SECT. I.

MR. Flavell tells me, in the Manu­script Copy he sent me, of his present Reply, now in Print, That his proper Province at this time, is to Examine and Defend the Foundation, on which our Divines have built the Right of Infants Baptism, viz. Gods Covenant with Abraham, Gen. 17. which, saith he, is the Covenant of Grace, the same we are now under. The Question hereon being the Ar­ticulus stantis vel Cadentis Paedobaptismi. And that if I can make good my Thesis, that it was not a Gospel Covenant, but now abolish­ed, I have certainly destroy'd the principal Fort which defended the claim of our Infants to the priviledges of the Covenant. He now tells me in his printed Reply, That his proper Province is to disco­ver p. 7. that part of the Foundation, meaning, Abraham's Covenant, whence our [Page 2] Divines deduce the Right of Infants Baptism.

So that I perceive, he is not fixed in his Mind, whether Abraham's Covenant be an Entire or Partial Foundation onely? Some­times it seems to him to be the sole Foundati­on of the Practice of Infants Sprinkling; else the Question thereon cannot be the Articulus stantis vel Cadentis Paedobaptismi. Otherwhile he is loath to venture it singly upon that Bot­tom. However it be, of this I am sure, E­very Plant which our Heavenly Father hath not planted, shall in due season be rooted up. And I suppose, a little time will shew, whe­ther the present practice of Infants Sprink­ling be not to be deservedly reckoned among that number.

That no small stress is, and hath been laid upon the Arguments drawn from that Co­venant, by the Assertors of Infants Baptism, for the justification of that practice, cannot be denied. How the Sinai Covenant came to be hooked into the Question, Mr. Flavell him­self hath accounted for, p. 133. of his fore­mentioned printed Reply, as being occasion­ed by himself. Accordingly he tells me, in his Manuscript Copy, that he is now to give his Reasons, why he thinks I have not pro­ved, that the Sinai Covenant was a Covenant of Works. As also, why he thinks I have not proved Abraham's Covenant, Gen. 17. to be a Covenant of Works; nor that the New Covenant is Absolute, and without Conditi­on. [Page 3] In his printed Reply the Expression is a little varied; for there he saith, that that which I affirm, and he is to disprove, is, that the Sinai Covenant, and Abraham's Covenant are no Gospel Covenants; which is the same in effect with the other: For if neither of them be Gospel Covenants, they must needs be both a Covenant of Works.

He begins, p. 10. of his printed Reply, with the Sinai Covenant; which I affirm to be a Covenant of Works; the very same for substance with that made with Adam in Innocency. For the clearing up of which Proposition, and to prevent any further Dis­putes thereon, as to the true state of the Question. By the Sinai Covenant, I under­stand the whole Complex Body of the Law, as it was delivered on Mount Sinai: The Mo­ral part whereof, contained a clear and plain manifestation of the Law, written in the Heart of Man at the first. The addition of the Ceremonial Precepts whereunto, makes no alteration, as to the true Nature or Essence of that Covenant: For so long as this Rule is retained, Do this and live, as it was in respect of the whole Body of the Law, it is still the same Covenant with Adam's, for the Substance or Essence of it, and is accord­ingly represented to us in the Scripture un­der the Denomination of the First, or Old Covenant. The whole Complex Body of the Sinai Covenant, therefore, is that which [Page 4] I affirm to be a Covenant of Works; the ve­ry same for substance, with that made with Adam in Paradise. Now this Assertion of mine, you tell me, is attended with many gross Absurdities.

For first, say you, from hence it follows, that either Moses, and all Israel were damned; there being no Salvation possible to be at­tained by that first Covenant; or else, that there was a Covenant of Grace at the same time, running Paralel with the Covenant of Works: And so the Elect People of God were at the same time under the First, as a Covenant of Death and Condemnation, and under the Second as a Covenant of Grace and Justification. And this latter, you tell me, I am forced upon; which, you say, is at­tended with many false and absurd Conclu­sions: For during Life, they must hang mid­way betwixt Justification and Condemnati­on. And after Death they must necessarily hang between Heaven and Hell. And so at last (say you) we have found the Limbus Patrum, which the Papists so earnestly contend for; and must send Moses and all Gods People to Pur­gatory (so your Manuscript Copyruns.) How to avoid these Absurdities, you say, you see not, according to my dangerous Concession.

Reply, By way of Answer hereunto, I must tell you, Sir, That I should greatly admire, if you your self be not sensible, that the same pretended Absurdities do attend, and fall full as [Page 5] heavily, and indeed, a great deal more, on your Doctrine than on mine: Since that which I affirm to be two distinct and essenti­ally different Covenants, to wit, Perfect do­ing, with the consequent Curse upon the Non-performance; and believing in Christ, unto Life and Salvation, you are forced, according to your Doctrin, to com­prise in one and the same Covenant. And then I would willingly know, if you, or any other Man, can free the present Point, as it is thus stated by your selves, from the very self same Absurdities you would fasten on me. If you can, you will with the same breath discharge me, and that far more ef­fectually, than you can with any shadow of Reason, do it for your selves. For your Con­viction, therefore, in this respect.

In the first place; It cannot be denied, but that the Scriptures do plainly inform us, that both Moses, and all Gods People, during the former Administration, were all of them under the Law, or Sinai Covenant: For with them all was that Covenant made, and un­ [...]er it they were: Exod. 34. 27. Deut. 4▪ 13. [...]h. 27. 26. Yea, they were absolutely under [...]t; Gal. 5. 23. Before Faith came (saith the Apostle) we were kept under the Law, shut up [...]nto the Faith which should afterward be reveal­ [...]d. So, Gal, 4. 4▪ 5. When the fulness of time was [...]ome, God sent forth his Son, made of a Woman, made [...]nder the Law, to redeem them that were under the [Page 6] Law, that we might receive the Adoption of Sons. And the Scriptures do equally assure us, that as many as are under the Law, they are under the Curse: For it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things that are written in the Book of the Law, to do them. Gal. 3. 10. unto which all the People were to say, Amen. Deut. 27. 26▪ These things you cannot but acknowledge, as being no other than plain Scripture Proposi­tions; when yet, at the same time, you must needs grant; that all Gods Elect, among that People, were under a pure Covenant of Gospel Grace, whereby they were saved. Now, either it was the same, or they were two different Covenants, that had these essentially different Properties. If they were two; then [...]ou grant my main Proposition, that God's People were then under two distinct, and Es­sentially different Covenants. If you say it was the same, then see what follows: For if the whole Body of the Israelites then were, as they were, under the Law, and consequently, un­der its Curse: Can a Man be under the Curse of the Law, and yet at the same time, and as the fruit of the same Covenant, be under the Blessing of the Gospel? Doth the same Fountain, at the same time, send forth bit­ter Waters and sweet? Or is it possible, that the same Covenant, should at the same time be a Covenant of Faith in Christ Jesus; when both God himself, Moses, and Paul do plain­ly represent it to us, as a Covenant of [Page 7] Works, requiring, strict, universal, and per­fect Obedience, under pain of the Curse, Condemnation and Death?

