, the Covenant again enlarges it self more than before, and the Privile­ges of it are no longer limited and re­strained to the Iewish Believers and their Infant-Seed; but the Gentiles also are taken into the Covenant, and the door of Faith was opened unto them, Acts 14. 27. the partition-wall was now broken down, which separated the Church from the Gentile World, Eph. 2. 14. This was a glorious enlargement of the Covenant, and many glorious Prophecies and Pro­mises were fulfilled in it; such as those, Isa. 11. 10. and 42. 1, 6. 49. 22. 54. 3. 60. 3, 5, 11, 16. 62. 2, &c.

[Page 289] And though the Covenant, as to its external part, seems to have lost ground in the breaking off of the Iewish Nation from the Church; yet, like the Sea, what it loses in one place, it gains with advantage upon another; the addition of many Gentile-Nations to the Church, more than recompences for the present breaking off of that one Nation of the Iews. And indeed they are broken off but for a time; for God shall Graff them in again, Rom. 11. 23. This therefore being the design of God, and steddy Course of his Covenant of Grace, more and more to enlarge it self in all Ages; nothing can be more opposite to the na­ture of this Covenant, than to narrow and contract its privileges in its farther progress, and cut off a whole Species from it, which it formerly took in.

Thesis IV.

It is past all doubt and contradiction, that the Infant-Seed of Abraham, under the second edition of the Covenant of Grace, were taken with their believing Parents into God's gracious Covenant, had the Seal of that Covenant applied to them, and were thereby added to the visible Church, Gen. 17. 7, 8, 9, 10, 11. [Page 290] which was a gracious Privilege of the Covenant superadded to all the former, and such as sweeps away all the frivolous and groundless cavils and exceptions of those that object the incapacity of In­fants to enter into Covenant with God, or receive benefit from the external pri­vileges of the visible Church. Nor can the subtilest enemy to Infants Baptism, give us a convincing reason why the In­fants of Gentile Believers are not equally capable of the same benefits that the In­fants of Iewish Believers were, if they still stand under the same Covenant that the former stood under; and God hath no where repealed the gracious Grant for­merly made to the Infant-Seed of his Covenant-people.

Thesis V.

It is to me clear beyond all contra­diction, from Rom. 11. 17. If some of the branches be broken off, and thou being a wild Olive-tree, wert grafted in amongst them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the Olive-tree: I say, I can scarce desire a clearer Scripture-light than this Text gives, to satisfy my understand­ing in this case, That when God brake off the unbelieving Iews from the Church, [Page 291] both Parents and Children together; the Believing Gentiles, which are as truly Abraham's Seed as they were, Gal. 3. 29. yea, the more excellent Seed of Abraham, were implanted or ingrafted in their room, and do as amply enjoy the Privi­leges of that Covenant, both internal and external, for themselves, and for their Infant-Seed, as ever any Members of the Iewish Church did or could do.

Our Adversaries in this Controversy do pitifully and apparently shuffle here, and invent many strange and unintelligi­ble distinctions to be-cloud the light of this famous Text. What they are, and how they are ba [...]fled, the Reader will ea­sily discern from what hath already pass'd betwixt my Antagonist and me, in p. 108, &c. of my Vindiciae Legis & foederis. It is plain, that Abraham is the root, the Olive-tree the Visible Church; the Sap and Fatness of the Olive, are Church Or­dinances and Covenant-Privileges; the Gentile Believers, who are Abraham's Seed according to Promise, are the in­grafted Branches standing in the place of the natural Branches, and with them, or in like manner as they did, partaking of the Root and Fatness of the Olive-Tree, that is, as really and amply enjoy­ing [Page 292] all the immunities, benefits and pri­vileges of the Church and Covenant (amongst which the initiating Sign was one, and a chief one too) as ever the natural Branches that were broken off, that is, the Iewish Parents and their Chil­dren, did or might have done. And to deny this (as before was noted) is to straiten Covenant-privileges in their farther progress.

Thesis VI.

Suitably hereunto we find, that no soon­er was the Christian Church constituted, and the Believing Gentiles by Faith ad­ded to it; but the Children of such Be­lieving Parents are declared to be foede­rally Holy, 1 Cor. 7. 14. and the unbe­lieving Iews, who were superstitiously fond of Circumcision, and prejudiced a­gainst Baptism as an injurious innova­tion, are by the Apostle perswaded to sub­mit themselves to it, Acts 2. 38, 39. as­suring them, that the same Promise, viz. I will be a God to thee, and to thy seed after thee, is now as effectually sealed to them and their Children by Baptism, as it was in the former Age by Circumcision: And that the Gentiles which are yet a far off, whenever God shall call them, shall [Page 293] equally enjoy the same Privilege, both for themselves and for their Children also.

We also find a Commission given by Christ to the Disciples, Matt. 28. 19, 20. To disciple all nations, baptizing them, &c. from which Discipleship, Infants ought not to be excluded, Acts 15. 10. Yea, we find, that as at the institution of Cir­cumcision, Abraham the Father and Ma­ster of the Family was first circumcised in his own person, and then his whole houshold, Gen. 17. 23, 24. Answerably, as soon as any person by Conversion, or publick profession of Faith, became a visible Child of Abraham, that person was first Baptized, and the whole Houshold with him or her, Acts 16. 33. 15. 'Tis unreasonable to put us upon the proof, that there were Infants in those Houses; it being more than probable, that in such frequent Baptizing of Housholds belong­ing to Believers, there were some In­fants; but if there were none, 'tis e­nough for us to prove from their foederal holiness, 1 Cor. 7. 14. and the extent of God's Promise to them, Acts 2. 38, 39. If there had been never so many Infants in those Housholds, they might and ought to have been Baptized. How the [Page 294] true sense and scope of the two last men­tioned Scriptures are maintained and vin­dicated against Mr. Cary's corrupt glosses and interpretations; see my Vindiciae Le­gis & Foederis, pag. 90. 91. We do not lay the stress of Infants Baptism up­on such strictures as the Baptizings of the Housholds of Believers, or Christ's ta­king up in his Arms, and blessing the little ones that were brought to him. These and many other such things found in the History of Christ, and Acts of the Apostles, have their use and service to fortify that Doctrine. But if we can produce no example of any Believer's In­fant Baptized, the merit of the Cause lies not in the matter of fact, but Cove­nant-right. For our Adversaries them­selves, if we go to matter of fact, will be hard put to it to produce us one in­stance out of the New-Testament of any Child of a Believing Christian whose Baptism was deferred, or by Christ or his Apostles ordered to be deferred, un­til he attained the years of maturity, and made a personal profession of Faith himself.

Thesis VII.

The change of the Token and Seal of the Covenant from Circumcision to Baptism, will by no means infer the change or diver­sity of the Covenants, especially when the latter comes into the place, and serves to the same use and end with the former, as it is manifest Baptism doth, from Col. 2. 11, 12. as hath been, I think, sufficiently ar­gued against Mr. Cary's glosses and ex­ceptions, pag. 100, 101. of my Vindiciae Legis & Foederis. The Covenant is still the same Covenant of Grace, though the external initiating sign be changed. For what is the substantial part of the Cove­nant of Grace now, but the same it was to Abraham and his Seed before? Is not this our Covenant of Grace, Heb. 8. 10. I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people? And in what words was Abraham's Covenant expressed, Gen. 17. 7. I will establish my Covenant between me and thee, and thy seed after thee in their gene­rations for an everlasting Covenant, to be a God unto thee and to thy seed after thee. This makes Abraham's Covenant, sealed to him and his Seed, as truly and proper­ly the Covenant of Grace, as that which Baptism now seals to Believers and their [Page 296] Seed. The rash ignorance of those that affirm, God may become a People's God in the way of a special interest, by vir­tue of the broken and abolished Cove­nant of works, rather deserves sharp re­prehension, and sad lamentation, than a confutation; which, nevertheless out of respect to my Friend Mr. Cary, I have given it in its proper place in this Re­joynder.

I hope by this time I have made it evident, That the defenders of Infants Baptism, as it is established upon God's Covenant with Abraham, Gen. 17. have not so mistaken their Ground, as Mr. Cary hath, by his endeavours to car­ry that Covenant as an Adam's Covenant of Works, through such a multitude of other errors and absurdities, as he draws along with it in his way of reasoning.

Error I.

I shall begin with the dangerous mi­stake of the Antinomians in the Doctrine of Iustification. The Article of Justifi­cation is deservedly stiled by our Divines, Articulus stantis, vel cadentis Religionis, the very Pillar of the Christian Reli­gion.