Indeed, I cannot but wonder, how you hold and hug a Principle that runs you natu­rally into such gross Absurdities: For do you not see what follows from hence by unavoi­dable Consequence? For according to this Principle, you must hold, that Moses and all Gods Elect People in Israel, who were under that Covenant, and with whom it was made, must, during their Life, hang midway be­tween Justification and Condemnation; and after Death, between Heaven and Hell? This you charge upon my Doctrin; but do you not see that the same thundring Canon, Lim­bus Patrum, Pargatory, and the like, which, with such a full Mouth you discharge at me; comes thundring back again upon your self? Yea, do you not see that the very same Ab­surdities are far more justly and truly charge­able on your Doctrin than on mine? For it may be reasonably concluded, according to my Principles, that how harsh or dreadful so­ever the Terms or Conditions of the Legal Covenant were, to those that were under it (as Moses and the whole Body of the Israelites then were) yet the Grace of the Gospel Co­venant far superseded, and was, by far, more Victorious, Powerful, and Efficatious: For as the Law entered that the offence might abound; so (saith the Apostle) where Sin hath abounded [Page 8] Grace did much more abound. And if by one man's offence, death reigned by oue, much more they which receive abundance of Grace, and of the gift of Righteousness, shall reign in life by one Jesus Christ: Rom. 5. 17. 20. But what shall re­lieve when those two opposite, and quite con­trary conditions, Faith and Works, and the consequent fruits of either Justification and Condemnation shall be compriz'd, or rather, confounded together in one and the same Co­venant? Shall they fly from one part of the Covenant to the other, from the Bitter Wa­ters to the sweet Waters of the same Fountain for Relief? This sounds harsh. Is it not therefore much more congruous and suitable to Reason, as well as also to the constant Analogy of the Christian Faith and Doctrin, to affirm as Paul doth, that these are the two Covenants, and that the Sinner being scared with the dread and terrors of the Legal Co­venant, is forced thereby to have recourse unto the Gospel Covenant for succour, which the Spirit of God hath assured us, is of such a su­perabounding Nature, for Comfort and Sal­vation, above what the other contained for Death and Condemnation?

Besides, God doth plainly tell the Israelites, that he would remember his Covenant with them in the days of their youth: I say, His Cove­nant in opposition and contradistinction to their own, before spoken of; And then (saith he) thou shalt remember thy ways and be ashamed, [Page 9] when thou shalt receive thy Sisters, and I will give them to thee for Daughters, but not by thy Covenant; and I will establish my Covenant with thee, and thou shalt know that I am the Lord; Ezek. 16. 60, 61. Now what may we infer from hence, but plainly this, that there was a two fold Covenant betwixt God and Israel; the one called theirs, the other Gods, yet both Gods Covenants; the first was called theirs, because they were required to perform the Conditions of it: the one a Covenant of Works, whereof Moses was the Mediatour, wherein themselves were immediately con­cerned to procure their own Salvation by their own Duties of Obedience, which was impossible, which was the true nature of the Sinai Covenant; Rom. 10. 5. Gal. 3. 10, 12. The other, a Covenant of Gospel Grace, which is wholly free and absolute; whereof Christ is the only Mediatour and Surety; Rom. 10. 6, 7, 8, &c. Heb. 8. 6, 7, &c. This is properly Gods Covenant; and this is the Co­venant, saith God, that I will establish.

In short, the Scriptures do plainly assure us of two Covenants, the Legal and the Gos­pel, and that these two are essentially diffe­rent, in respect of the terms of Life pro­pounded in either. And the Scriptures do e­qually assure us, that no man is justified by the Law in the sight of God. This is evident, (saith the Apostle) and why? For the just shall live by Faith, and the Law is not of Faith [Page 10] but the man that doth them shall livein them. On the contrary▪ you affirm, that the Law is of Faith; yea, that it is a Covenant of Faith in Christ Jesus. Now whomshall we believe, whether Paul or you?

You affirm, that the Sinai Covenant was purposely so dispensed, as to tender Life and Happiness upon two opposite and contrary Conditions, Works and Faith. Perfect do­ing and believing. The Apostle Paul, on the other hand, affirms, That if it be by Grace, then is it no more of Works, otherwise Grace is no more Grace; and if it be of Works then is it no more Grace; otherwise Work is no more Work▪ So that we see the Scripture allows of no such mixture, and shews us it is impossible that the same Covenant should be so dispens­ed as to tender Life and Happiness upon two such opposite and contrary Conditions. And [...]et this Absurdity, all those must of necessi­ty run into, that will not allow the Sinai Co­venant to be a Covenant of Works; and on the contrary, affirm it to be a Gospel Cove­nant, or a Covenant of Faith in Christ Jesus.

Besides, if the Law is a Covenant of Faith, that is, a Gospel Covenant; we know that the Covenant of Faith justifies all that are in it; that is, all those who believe: For be­ing justified by Faith we have peace with God, through Jesus Christ our Lord; Rom. 5. 1. But the Apostle doth expresly testify, That by the deeds of the Law there shall be no flesh be justified in [Page 11] God's sight; Rom. 3. 20. And how is it then a Covenant of Faith, or a Gospel Covenant, as you affirm it is?

Again; If the Law is a Covenant of Faith, we know, that though many were justified under it, as Moses and the rest of the Elect then were; yet none were ever justified by it, or by vertue of it: Rom. 3. 20. And how is it then a Covenant of Faith?

Moreover, we know the Apostle calls it, A ministration of Death and Condemnation; and contrary to us: And that which is therefore now done away, taken out of the way, and blot­ted out; 2 Cor. 3. 6, 7. Col. 2. 14. which thundring Expressions of his, could not pos­sibly be uttered, because the Jews had per­verted the chief Design and Scope of it, as you affirm: For Moses himself calls it a Fiery Law that proceeded from God's right-hand; Deut. 33. 2. And God himself, in the very first Sanction of it, before the Jews could have perverted it, pronounceth a dreadful Curse upon every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the Book of the Law to do them. And 'tis evident, that from hence it is, and not from the Reason by you sug­gested, that the Apostle bestows the Epe­thites upon it he doth. And how is it then a Covenant of Faith? And if it is not a Cove­nant of Faith, it must needs be a Covenant of Works, there being no medium between these two.

[Page 12] You severely, though unjustly, blame me for several Self Contradictions in my for­mer Discourse; but why blame you not your self, for such frequent palpable Contra­dictions of the Divine Truth, contained in the word of Truth?

Yea, if the Law is indeed a Covenant of Faith, or a Gospel Covenant, as you affirm it is; how is it consistent with what your self have asserted, p. 326. of your Book, en­tituled, The Method of Grace. Where you are pleased to tell us; That the Law required perfect working under the pain of a Curse, accepted of no short endeavours; admitted no Repentance, and gave no strength. If you say that the Cove­nant of Faith, or the Gospel Covenant hath all these Properties, you contradict the whole Scope and Design of the Scriptures. If you cannot but acknowledge, as you must, that it can be no other than a Covenant of Works that hath all these Properties; then you are guilty of Self Contradiction; the same fault you blame in me, since you now pretend to have disproved my Assertion, that the Law could be no ot her than a Covenant of Works, orcould be no Gospel Covenant.

Besides, do you not now positively assert, that there was Pardon upon Repentance in Moses his Covenant, which you endeavour largely to prove from the Promise mentioned, Lev. 26. affirming that it belongs to the Dispensation of the Law at Mount Sinai; which you say [Page 13] doth contain in it self, without doubt, the ful­lest Relief a Sinner can desire, even Pardon of Sin. And yet do you not as positively as­sert in your forementioned Book, That the Law admitted no Repentance? If this be not a palpable Self-contradiction I know not what is.

But, Sir, I must tell you, that you are not only guilty of Self-contradiction in this Pas­sage, but somewhat worse: For when you tell me, p 10. of your Manuscript Copy, ‘That I am forced to grant, that there was Pardon on Repentance, both in Moses's Co­venant and in Adam's, or the Conditionall Gospel Promise, Lev. 26. given at Mount Sinai, contains it; and yet afterward con­tradict my self, by affirming, that there was no Pardon on Repentance, in the one or the other:’ you abuse your Neighbour also: For in p. 179. of my former Discourse (which hath been so much canvast on this account) I only grant your Assertion, that God pro­mised Pardon, Lev. 26. for the breach of Moses his Covenant; adding, that so it was in respect of Adam's Covenant also; else we had ben all undone for ever. But do I there­fore say, that there was Pardon on Repen­tance in either of these Covenants? Is there not a palpable difference between my being forced to grant, as you affirm I do, That there was Pardon on Repentance in both these Covenants; and my Concession, that God [Page 14] promiseth Pardon in respect of either of them▪ Do you not see that these two Assertions do widely differ as much as the East doth from the West?