In two things however I must do the Antinomians right. (1.) In acknow­ledging, that though their Errors about Justification be great and dangerous, yet they are not so much about the substance, [Page 319] as about the mode of a Sinner's Justifica­tion: An Error far inferior to the Error of the Papists, who depress the Righte­ousness of Christ, and exalt their own inherent Righteousness in the business of Justification. ( [...].) I am bound in cha­rity to believe, that some among them do hold those Errors but speculatively, whilst the Truth lies nearer their hearts, and will not suffer them to reduce their own Opinions into practice. Now as to their Errors about Justification, the most that I have read do make Iustification to be an immanent and eternal act of God; Error 1. and do affirm, the Elect were justified before themselves, or the World, had a being. Others come lower, and affirm, the Elect were justified at the time of Christ's death. With these Dr. Crisp harmonizes.

Error II.

That Justification by Faith is no more but a manifestation to us of what was really done before we had a being. Hence Mr. Saltmarsh thus defines Faith. It is (saith he) a being perswaded more or less of Christ's love to us; so that when we believe, that which was hid before, doth then appear. God (saith another) can­not charge one sin upon that man, who be­lieves [Page 320] this truth, That God laid his Iniqui­ties upon Christ.

Error III.

That men ought not to doubt of their Faith, or question, Whether they believe or no. Nay, That we ought no more to question our Faith, than to question Christ. Saltm. Of Free-grace, p. 92, 95.

Error IV.

That Believers are not bound to con­fess Sin, mourn for it, or pray for the forgiveness of it: because it was pardon­ed before it was committed; and par­doned Sin is no Sin. See Eaton's Honey­comb, p. 446, 447.

Error V.

They say, that God sees no Sin in Be­lievers, whatsoever Sins they commit. Some of them, as Mr. Town, and Mr. Eaton, speak out, and tell us, That God can see no Adultery, no Lying, no Blasphemy, no Cozening in Belie­vers: For though Believers do fall into such Enormities; yet all their Sins being pardoned from Eternity, they are no Sins in them. Town's Assertions, 96, 97, 98. Eaton's Honey-comb, chap. 7. p. 136, [Page 321] 137. with others of a more pious Cha­racter than they.

Error VI.

That God is not angry with the Elect, nor doth he smite them for their Sins; and to say that he doth so, is an injurious Reflection upon the Justice of God. This is avouched generally in all their Writings.

Error VII.

They tell us, That by God's laying our Iniquities upon Christ, he became as compleatly sinful as we, and we as compleatly righteous as Christ. Vide Dr. Crisp, p. 270.

Error VIII.

Upon the same ground it is that they affirm, That Believers need not fear ei­ther their own Sins, or the Sins of others; for that neither their own, nor any other mens Sins, can do them any hurt, nor must they do any duty for their own Salvation.

Error IX.

They will not allow the New Cove­nant to be made properly with us, but [Page 322] with Christ for us; and that this Cove­nant is all of it a Promise, having no Condition on our part. They do not ab­solutely deny that Faith, Repentance and Obedience, are Conditions in the New Covenant; but say, They are not Conditions on our part, but Christ's; and that he repented, believed, and obey­ed, for us. Saltmarsh, of Free-grace, p. 126, 127.

Error X.

They speak very slightingly of trying our selves by marks and signs of Grace. Saltmarsh often calls it a weak, low, car­nal way; but the New-England Antino­mians, or Libertines, call it a funda­mental Error, to make Sanctification an evidence of Justification; that it is to light a Candle to the Sun; that it darkens our Justification; and that the darker our Sanctification is, the brighter our Justification is. See their Book, entitled, Rise, Reign. Error 72.

In this Breviate, or summary Account of Antinomian Doctrines, I have only singled out, and touched some of their principal Mistakes and Error, into which some of them run much farther [Page 323] than others. But I look upon such Do­ctrines to be in themselves of a very dan­gerous nature, and the malignity and contagion would certainly spread much farther into the World than it doth, had not God provided two powerful Anti­dotes to resist the malignity.

• 1. The scope and current of Scripture.
• 2. The experience and practice of the Saints.

(1.) These Doctrines run cross to the scope and current of the Scriptures, which constantly speak of all unregene­rate Persons (without exception of the very Elect themselves, during that state) as Children of wrath, even as others, without Christ, and under condemna­tion

They frequently discover God's An­ger, and tell us his castigatory Rods of affliction are laid upon them for their Sins.

They represent Sin as the greatest Evil; most opposite to the Glory of God, and good of the Saints; and are there­fore filled with Cautions and Threat­nings to prevent their sinning.

[Page 324] They call the Saint frequently and earnestly, not only to mourn for their Sins before the Lord; but to pray for the pardon or remission of them in the blood of Christ.

They give us a far different account of saving Faith, and do not place it in a persuasion more or less of Christ's love to us, or a manifestation in our Consciences of the actual remission of our Sins before we had a being; but in our receiving Christ as the Gospel offers him, for righteousness and life.

They frequently call the People of God to the examination and trial of their Interest in Christ by marks and signs; and accordingly furnish them with va­riety of such marks from the divers parts or branches of Sanctification in them­selves.

They earnestly, and every-where, press Believers to strictness and constancy in the duties of Religion, as the way where­in God would have them to walk. They infer Duties from Privileges; and there­fore the Antinomian Dialect is a wild note, which the generality of serious Christians do easily distinguish from the Scripture-stile and Language.

[Page 325] (2.) The Experience and Practice of the Saints recorded in Scripture, as well as our Contemporaries, or those whose Lives are recorded for our imitation, do greatly secure us from the spreading ma­lignity of Antinomianism. Converse with the living, or read the Histories of dead Saints, and you shall find, That in their Addresses to God, they still bless and praise him for that great and won­derful change of state which was made upon them when they first believed in Christ, and on their believing passed from death to life; freely acknowledging before God, they were before their con­version equal in sin and misery with the vilest Wretches in the World: They heartily mourn for their daily Sins; fear nothing more than Sin; no Afflictions in the World go so near their heart as Sin doth. They mourn for the hardness of their hearts, that they can mourn no more for Sin. They acknowledge the Rods of God that are upon them, are not only the evidences of his displeasure against them for their Sins; but the fruits of their uneven walking with him. And that the greatest of their Afflictions is less than the least of their Iniquities deserve. They fall at their Father's feet [Page 326] as oft as they fall into sin, humbly and earnestly suing for pardon through the Blood of Christ. They are not only sen­sible that God sees Sin in them; but that he seeth such, and so great evils in them, as makes them admire at his patience that they are not consumed in their Iniqui­ties. They find cause enough to suspect their own sincerity: doubt the truth of their Faith, and of their Graces: and are therefore frequent and serious in the trial and examination of their own states by Scripture-marks and signs. They urge the Commands and Threatnings, as well as the Promises, upon their own hearts, to promote Sanctification. Excite themselves to duty and watchfulness a­gainst Sin. They also encourage them­selves by the rewards of obedience, knowing their labour is not in vain in the Lord. And all this while they look not for that in themselves, which is only to be found in Christ: nor for that in the Law, which is only to be found in the Gospel: nor for that on Earth, which is only to be found in Heaven. This is the way that they take. And he that shall tell them, their Sins can do them no hurt, or their Duties do them no good, speaks to them, not only as a Bar­barian, [Page 327] in a Language they understand not, but in such a Language as their Souls detest and abhor.

Moreover, The zeal and love of Christ, and his Glory, being kindled in their Souls, they have not patience to hear such Doctrines as so greatly dero­gate from his Glory, under a pretence of honouring and exalting him. It wounds and grieves their very hearts to see the World hardned in their prejudices a­gainst Reformation, and a gap opened to all licentiousness.

But notwithstanding this double Anti­dote and Security, we find by daily ex­perience such Doctrines too much obtain­ing in the professing World. For my own part, He that searches my Heart and Reins is witness, I would rather chuse to have my right hand wither, and my tongue rot within my mouth, than to speak one word, or write one line to cloud or diminish the Free-grace of God. Let it arise and shine in its Meridian Glo­ry. None owes more to it, or expects more from it, than I do. And what I shall write in this Controversy, is to vin­dicate it from those Doctrines and Opini­ons, which under pretence of exalting it, do really militate against it. To [Page 328] begin therefore with the first and lead­ing Error.

Error I.