Sir, I gave you warning of this before, when you and I spoke together upon this Subject; and yet you have had the Confidence to send your Manuscript Copy to me, so worded, as I have before related. And though you en­deavour to extenuate the matter, and excuse your self as well as you can, in the latter end of your printed Reply, yet even there also, instead of mending, you greatly aggravate your fault, in your foregoing, newly fram'd Discourse about my p. 179. So that you seem resolved to cast dirt enough, right or wrong: And aliquid adhaerebit; some at least will stick, whether you disprove what I af­firm, or no: But all men of Reason, will tell you, That this is no Christian way of answering Books: You ought rather to have answered my Arguments, whereby I have proved, that the Sinai Covenant could be no other than a Covenant of Works; and those whereby I have proved, that the Covenant of Circumcision was of the same stamp. But instead of answering any one of my Argu­ments, you fall upon pretended Absurdities, and Self-contradictions, which you fancy to your self may be found up and down in my Book. But alas, Sir, how easy is it to fancy Contradictions in Books, if a Critical Ad­versary [Page 15] do but set his Wits upon the Tenter­hooks, to study and find them out; and it may be where there are indeed none at all, only in the Mind of him who is over solici­tously desirous to make them appear to be such, if he cannot find them such; and that meerly to spoil his Adversaries Reputation, thereby to advance his own, or the Cause he hath espoused.

In this respect it is obvious to all under­standing Men, that the leaving out, addition, or misplacing but of one word, and some­times of one Syllable in a Sentence, by him, whose design it is to make it appear a Con­tradiction to what went before or follows af­ter, will render it very Odd and Ridiculous. Many Instances whereof, as to your dealing thus, and worse with me, in sundry parts of your Reply, are sufficiently apparent. Let the following Particulars therefore serve as a Specimen, whereby the Reader may judge of the rest.

You tell me, p. 49. of your printed Reply, That I boldly cut Abraham's Covenant, Gen. 17. into two parts, and make the first to be a pure Covenant of Grace, which is the Pro­misory part, to the ninth Verse, and the Re­stipulation to be as pure a Covenant of Works. And, say you, what a hard shift will some Men make to maintain their Opi­nion. You further tell me, that I say truly, p. 205. that at the Seventh and Eighth Verses [Page 16] was their Restipulation. Why then, say you, do you say, p. 224. that vers. the 7 th▪ he proceeds to speak of another Covenant than what he had been speaking of before? Does the Promise and the Restipulation make two Covenants, or are they just and necessary Parts of one and the same Covenant?

Reply, Sir, I thought Conscience had more prevailed with you than so grossly to have prevaricated, as you have in this matter. I do indeed affirm. p. 223, 224. that Gen. 17▪ we have an account of a two fold Covenant which God there made with Abraham. The one with Abraham himself alone, not with his natural off spring, For (saith God, vers. 2) I will make my Covenant between me and thee, And vers. 4. As for me Behold my Covenant is with thee. And thou shalt be called the Father of many Nations. Or as the Apostle explains it, Rom 4. 11. The Father of all them that Believe, which was Abraham's prerogative alone, and incommunicable to any else: So that this Covenant could have relation to no other, it being no way applicable to any other Person whatsoever, whether Isaac or Jacob, or any else of his natural off spring to be the Father of all them that Believe as Abraham was. The other which was the Covenant of Circumci­sion, was as plainly made between God and Abraham and his natural Seed also, as Gen. 17. 7, 8, 9. declare. But do I therefore boldly cut the Covenant of Circumcision into two [Page 17] parts as you intimate I do, and make the first to be the pure Covenant of Grace, which is the Promissory Part to the 9 th. vers. And the Restipulation to be as pure a Covenant of Works, Sir, I say no such thing. And I ap­peal unto all that shall read my Book, and examin those Passages you refer to, whe­ther I am not altogether innocent in this mat­ter. I tell you indeed in my p. 205. that Circumcision was appointed as a Sign or Token of the Covenant, Gen. 17. 7, 8, 9. and that both unto Abraham himself, and the rest that were under it.—it being no other than the Restipulation of the Covenant on their part, Gen. 17. 9, 10. But as there is no such thing to be found in my p. 205. to which you refer, nor any where else: So I do in my p. 224. as well as in many other pages, plainly tell you the quite contrary, that at the 7 th. vers. was the Promissory part of that Covenant on God's part; the Restipulation on their part, as I there also plainly affirm being mentioned, vers. 9, 10. And whereas you tell me that I say truely, p. 205. that at the 7 th. and 8 th. vers. was their Restipulation, I must tell you that you are here mistaken in a double Respect. For first, can you indeed think that this was a true Speech, if I had said it, that at the 7 th. and 8 th. vers. was their Re­stipulation? Certainly this is not truely said, whoever said it. Secondly, I must also tell you, that I do neither there say so, nor any [Page 18] where else, nor should I have said truely, if I had so said: For the 7 th. and 8 th. vers. are wholly taken up with the Promises of that Covenant on God's part. And I do there on the contrary as plainly tell you as words could declare it, that the Restipulation of the Co­venant on their part is expressed, vers. 9, 10. So that herein you do both wrong me and your self also.

The like Answer may be returned to what follows in your Discourse on this head, where you say that I also tell you that the Covenant Gen. 17. 1, 2, 3, 4. was a plain transcript of several free promises of the Gospel under the denomination of a Covenant. But, say you, why then don't you take the Restipulation, vers. 7, 8, 9, 10. to be a part of it? Oh, no, there is something required on Abraham's and his Posterities part, they must be Cir­cumcised, and that spoils all. But Sir, do you think you speak sense in this Passage? For can you imagine that the 7 th. and 8 th. vers. do contain any thing of Restipulation on their part? Are not these two verses wholly taken up with the promises on God's part? And do I not throughout my whole Discourse joyn the Restipulation on their part, vers. 9, 10. with the Promises on God's part, vers. 7, 8. as making up one, and the same Covenant of Circumcision. Thus you say, you care not what, or how, turning and twisting things as you please, so you may render your Opponent [Page 19] ridiculous, and laugh in your sleeve among those that will swallow down any thing you deliver, without examination whether you say right or no. But Sir, though you may laugh at me at your pleasure, you must with­all remember that God's truth will not be so mocked; but will certainly prevail, what ever devises of this nature Men may have to discre­dit the Assertors of it.

The like mistake are you guilty of; when you tell me that I do worse than M. S. p. 7. contradict my self. p. 133. of my for­mer discourse, in saying that the Law even as it is a Covenant of Works hath a Blessed Subserviency toward the establishment of the Promise. For in as much said I, as it re­quired perfect, sinless obedience under the Penalty of the Curse, it convinced Men that this was no way for Sinners to seek for Life and Salvation by. And herewith it so urged the consciences of Men, that they could have no Rest nor Peace in themselves, but what the Promise would afford them, whereunto therefore they saw a necessity of betaking themselves. But then, say you, I unsay all again and worse than contradict my self, when I tell you afterward. p. 173. That if we Preach up the Law as a Cove­nant of Life, or a Covenant of Faith and Grace, which are equipollent terms (let us distinguish as we please betwixt a Cove­nant of Grace absolutely and subserviently [Page 20] such) and consequently are desirous in that respect to be under it; then according to the Apostles plain Scope in the whole Epistles to the Romans and Galathians, in stead of using it lawfully, we make an unlawful use thereof by perverting it to such a Service as God never intended it for.