That the Iustification of Sinners is an immanent and eternal act of God, not only preceding all acts of sin; but the very ex­istence of the sinner himself, and so per­fectly abolishing sin in our persons, that we are as clean from sin as Christ himself, [...], as some of them have spo­ken. To stop the progress of this Error, I shall,

• 1. Lay down the Sentence of the Orthodox about it.
• 2. Offer some Reasons for the refu­tation of it.

(1.) That which I take to be the truth agreed upon, and asserted by sound reformed Divines touching Gospel-Justi­fication, is by them made clear to the World in these following Scriptural di­stinctions of it.

Justification may be considered under a twofold respect or habitude.

• 1. According to God's Eternal De­cree. Or,
• 2. According to the execution there­of in time.

[Page 329] (1.) According to God's Eternal De­cree and Purpose; and in this respect Grace is said to be given us in Christ be­fore the World began, 2 Tim. 1. 9. And we are said to be predestinated to the adoption of Children by Jesus Christ, Eph. 1. 5.

(2.) According to the execution there­of in time; So they again distinguish it, by considering it two ways:

• 1. In its Impetration by Christ.
• 2. In its Application to us.

That very mercy or privilege of Justi­fication, which God from all Eternity, purely out of his benevolent Love, pur­posed and decreed for his Elect, was al­so in time purchased for them by the death of Christ, Rom. 5. 9, 10. where we are said to be justified by his Blood; and he is said to have made peace through the Blood of his Cross, to reconcile all things to himself, Col. 1. 20. to be deli­vered for our Offences, and raised again for our Justification, Rom. 4. 25. Once more, That God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses, 2 Cor. 5. 19. God the Father had in the death of Christ a foundation of reconciliation, whereby he became [Page 330] propitious to his Elect, that he might absolve and justify them. Again,

(2.) It must be considered in its ap­plication to us, which application is made in this Life at the time of our effectual Calling. When an elect Sinner is united to Christ by Faith, and so passeth from Death to Life, from a state of Condem­nation, into a state of Absolution and Fa­vour; this is our actual Justification, Rom. 5. 1. Acts 13. 39. Iohn 5. 24. which actual Justification is again consi­dered two ways:

• 1. Universally, and in General, as to the State of the Person.
• 2. Specially, and Particularly, as to the Acts of Sin.

As soon as we are received into Com­munion with Christ, and his Righteous­ness is imputed by God, and received by Faith, immediately we pass from a state of Death and Condemnation, to a state of Life and Justification, and all Sins al­ready committed, are remitted without Exception or Revocation; and not on­ly so, but a Remedy is given us in the Righteousness of Christ against Sins to come; and tho these special and particu­lar Sins we afterward fall into, do need [Page 331] particular Pardons; yet, by renewed Acts of Faith and Repentance, the Believer applies to himself the Righte­ousness of Christ, and they are par­doned

Again, they carefully distinguish be­twixt.

• 1. It's Application by God to our Persons. And
• 2. It's Declaration or Manifestation in us, and to us.

Which Manifestation or Declaration, is either,

• 1. Private in the Conscience of a Believer. Or,
• 2. Publick, at the Bar of Judgment.

And thus Justification is many ways distinguished. And notwithstanding all this, it is still actus indivisus, an undi­vided act; not on our part, for it is ite­rated in many acts; but on God's part, who at once decreed it; and on Christ's part, who by one Offering purchased it, and at the time of our Vocation univer­sally applied it, as to the state of the Per­son justified; and that so effectually, as no future Sin shall bring that Person any more under Condemnation.

[Page 332] In this Sentence or Judgment, the Generality of Reformed Orthodox Di­vines are agreed; and the want of distin­guishing, (as they according to Scripture have distinguished) hath led the Anti­nomians into this first Error about Justi­fication, and that Error hath led them into most of the other Errors. That this Doctrine of theirs, (which teaches that Men are justified actually and com­pleatly, before they have a being) is an Error, and hath no solid Foundation to support it, may be evidenced by these three Reasons.

• 1. Because it is Irrational.
• 2. Because it is Unscriptural.
• 3. Because it is Injurious to Christ, and the Souls of Men.

It is Irrational to imagine that Men are actually justified,Reas. 1. before they have a Be­ing, by an immanent Act or Decree of God. Many things have been urged upon this account to confute and destroy this Fancy, and much more may be ra­tionally urged against it. Let the fol­lowing Particulars be weighed in the Ba­lance of Reason.

1. Can we rationally suppose, that Pardon and Acceptance can be affirmed, [Page 333] or predicated of that which is not? Rea­son tells us, Non entis nulla sunt acciden­tia; That which is not, can neither be condemned nor justified: But before the Creation, or before a Man's particular Conception, he was not, and therefore could not in his own Person be the Sub­ject of Justification. Where there is no Law, there is no Sin: Where there is no Sin, there is no Punishment: Where there is neither Sin nor Punishment, there can be no Guilt (for Guilt is an Obliga­tion to Punishment). And where there's neither Law, nor Sin, nor Obligation to Punishment, there can be no Justifi­cation. He that is not capable of a Charge, is not capable of a Discharge. What remains then, but that either the Elect must exist from Eternity, or be justified in time? 'Tis true, future Be­ings may be considered, as in the pur­pose and decree of God from Eternity; or as in the Intention of Christ, who died intentionally for the Sins of the E­lect, and rose again for their Justifica­tion. But neither the Decree of God, nor the Death of Christ, takes place up­on any Man for his actual Justification, until he personally exist. For the Object of Justification is a Sinner actually un­godly, [Page 334] Rom. 4. 5. but so no Man is, or can be from Eternity. In Election, men are considered without respect to Good or Evil done by them, Rom. 9. 11. not so in actual Justification.

2. In Justification there is a Change made upon the state of the Person, Rom. 5. 8, 9. 1 Cor. 6. 9, 10, 11. By Justification men pass from a state of Death to a state of Life, Ioh. 5. 24. But the Decree or Purpose of God in it self makes no such actual change upon the state of any person. It hath indeed the nature of an Universal Cause; but an Universal Cause produ­ceth nothing without particulars. If our state be changed, it is not by an im­manent act of God: Hence no such thing doth transire. A mere velle non punire, or intention to justify us in due time and order, makes no change on our state, till that time come, and the particular Causes have wrought. A Prince may have a purpose or intention to pardon a Law-condemned Traitor, and free him from that Condemnation in due time; but whilst the Law that condemned him stands in its full force and power against him, he is not justified or acquitted, notwithstanding that gracious intention, but stands still condemned. So is it with [Page 335] us, till by Faith we are implanted into Christ. 'Tis true, Christ is a surety for all his, and hath satisfied the debt. He is a common Head to all his, as Adam was to all his Children, Rom. 5. 19. But as the Sin of Adam condemns none, but those that are in him; so the Righ­teousness of Christ actually justifies none but those that are in him; and none are actually in him, but Believers. There­fore till we believe, no actual change pas­seth, or can pass upon our state. So that this Hypothesis is contrary to Rea­son.

As this Opinion is Irrational,Reas. 2. so it is Unscriptural. For (1.) The Scripture fre­quently speaks of Remission or Justifica­tion as a future act, and therefore not from Eternity, Rom. 4. 23, 24. Now it was not written for his sake alone, that it was imputed to him; but for us also to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him, &c. And Gal. 3. 8. The Scriptures foreseeing that God would justify the Hea­then through faith, preached before the Gospel unto Abraham. The Gospel was preached many years before the Gentiles were justified: but if they were justified from Eternity, how was the Gospel preached before their Justification?

[Page 336] (2.) The Scripture leaves all Unbe­lievers, without distinction, under con­demnation and wrath. The Curse of the Law lies upon them till they believe, Iohn 3. 18. He that believeth on him, is not condemned; but he that believeth not, is con­demned already. And Eph. 2. 3, 12, 13. The very Elect themselves were by nature the Children of wrath even as others. They were at that time, or during that state of nature (which takes in all that whole space betwixt their conception and conversion) without Christ, with­out hope, without God in the World. But if this Opinion be true, that the Elect were justified from Eternity, or from the time of Christ's death; then it cannot be true, that the Elect by nature are Children of Wrath, without Christ, without Hope, without God in the World; except these two may consist to­gether (which is absolutely impossible) that Children of Wrath, without God, Christ, or Hope, are actually discharged from their Sins and Dangers by a free and gracious act of Justification.

But doth not the Scripture say,Object. Rom. 8. 33. Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's Elect? If none can charge the Elect, then God hath discharged them.

[Page 337] God hath not actually discharged them as they are Elect,Sol. but as they are justified Elect: for so runs that Text, and clears it self in the very next words, It is God that justifieth. When God hath actually justified an Elect Person, none can charge him.