Now I Appeal to the candid intelligent Reader whether there be any real Repugnan­cy or Conradiction betwixt those two Passa­ges, as Mr. Flavel supposes there is? I do in­deed acknowledge that the Law, even as it is a Covenant of Works, hath a blessed subser­viency toward the establishment of the Pro­mise, in the sense before expressed: when yet I deny that it is a Covenant of Life, or that the Scriptures do any where give it the title of a Subservient Covenant of Grace: For if it be a Covenant of Gospel Grace, as Mr. Flavell affirms it is, how is it Subservient there­unto as to another thing? To call it a Subser­vient Covenant, that is, neither of Works, nor of Grace is wholly preposterous, and alien to the Scriptures. Either therefore it must be a Covenant of Works, or a Covenant of Grace; there being no medium betwixt these two. If it be a Covenant of Grace, then it cannot be a Subservient Covenant thereunto, for it is the thing it self, which in this respect it is pretended to be Subservient unto. If it be a Covenant of Works, then you grant my main Position. And indeed in no other res­pect [Page 21] can it be Subservient unto the Gospel Co­venant, but as it is a Covenant of Works: For so it convinceth Men of their Sin and Mi­sery without Christ, and their Necessity there­fore of a Saviour. It shews Men as in a glass, the Purity and Holiness of God's nature, toge­ther with their own defilement, and impu­rity; where by it effectually promotes the Design of the Gospel Covenant: For in as much as it requires Perfect, sinless obedience under the Penalty of the Curse, it convinceth Men that this is no way for Sinners to seek for Life and Salvation by, and consequently for­ceth them to Christ their onely Remedy.

Mr. Flavell therefore doth greatly mistake his measures, and widely misses the mark he aims at, when he thinks to find a contradi­ction betwixt these two forementioned Passa­ges, which are in themselves so perfectly har­monious, and so agreable withal to the whole scope of the Scriptures.

And as greatly is he mistaken, when he tells me as he doth in the following part of his Discourse, that the Law was added as an Appendix to the Co­venant M. S. p. 8. Printed Reply. p. 25. of Grace, or Gospel Pro­mise from what the Apostle speaks, Gal. 3, 19. That the Law was added be­cause of transgressions till the Seed should come to whom the Promise was made. When the Apo­stle had told us just before, That if the Inheri­tance be of the Law it is no more of Promise: But [Page 22] God gave it to Abraham by Promise. And if so, How was the Law added as an Appendix to the Promise? Why might it not be added as an Appendix rather, to the First Covenant of Works, to re-inforce that (it being as your self confess materially considered of the same stamp) the more effectually thereby to convince Men of their need of a Saviour? It is wholly Preposterous therefore to affirm that the Law was of the same Peice & Complexion with the Promise; or that God did publish it, as you say he did, with Evangelical Purposes, as if it were of the same nature with the Pro­mise. The Promise (saith the Apostle) gi­veth Life: For Abraham's inheritance was by that very means derived unto him: But the Law could not give Life. Abraham's Inheri­tance was not derived unto him through the Law, but the Promise, vers. 18, 21. And how was the Law then of the same Nature with the Promise? Wherefore then serveth the Law? It was added because of transgreossins, that is, either to restrain Sin, and set some Bounds thereunto, 1. Tim. 1. 9. Or to shew and dis­cover Sin, Rom. 7. 13. But then it follows not that it had any affinity with the Promise: For if it had, it would have given Life as the Promise did; But this it could not do, there­fore it was essentially different from the Pro­mise. For (saith he) vers. 21. If there had been a Law given which could have given Life, verily Righteousness should have been by the Law; [Page 23] But the Scripture hath concluded all under Sin that the Promise by Faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that Believe.

But then there is another grand Absurdity which Mr. M. S. P. 6. Printed Reply. P. 21. Flavell will needs Endeavor if he can to fasten upon me; and that is for speaking as I do, P. 134. of my former Discourse; ‘That according to the plain and clear scope of the Apostles Rea­soning in the forementioned Gal. 3. the Law is so far from being a Covenant of Faith, that it is quite another thing: For if it had been a Covenant of Faith, it would have given Life as the Covenant of Faith doth. But it could not give Life, therefore it could be no other than a Cove­nant of Works. But is the Law then a­gainst the Promises? God forbid, (saith Paul,) and so say we: For supposing the Law to be, as it is indeed, a Pure Covenant of Works; yet through the satisfaction of Christ, there is no Repugnancy betwixt the Law and the Promises; or between the Law and Faith, which hath Respect to the Promises. There is only a Difference of Deficiency in respect of that strength that there is in the one, to what there was in the other; the one being weak through the flesh, the other strong and powerful: But what the Law could not do through our Weakness, that Christ hath performed, [Page 24] by fulfilling its Commands, and submit­ting to its Curse on our behalf, whereby God's Justice is satisfied, and Everlasting Righteousness obtained for the Relief of Sinners, &c.’

Now what of Absurdity, or Self-Contra­diction, can any Ingenuous, or Impartial, Reader find in this Passage? Yes, saith Mr. Flavell, because you here say, there is only a Difference of Deficiency betwixt the Law and the Gospel, the one being strong and power­ful, the other weak and unable to Relieve us. When yet you elsewhere Affirm, that there is a Specifical Difference between them.

Reply. Sir, It should seem by this, that you have a mighty Itch to find out some Ab­surdity, or some Contradiction or other, in my Discourse, which Argues no over-friend­ly Humour, whatever you may pretend. But suppose there be no real Contradiction betwixt these two Passages, but in your Ima­gination only, from an over sollicitous desire to make it appear to be such, if you cannot find it such? And that it is so, I beseech you once more to consider, that when I Affi [...]rm that there is a Specifical Difference betwixt the Law and the Gospel, I am there speaking of the terms of Life contained in either: For in this respect they are Specificaly Different. The one saith, Do this and Live. The other, Be­lieve and thou shalt be saved. In the former Passage I am not speaking of the terms of ei­ther [Page 25] Covenant, or the true and proper Na­ture of either in that respect; but only con­cerning the seeming Repugnancy that there is between them, from the forementioned Ob­jection. Is the Law then against the Promises? And what is the ground of this Objection? The Apostle had said before, that if the Inhe­ritance be of the Law, it is no more of Promise; but God gave it to Abraham by Promise. Is the Law then against the Promise? God forbid. For, saith he, if there had been a Law which could have given Life, verily Righteousness should have been by the Law. So then, the Law would but could not give Life; and why could it not give Life, but through our Weakness, we were not able to perform it, nor could the Law furnish us with power to Enable us thereunto. But what the Law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh, that Christ hath performed, and by his Death and Suf­ferings made up the Breach between God and us. And so in this respect there is only a Difference of Deficiency between the Law and the Gospel; the one being strong and power­ful, the other weak and unable to Relieve us. But yet, say I, this Difference notwithstand­ing, through the satisfaction of Christ there is no Repugnancy, or Hostile Contrariety betwixt the Law and the Promises; or be­tween the Law and Faith which hath respect to the Promises, &c.