(3.) 'Tis cross to the Scripture-order of Justification; which places it not only after Christ's death in the place last cited, Rom. 8. 33. but also after our actual vo­cation, as is plain, vers. 30. Moreover, whom he did predestinate, them he also cal­led; and whom he called, them he also ju­stified; and whom he justified, them he also glorified. Is it absurd to place Vocation before Predestination, or Glorification before Justification? sure then it must be absurd also to place Justification be­fore Vocation: the one as well as the o­ther confounds and breaks the Scripture­order. You may as well say, men shall be glorified, that were never justified; as say they may be justified, before they be­lieved or existed. So that you see the notion of Justification from Eternity, or before our actual existence, and effectual Vocation, is a notion as repugnant to sa­cred Scripture, as it is to sound Reason.

[Page 338] And as it is found repugnant to Rea­son and Scripture,Reas. 3 so it is highly injuri­ous to Jesus Christ, and the Souls of Men.

(1.) It greatly injures the Lord Jesus Christ, and robs him of the glory of be­ing our Saviour. For if the Elect be ju­stified from Eternity, Christ cannot be the Saviour of the Elect, as most assu­redly he is: for if Christ save them, he must save them as persons subject to pe­rishing, either de facto, or de jure. But if the Elect were justified from Eternity, they could in neither respect be subject to perishing: for he that was eternally justified, was never condemned, nor ca­pable of condemnation; and he that ne­ver was, or could be condemned, could never be subject to perishing; and he that never was, nor could be subject to pe­rishing, can never truly and properly be said to be saved.

If it be said, the Elect were not justifi­ed till the death of Christ: I demand then what became of all them that died before the death of Christ? If they were not ju­stified, they could not be glorified: for this is sure from Rom. 8. 30. That the whole number of the glorified in Heaven is made up of such as were justi­fied [Page 339] on Earth: Let men take heed there­fore, lest under pretence of exalting Christ, they bereave him of the glory of being the Saviour of his Elect.

(2.) It bereaves him of another glo­rious Royalty. The Scripture every­where makes our Justification the result and fruit of the meritorious death of Christ, Rom. 3. 24, 25. Rom. 8. 3, 4. 2 Cor. 5. 19, 20. Gal. 3. 13, 14. Eph. 1. 7. But if men were justified from Eter­ternity, how is their Justification the fruit and result of the blood of the Cross? as it plainly appears from these Scriptures to be. Nay,

(3.) This Opinion leaves no place for the satisfaction of Justice by the Blood of Christ for our Sins. He did not die, ac­cording to this Opinion, to pay our debts. And here Antinomianism and Socinianism meet, and congratulate each other. For if there were no debts owing to the Justice of God from Eternity, Christ could not die to pay them: and 'tis manifest there were no debts due to God's Justice from Eternity on the ac­count of his Elect, if the Elect were from Eternity justified; unless you will say, a person may be justified, and yet his debts not paid: for all Justifica­tion [Page 340] dissolves the obligation to punish­ment.

If there were any debts for Christ to pay by his Blood, they must either be his own debts, or the Elect's. To say they were his own, is a blasphemous reproach to him: and according to this Opinion we cannot say they were the Elect's; for if they were justified from Eternity, their debts were discharged, and their bonds cancell'd from Eternity. So that this Opinion leaves nothing to the Blood of Christ to discharge or make satisfa­ction for.

(2.) And as it hath been proved to be highly injurious to the Lord Jesus, so it is greatly injurious to the Souls of men, as it naturally leads them into all those wild and licentious Opinions which na­turally flow from it, as from the radical prolifique Error, whence most of the rest derive themselves, as will immedi­ately appear in the

II. Error.

That Iustification by Faith is no more but the manifestation to us of what was really and actually done before. Or a being persuaded more or less of Christ's love to us. And that when persons do believe, [Page 341] that which was hid before, doth then only appear to them.

III. Error.

That Men ought not to doubt of their Faith, or question whether they believe or no. Nay, That they ought no more to que­stion their Faith, than to question Christ.

Error IV.

The fourth Antinomian Error before mentioned, was this, That Believers are not bound to confess their sins, or pray for the pardon of them; because their sins were pardoned before they were committed; and pardoned sin is no sin.

Error V.

To give countenance to the former Error, they say, That God sees no sin in Believers, whatsoever sins they commit; and seek a covert for this Error from Numb. 23. 21. and Ier. 50. 20. In the former place it is said by Balaam, He hath not beheld inquity in Iacob, nor seen perverseness in Israel. And in the other place it is said, In those days, and in that time, saith the Lord, the iniquity of Is­rael shall be sought for, and there shall be none; and the sins of Iudah, and they shall not be found: for I will pardon them, whom I reserve.

Error VI.

That God is not angry with the Elect, nor doth he smite them for their Sins; and to say that he doth so, is an injurious reflection upon the Iustice of God, who hath [Page 366] received full satisfaction for all their Sins from the hand of Christ.

There are several Mistakes and Errors in these Assertions; and I suppose our Antinomians were led into them, (1.) By their abhorrence of the Popish Doctrine, which errs more dangerously in the other extream: for they wickedly assert our Sufferings to be satisfactory for our Sins, which is the ground of Popish Penances, and voluntary Self-castigations. (2.) From a groundless apprehension, That God's Corrections of us for our Sins, are incon­sistent with the fulness of Christ's satis­faction for them. Christ having paid all our Debts, and dissolved our Obligations to all punishment, it cannot consist with the Justice of God to lay any Rod upon us for our Sins after Christ hath born all that our Sins deserved.

This mistake of the end of Christ's death, occasions them to stumble into the other Mistakes: they imagine that Christ's Satisfaction abolished God's ha­tred of Sin in Believers. But this cannot be; God's antipathy to Sin, can never be taken away by the Satisfaction of Christ, though his hatred to the Persons of the redeemed be: for the hatred of Sin is founded in the unchangeable Nature of [Page 367] God; and he can as soon cease to be ho­ly, as cease to hate Sin, Hab. 1. 13. Nor was Christ's death ever designed to this end: though Christ hath satisfied for the Sins of Believers, God still hates Sin in Believers. His hatred to their Sins, and love to their Persons, are not inconsistent. As a man may love his Leg or Arm, as they are Members of his own Body, and notwithstanding that love, hate the Gan­grene which hath taken them; and lance or use painful corrosives for the cure of them.

Neither do our Antinomians distin­guish as they ought, betwixt vindictive Punishments from God, the pure issues and effects of his Justice and Wrath a­gainst the Wicked; and his Paternal Ca­stigations, the pure issues of the Care and Love of a displeased Father. Great and manifold are the differences betwixt his vindictive Wrath upon his Enemies, and the rebukes of the Rod upon his Chil­dren. Those are Legal, these Evangeli­cal. Those out of wrath and hatred, these out of love. Those unsanctified, but these blessed and sanctified to happy ends and purposes to his People. Those for destruction, these for salvation.

[Page 368] To narrow the matter in Controversy as much as we can, I shall lay down three Concessions about God's Corrections of his People.

Error VII.

They tell us, That by God's laying our Iniquities upon Christ, he became as com­pleatly sinful as we, and we as compleatly righteous as Christ. That not only the guilt and punishment of sin was laid upon Christ; but simply the very faults that men commit, the transgression it self became the trans­gression of Christ: Iniquity it self, not in any figure, but plainly sin it self, was laid on Christ: and that Christ himself was not [Page 376] more righteous, than this Person is, and this Person is not more sinful than Christ was.

Error VIII.

They affirm, That Believers need not fear their own sins, nor the sins of others; for as much as neither their own, or others sins can do them any hurt, nor must they do any duty for their own good, or salvation or for eternal rewards.

That we need fear no hurt from sin, or may not aim at our own good in Du­ty, are two Propositions that sound harsh in the ears of Believers: I shall consider them severally, and refute them as brief­ly as I can.

Error IX.

‘They will not allow the New Covenant to be properly made with us, [...] but with Christ for us. And some of them af­firm, That this Covenant is all of it a Promise, having no Condition upon our [Page 399] part. They acknowledge indeed Faith, Repentance and Obedience, to be Condi­tions, but say they are not Conditions on our part, but on Christ's; and conse­quently affirm, That he repented, belie­ved, and obeyed for us.’

Error X.

‘They deny Sanctification to be the evi­dence of Iustification; and deridingly tell us, This is to light a Candle to the Sun; and the darker our Sanctification is, the brighter our Iustification is.’