[Page 26] This you account strange Do­ctrin, The Reason you give, M. S. P. 7. Printed Reply. P. 22. say you, is as strange, that this comes to pass through the satisfaction of Christ. Good Sir, say you, Enlighten us in this Rare Notion. Did Christ Die to purchase a Reconciliati­on betwixt the Covenant of Works, as such, and the Covenant of Grace? And I pray Sir, why not? Did not Christ satisfie the Law on our behalf? Was he not made of a Woman, made under the Law, to Re­deem them that were under the Law, that we might receive the Adoption of Sons? Doth or can the Law it self Impeach those for whom Christ Died, and whom God him­self pronounceth Righteous? Doth not the Law it self that was before our Enemy, a­gainst us, and contrary to us, stand up as our Friend, through the Mediation of Christ? And hath not God for this very purpose, set forth his Son Christ unto us a Propitiation, through Faith in his Blood, to declare unto us his Righteousness, that he might be Just, and the Justifier of him that Believeth in Je­sus? And were not the Two Tables accord­ingly put into the Ark, to shew their subser­viency to Christ, and in this sense, its Consi­stency with him, Typically demonstrating, that though the Covenant of Works could not be kept or performed by us; yet it should be perfectly fulfilled in Christ for us? Is there [Page 27] not here a Perfect Reconciliation betwixt the Two Covenants? Are not Mercy and Truth here met together? And do not Righteous­ness and Peace sweetly Kiss and Embrace each other, through the satisfaction of Christ?

And yet it follows not, that to be Justified by Works and by Faith, should after Christ's Death make no odds of Difference between them; according to the Corrupt Inference which you unjustly draw from the Premises: For though 'tis true, in a sense we may be said to be Justified by Works rightly and tru­ly enough; that is, as Christ in his own Per­son hath fulfilled the Law for us; yet your Inference is far enough from being truly de­ducible from the Premises according to the common and proper sense of Justification by Works: Since as all our own Works are throughout the Scripture perfectly Excluded from any concern in that matter, (viz.) as the meritorious or procuring cause of our Justifi­cation. So they are according to the tenour of the foregoing Discourse also: For if Christ hath satisfied the Law for us, hence it follows that our Justification is only the fruit of Gods meer free Grace alone, through the Redemp­tion that is in Christ Jesus.

Thus much may suffice to have been spo­ken concerning the Absurdities, or Self-con­tradictions, which Mr. Flavell chargeth on on me: Which so far as they have been al­ready [Page 28] Examined, the Reader may easily perceive that they do all of them return up­on himself. There is only one Passage more which doth more nearly touch the Heart of the Controversie betwixt us, which is neces­sary also to be considered before we proceed unto what follows. And that is this,

Whereas I have Affirmed, and do still Af­firm, that there was no Promise of Pardon on. Repentance in Moses's Covenant: Mr. Flavell thinks he hath a mighty Advantage against me, and supposes I do therein plainly▪ contradict my self, because I do yet grant, that God promiseth Pardon on Repentance, Lev. 26. which Mr. Flavell Affirms, to be­long to the Dispensation of the Law at Mount Sinai, where the Jews are directed to the Co­venant which God had made with Jacob, Isaac, and Abraham, for their Relief in this respect? For that is the Covenant, saith God there, that I will remember. ‘Well, Be it so, (saith Mr. Flavell,) if you will needs have it so, that the Promise mentioned, Lev. 26. refers to Abraham's Covenant; yet still it follows, that the Covenant made with Abraham must be a Conditional Co­venant of Grace: For so its made by this very Text, If they accept the Punishment of their Iniquities, and their Uncircumcised Hearts be humbled, then will I remember my Covenant with Abraham, &c. You see then that no Unhumbled or Impenitent Person could [Page 29] have Relief from it, till Confession and Contrition were wrought in him; when you in the mean time stoutly deny, that there are any Conditions required in a Gos­pel Covenant. M. S. P. 5. Printed Re­ply. P. 20.’

But then Mr. Flavell should have consider­ed that this Contrition and Gospel Humilia­tion, can by no means be Effected or Expres­sed till the Heart be first soundly wrought up­on by the Grace of that Covenant which God hath made with Sinners in Jesus Christ. And accordingly this is one main Branch of that Covenant, Deut. 30. 6. which I have alrea­dy proved to be a Gospel Covenant, and Es­sentially Different from that of the Law. The Lord thy God will Circumcise thy Heart, and the Heart of thy Seed, to Love the Lord thy God with all thy Heart, and with all thy Soul, that thou mayst Live. Compare this with the foremen­tioned Text in Leviticus, If their Uncircumcised Hearts be humbled, &c. The Sinner might Reply, But Lord, this we cannot do of our selves, we cannot break our hard and flinty Hearts, nor will it ever be performed until thou takest the Work into thine own Hand. This therefore the Lord himself undertakes. The Lord thy God will Circumcise thy Heart, &c. And what Condition can there be of that, but that of the good Pleasure of God's own Goodness and Grace? For whatever is Ante­cedent thereunto, being only a Work or Act [Page 30] of Corrupted Nature, can be no Condition whereon the Dispensation of Spiritual Grace is superadded. From whence, as I have al­ready told you, it plainly follows, that I the Covenant of Grace is wholly Free and Absolute: Eor as much as there is nothing that can be supposed as the Condition there­of, whether it be Faith, Repentance, or new Obedience, which is not therein Absolutely Promised.

Thus God himself is pleased to Represent unto us the Nature of that New and Evange­lical Covenant which he Promised to make with the House of Israel and Judah, after those Days; Not, saith he, according to the Covenant which I made with their Fathers at Sinai, (which was a Conditional Covenant,) For I will put my Laws into their Minds, and Write them in their Hearts; that is, I will make such a Covenant with them as shall be wholly Free and Absolute: Wherein as I do faithfully Engage, that I will not Depart from them; so neither shall they Depart from me. For let Men talk what they will of an Uni­versal Conditional Covenant of Grace: If there be any such thing, I am sure it is not that here intended: For as there are no Con­ditions expressed, whether in Jeremy, or in Ezekiel, or in the Apostle's Repetition there­of, Hebrews the Eighth; so they are all Actually Pardoned with whom this Cove­nant is made: For this is all the Reason [Page 31] which God himself alledges, why he would become their God, and make them his Peo­ple, give them the knowledg of himself, a New Heart, and a New Spirit: For, saith he, I will be Merciful to their Unrighteousness, and their Sins and Iniquities will I remember no more. Thus the New Covenant is a Promise of Pardon and Grace, and of all those things which are contended to be the Conditions of it. Nor is there any Condition implied which may alter the the nature of an Abso­lute Promise: For in Jer. 31. whence the Form of this Covenant is taken, all Objecti­ons are prevented, Verse 36. For whereas it might have been said, They for their Sins should be destroyed, and so this Promise should not profit them; it is added, That they should be Restored, and so the Promise is made good, as sure as the Ordinances of Heaven, the Course of Day and Night, or the Tides of the Sea; which I am sure de­pend upon no Conditions to be Performed by Men.

When God tells them in Leviticus there­fore, If they Accept the Punishment of their Ini­quities, and their Uncircumcised Hearts be hum­bled, &c. It must of necessity be thus un­derstood. For if God should require this to be performed by us, as an Antecedent Condition on our Parts, without which we may expect no Mercy, or Favour, at his Hands, we are like Eternally to fall short thereof: It being [Page 32] as impossible for us to Humble our selves, or to change the Temper of our own Hearts, as for the Ethiopian to change his Skin, or the Leopard his Spots: Yea, as for a Dead Man to Raise himself to Life. And if none of these things can be done of our selves, but they must be wrought in us by the Grace of the Covenant; then how doth it appear that the New Covenant is a Conditional Covenant; or that Faith and Repentance are required of us in point of Duty, Antecedently to the Benefit of the Promise? I know O Lord, saith Jeremy, that the Way of Man is not in himself. It is not in Man that walketh to di­rect his steps. So Ephraim, Turn thou me, and I shall be turned. And then, saith God, shalt thou remember and be Ashamed, and Confounded, and never open thy Mouth any more, because of thy Shame, when thou shalt know that I am Paci­fied toward thee for all that thou hast done, Ezek. 16. 60, 61. &c. So that God always pre­vents the Sinner with the Blessings of his Goodness; and instead of expecting any An­tecedent Conditions, or Qualifications, that should render us meet for his Grace; 'tis the Sovereign Fruit and Effect of his Free Grace alone, which he hath expressed in his Holy Covenant, that can make us Meet for him­self, or any Mercy he hath to bestow upon us.

I must tell you therefore, Sir, that you do exceedingly injure, and wrong, the Free [Page 33] Grace of God to Sinners in Jesus Christ, when you tell me as you do in your follow­ing Discourse; That there is something as an Act required of us Printed Re­ply. P. 61. in point of Duty, which is Ante­cedent to the Benefit of the Promise. If you mean, that those things, whether it be Faith, Repentance, or Gospel Humiliation, though Absolutely Promised in the Covenant, and wrought in us by the Grace of God; are yet Duties indispensibly required of us, in order unto the Participation, or Enjoyment, of the full end of the Covenant in Glory; it is unquestionably true: But if you intend that they are such a Condition of the Covenant, as to be by us Performed Antecedently unto the Participation of any Grace, Mercy, or Benefit, of it, as your Words imply; it is most untrue, and not only contrary to Ex­press Testimony of Scripture, but Destru­ctive of the Nature of the Covenant it self: For if so, Men must do all these things, be­fore they receive the Remission of Sins. Yes, then must Men Repent and Believe, and Turn to God, and yield Obedience to the Gospel, whilst they are as yet Dead in Tres­passes, and in Sins: Yes, then must they do them, whilst they are under the Law and the Curse of it: For so are All Men whose Sins are not Pardoned. But this is to make Obedience unto the Law, and that to be per­formed by Men whilst under the Curse of it, [Page 34] to be a Condition of Gospel Mercy; which is to overthrow both the Law and the Gos­pel.

You will tell me, it may be, that on the other hand it will follow, that Men are Par­doned before they do Believe. But then you ought to consider. First, That the Commu­nication and Donation of Faith unto us, is an Effect of the same Grace whereby our Sins are Pardoned, and they are both bestow­ed on us by vertue of the same Covenant. Secondly, That though the Application of Pardoning Mercy unto our Souls, is in order of Nature consequent unto Believing, yet in time they go together. Thirdly, That Faith is not required as a Condition, in order to the Procuring of the Pardon of our Sins; but only as a Necessary Means in order to the Receiving of it. A Condition, as a pro­curing cause, plainly implies something of Merit, by way of Condignity, or Congrui­ty, whether it be more or less, perfect or imperfect, call it what you will: But Faith comes under neither of these Notions, being only a Necessary Means, or as an Instrument (which also must be wrought in us by the Grace of the Covenant,) whereby we Re­ceive and Apply, but cannot Procure, the Mercy Promised.

In the next place then, avoiding any fur­ther Discourses concerning the Pretended Ab­surdities and Self-contradictions, which up­on [Page 35] a diligent search Mr. Flavell supposes he hath found out in my forementioned Dis­course, which upon a due trial may be easi­ly perceived to have been the bare Fiction of his own Imagination only: I shall immedi­ately Apply my self to what is more Sub­stantial, and will certainly tend far more to the Edification of the Intelligent Reader, if any Light may be hereby struck out for his illumination and Instruction, concerning the Three Grand Points we are now contending about. And that is,

First, Whether the Sinai Covenant was a Covenant of Works, or a Covenant of Faith?

Secondly, Whether the Covenant of Cir­cumcision was not of the same Nature?

Thirdly, Whether the Gospel Covenant is wholly Free and Absolute; or Conditi­onal?

SECT. II.

IN the first place then; As to what con­cerns the Sinai Covenant, there are two things before us, and that is; First, to prove that it could be no other than a Covenant of Works, and that as contradistinct or essen­tially different from the Promise of Grace, or the Gospel Covenant. Secondly, that it is the very same for substance, or for the essence of it, with Adam's Covenant.

For the first, I think I have already in my former Discourse, substantially proved that the Sinai Covenant could be no other than a Covenant of Works, and that as it is contra­distinguished, or opposed unto the Covenant of Faith, or the Gospel Covenant, and essen­tially different therefrom. And this I have done by 23. Scripture Arguments founded upon plain Scripture Testimonies; which one would think should be fully Convictive to all that pretend to any reverence for Scripture authority.

Mr. Flavell, indeed, tells me in his Printed Reply, p. 54. that all my 23 Arguments fall to the Ground at one stroke: My Medius Terminus having one Sense in my Major Pro­position, [Page 37] and another in my Minor; and so every Argument hath four Terms in it; as will easily (saith he) be evinced by the particular consideration of the respective places from whence they are drawn. But why had not Mr. Flavell evinced this, and so knockt them down, as he saith, at one Blow? He onely threatens but doth not perform. This is indeed, an easie way of Answering Arguments, if the bare affirmation that they are not rightly formed, must be taken for a sufficient confutation.

As for the second, that the Sinai Cove­nant was the same for substance with that made with Adam, I have already also in my former Discourse Answered Mr. Flavell's four Arguments pretending to prove that the Sinai Covenant, and that made with Adam in Pa­radise, were not the same, but widely diffe­rent Covenants. Unto which he hath not as yet thought fit to give me any Reply to Enervate the force of my contrary Reasons; but onely by Cavilling at some pretended Absurdity he thinks he hath found out in my 179 pag. &c. Which hath been already cleared.

All that Remains therefore now to be done, is to subjoyn some Select Scripture Ar­guments plainly proving the contrary to what he hath Asserted. viz. That the Sinai Covenant, and that made with Adam, are for substance the same. My first Argument then runs thus,

[Page 38] Argum. 1. 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. Ergo. &c.

For the confirmation hereof, I shall lay down these four Propositions. First, that it is evident there can be no Medium betwixt these two, Faith and Works. Secondly, That neither will they admit of any Mixture. Thirdly, That the Law is not of Faith. Fourthly, That if the Law is not of Faith, it must needs be a Covenant of Works; yea the same for Substance with that made with Adam.

My first Proposition is; That it is evident there can be no Medium betwixt these two, Faith and Works. If there is, let it be shewn what it is and wherein it doth consist. And therefore to talk of a Subservient Co­venant distinct from these two, is a vain thing; It must be one of them: Either it must be a Covenant of Faith, or it must be a Covenant of Works. There can be no Me­dium betwixt them.

Secondly, 'Tis as evident that neither will they admit of any Mixture. If the Law is of Faith, it cannot be of Works. And so on the contrary; If it be of Works, it cannot be of Faith. If this be questioned, the Apostle will soon Resolve it. Rom. 4, 16. Therefore it is of Faith (speaking of the Gospel Cove­nant) [Page 39] That it might be by Grace. And Rom. 11. 6. If by Grace, then is it no more of Works, otherwise Grace is no more Grace. And if it be of Works, then it is no more Grace, otherwise Work is no more Work.

Thirdly, 'Tis as evident, that the Law is not of Faith. This the Apostle affirmeth in express Terms, Gal. 3. 12. You will tell me perhaps that the Law is not of Faith Compara­tively in respect of that clear discovery there­of which the Gospel now give us; Not Ab­solutely as if it were not of Faith at all. But what plain Scripture Testimony may not be after this sort Evaded and Eluded? Nay what truths of the Gospel can we be sure of, if this Course be allowed? Doth not the Apostle expressly, designedly, industriously affirm and prove it, that the Law is not of Faith? but on the contrary that the Man that doth these things shall live by them? Doth he not bring an express Testimony from the mouth of the Law giver himself, that as many as are of the Works of the Law are under the Curse, &c. vers. 10. And doth he not also tell us that 'Tis evident that no Man is justified by the Law in the sight of God? vers. 11. And doth he not assume from all this, that the Law is not of Faith, but the Man that doth them shall live in them. vers. 12. And shall we presume to affirm notwithstanding that the Law is of Faith, yea a Covenant of Faith in Christ Jesus?

[Page 40] It may be you will yet tell me as Mr. Ro­bert's doth that in this Sinai Covenant, those opposite conditions of perfect doing under pain of Curse and Death, and of Believing in Christ, are very differently required and re­vealed. Believing in Christ is revealed very sparingly and obscurely. Perfect doing very frequently and plainly. But, saith he, tho' those two conditions of perfect doing and be­lieving be thus differently revealed and re­quired in the Sinai Covenant; yet Believing in Christ unto Life and Righteousness, was therein chiefly and ultimately intended; And perfect doing onely urged in Subordination and tendency to Believing.

But then (say I) If believing in Christ unto Life and Righteousness, was chiefly and ultimately intended in the Sinai Covenant, and perfect doing onely urged in Subordina­tion and tendency to Believing. How comes it to pass that the Apostle doth so directly oppose the Righteousness of Faith, to the Righteousness of that Covenant? Rom. 10. 5, 6. Moses, saith he, describeth the Righteousness of the Law that the Man that doth these things shall live by them. But the Righteousness which is of Faith speaketh on this Wise, &c. In a quite different strain; wherein, when he tells us that the Law saith, Do this and live. How can it be understood but that his meaning is, that this is the onely Righteousness which the Law requireth in order to Life and Salvation; [Page 41] or this is that which it ultimately intends; and that it propounds no other way in order thereunto? For otherwise we cannot rational­ly understand him, especially, since he doth else where assure us, that the Law is not of Faith. And accordingly, whatever Subordi­nation or Tndency the Law hath to drive us to the Covenant of Faith, for Relief and Shelter; to be sure the Law it self gives us no Relief: For neither chiefly nor ultimately doth it propound Faith as the condition of Life, but doing only; and consequently, is a­nother Covenant, and Essentially different from the Covenant of Faith, to which it drives us. The Law, saith Moses, requireth doing unto Life. The Gospel, saith Paul, requireth Faith. And these, saith he, Gal. 4. 24, 25, 26. are the two Covenants, the one from Mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Je­rusalem that now is; the other, to Jerusalem that is above; the one gendereth to Bondage, the other to Liberty; the one a ministration of Death and Condemnation, the other a ministration of Life and Righteousness: 2 Cor. 3. 7, 8. 9. Now whom shall we believe, Paul or you? Whether shall we believe the Blessed Apostle, who af­firms, that the Law is not of Faith, but of Works; and that these are the two Cove­nants; and who in effect also affirms, that these two Covenants are essentially, or speci­fically different in respect of the terms of Life propounded in either; or those that af­firm, [Page 42] that the Law is of Faith; yea, that it is a Covenant of Faith in Christ Jesus?

These things being thus premised; my fourth Proposition, roundly and naturally follows: For first, If it is evident that there can be no medium betwixt these two, Faith and Works. And if it is as evident, that neither will they admit of any mixture. And if it be also as evident, that the Law is not of Faith, since neither chiefly nor ultimately was it propounded or intended thereby; then it will unavoidably follow, that the Sinai Covenant is a Covenant of Works: Yea, the very same for substance with that made with Adam. It cannot be supposed, that A­dam's Covenant was a Covenant of Faith; and I have now plainly proved, that the Si­nai Covenant was not; the down right con­sequence of which is, that they were both of the same stamp for the substance of them.

Argum. 2. That Covenant which saith, Do this and Live, or requireth perfect sinless Obedience, in order to the obtainment of Life and Happiness, and pronounceth a Curse up­on the least failing, must needs be a Cove­nant of Works, the same for substance, and of the very self same stamp with Adam's Co­venant. But such is the nature of the Sinai Covenant. Ergo.

The minor onely needing Proof, hath it abundantly, from Rom. 10. 5. Moses, saith the Apostle, Describeth the Righteousness which [Page 43] is of the Law, that the man which doth these things shall live by them: which he citeth from Lev. 18. 5. Ye shall therefore keep my Statutes and Judgments, which if a man do, he shall live in them. And what can be a more plain De­scription of a Covenant of Works; and that not in the way of a Partial Imperfect Obedi­ence: But as it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the Book of the Law, to do them: Gal. 3. 10. which the Apostle quotes from Deut. 27. 26. Cursed be he that confirmeth not all the words of this Law, to do them. And all the People shall say, Amen.

And therefore, when it evidently appears, that this was the nature of the Sinai Cove­nant, in the very first Sanction of it, as the fruit of God's special Designation and Ap­pointment: and when it is also as manifest, that from hence it is, that the Apostle calls it as he doth, A ministration of Death and Condem­nation; and therefore now took out of the way, being nailed to the Cross of Christ: It is the great­est Violation and Perverting of Scripture that can lightly be met with, to affirm, that all this is uttered and declared by Paul, yea, by Moses and God himself, onely because the Jews had perverted it, and not as God intend­ed it: For how could the Jews have perverted it before it was Instituted? Is there any Scrip­ture that gives the least ground for such a Sup­position? May we not make any thing or no­thing [Page 44] of the Scripture, after this rate of Rea­soning? Would not the Apostle, 2 Cor. 3. and Col. 3. have given some hint or other, that this had been the meaning, when he thunders against the Law, as there he doth; that he meant it was so and so, onely as the Ig­norance and Infidelity of unregenerate Men had made it to themselves, and not as God intended it? And so when he tells us, Gal. 3. That the Law requires Perfect Obedience un­der the pain of a Curse; would he not have giuen some hint or other, that this was onely because the Jews had perverted it, and that it was not so in it self? But can we think that Men of Reason will be so easily baffled? Or can we believe, that Men that have any re­gard to the Judgment of another day, will be content to have their Eyes blinded, so as to receive such Doctrines as these? The Apostle was careful not to handle the word of God deceit­fully, but by manifestation of the Truth, conmmend­ing our selves, saith he, to every man's Consci­ence in the sight of God; 2 Cor. 4. 2. So again, We are not as many which corrupt the word of God, but as of Sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God, so speak we in Christ; 2 Cor. 2. 17. It would have been well if this Rule had been duly observed in our present case. The want of this hath been often charged on those that plead for the right of Believers onely to Bap­tism. I shall only pray, that neither we, nor those that oppose us herein, may be found [Page 45] guilty of such a Transgression in the Great Day.

I shall add, for the proof of the minor Proposition of the forementioned Argument, what you your self have asserted, p. 326, of your Book, entituled, The Method of Grace. The Law, (say you there) requires perfect work­ing under the pain of a Curse. Accepted of no short en­deavours, admitted no Repentance, gaveno strength. And if any Man can give a fuller Testimony concerning the Law, as a Covenant of Works, let him if he can. I have alledged this to you in order to your Conviction upon this account; and your Answer is, ‘That this was as the Igno­rance Printed Reply, p. 134, 135. Together with your Letter to me on the same Subject. and Infidelity of Unre­generate Men had made it to themselves, and not as God intended it: So, say you, it was a Covenant of Works, a ministration of Death and Condemnation. And so, say you, it requires perfect working under pain of a Curse; accepts no short endeavours, admitted no Repentance, and gave no strength.’ But, Sir, can you, indeed, upon second thoughts, think this to be a fit or pro­per Answer? Is this by manifestation of the Truth, to commend your self to every Man's Conscience in the sight of God? Do you in­deed think this to be a good and sound Scrip­ture Distinction, to save you from the guilt of Self-contradiction, when you deny the [Page 46] Law to be a Covenant of Works in one Book, and yet, affirm all this concerning it in a­nother? Can you justly and truly say, That the Law was not such in its first Institution, as you there affirm concerning it? Was the Law capable of being altered or changed in respect of its true and proper Nature and In­stitution, by the Ignorance and Infidelity of Men? Did not God himself, in the first Pro­mulgation of it, pronounce a Curse upon the least transgression thereof? You have told me with a great deal of Confidence, That God promiseth Pardon on Repentance in the Sinai Covenant; and yet you say in your forementioned Book, That the Law admit­ted no Repentance. Well, how will you re­concile these two passages? Why thus you have attempted the reconciling of them: That as the Ignorance and Infidelity of Un­regenerate Men had made it to themselves, so it admitted of no Reepentance, otherwise it did. But, Sir, you know what the Apostle tells us, Rom. 3. 3. What if some did not believe, shall their unbelief make the Faith of God without effect? So I may as justly say in our present Case; What if some did not believe; shall their Unbelief alter the true Nature and Pro­perty of the Law, in respect of what it was in its Primitive Institution? If it was a Cove­nant of Grace, or a Life-giving Covenant; a Covenant wherein God promised Pardon of Sin on Repentance, as you affirm he did; [Page 47] why then sure it is so still, the ignorance or infidelity of Men cannot alter the Nature or property of God's Covenant; especially so as to make it essentially different from what it was in its self. The Lord deliver me from such Doctrins or Practices, that naturally involve Men in such gross Absurdities.

But for your further conviction herein, I desire you to cast your Eye upon what those worthy and learned Divines, your Brethren, that have set forth the second Volumn of Mr. Pool's Annotations upon the Bible, who I know are Men of unquestionable credit and authority with you, and those of your own Way; I say I desire you to cast your Eye on what is affirmed by them, upon 2. Cor. 3. 6, 7. in confirmation of the Minor Proposition of my forementioned Argument. Upon the 6 th. vers. their Note runs thus. ‘By the Letter here, the Apostle under­standeth the Law. And the Law in oppo­sition to the Gospel is called the Letter, because it was onely a Revelation of the will of God concerning Man's Duty: No Revelation of God's Grace, either in par­doning Men their omissions of Duty, and doing Acts contrary to Duty, or assisting Men to the performance of their Duty: For the Letter of the Law killeth, The Law, sheweth Men their Duty, Accuseth, Con­demneth and Denounceth the wrath of God against Men for not doing their Duty, but [Page 48] gives no strength for the doing of it:’ But the Gospel giveth life, &c. Where you may observe that your Brethren come up fully to your own Notions about the Law expressed in your forementioned Book. But do they give the same Reasons for all this as you do, that this was onely because the Jews had Per­verted it, or as the Ignorance and Infidelity of unregenerate Men had made it to them­selves? No, for that would have been the way to have overthrown all they had said before, and to have contradicted themselves, as well as the truth of God, which lay so plainly before them, in the Scripture they were now opening. Nor do you your self give the least hint to this purpose in your forementioned Book; For it would never have gone down with any shadow of truth, or with any kind of coherence in Respect of the foregoing and following Passages you are there insisting on.

But I must yet further confront you with the testimony of your worthy Bretheren be­fore mentioned, in their Annotations upon vers. 7. of the forementioned, 2. Cor. 3. For if the ministration of Death written and ingraven in stones was glorious, &c. ‘In the former verse, say they, He had called the Law the Letter; And the Gospel in opposition to it he had called the Spirit. Here he calleth the ministration of the Law, the ministra­tion of Death, because it onely shewed Man [Page 49] his Duty, or things to be done, but gave no strength or help, by which he should do them. Onely cursing Man, but shewing him no way how he should escape that curse. So it did kill Men, and lead them to Eternal Death and Condemnation, with­out shewing them any means of Life and Salvation.’ And if any Man can speak more full at home to the Point in the Description of the Law, as a pure Covenant of Works, let him do it if he can; For my part I cannot. And if according to this their Description and character by them here given of the Law, as to the true and real nature of it, there is yet in your opinion any Room left for such an Evasion as that of yours before mentioned is; That thus it was onely as the ignorance and infidelity of unregenerate Men had made it to themselves: I may justly say of such as are so minded, as hath been often said upon like occasions. Qui vult decipi, decipiatur. He that will be deceived let him be deceived. I have en [...]ured you see with all my might to undeceive you: If you will not, the fault shall be yours and not mine.

But I must remember that I have not onely to prove in the general that the Law is a Co­venant of Works; but that it is the same for substance with Adam's Covenant. Now you your self would formerly allow me whatever you will do now, that the Sinai Covenant was the same with Adam's Covenant mate­rially [Page 50] considered, but that intentionally it was vastly different; And gave your Reasons; Those Reasons I have Answered in my for­mer Discourse, where I have already proved that it was the same with Adam's Covenant in both Respects, that is intentionally, as well as materially considered: For as much as God never designed Sol. Call. pag. 164, 165. that Adam himself should attain unto life and righteousness by his obedience to that Covenant, no more than he did that the Jews should in respect of the Sinai Cove­nant. The Argument is there plainly stated and needs not here to be repeated. Nor have you returned me any the least Reply there­unto; Nor indeed unto my Answers to the rest of your Arguments upon that Head; where this very Point, that the Law was the same for Substance with Adam's Covenant, is sufficiently discussed as hath been before noted.

Upon the whole I shall now last of all Appeal unto the late worthy Dr. Owen, that famous and Blessed Servant of Christ in his Generation, who being dead his Works yet speak for him, and will preserve him a Blessed Savour among all that truely fear God. I say I shall now last of all Appeal unto him, whom I know you, and those of your way have a just Respect and Veneration for; whe­ther the Sinai Covenant was the same for substance with Adam's Covenant, or not? [Page 51] Now this Question he hath plainly resolved, in that late excellent and judicious Discourse of his; Entituled; The Doctrin of Justification by Imputed Righteousness. p. 397. His words are these.

‘The whole entire nature of the Covenant of Works, consisted in this, that upon our Personal obedience unto the Law and the Rule of it, we should be accepted with God, and rewarded by him. Herein the Essence of it did consist. And whatever Covenant proceeds on these terms, or hath the nature of them in it, however it may be varied with Additions or Alterations, is the same Covenant still and not another: As in the Renovation of the Promise wherein the Essence of the Covenant of Grace was con­tained, God did oftimes make other Addi­tions unto it, unto Abraham and David; yet was it still the same Covenant for the Sub­stance of it, and not another so whatever variations may be made in, or Additions unto the Dispensation of the first Covenant; So long as this Rule is retained, Do this and live, It is still the same Covenant for the Substance and Essence of it.’

I can add no more after so worthy a Sen­tence from so worthy a Person, backt with so much Reason, and Scripture Authority, for the confirmation of the present Point. And whether this was not the nature of the Sinai Covenant, as the Dr. hath now stated [Page 52] it, let all Men who have perused the Scrip­tures Judg.

My Third Argument is this,

Argum. 3. That Covenant that Admitted not of Faith in the Redeemer, nor Repen­tance of Sin; since Pardon of Sin and Curse for Sin are Inconsistent, could not be a Co­venant of Faith, but must of necessity be a Covenant of Works: Yea, the very same for substance, and of the same stamp with that made with Adam himself: But the Scripture doth assure us, that such was the Nature of the Sinai Covenant. Ergo,

That the Sinai Covenant Admitted not of Faith in the Redeemer, is Evident, since it Admitted not of Repentance of Sin. It will be easily granted, that the Doctrin of Christ was a Doctrin of Repentance. This was the Doctrin of his Harbinger John the Baptist, Matth. 3. 2. Repent ye, for the King­dom of Heaven is at hand. So Mark 1. 4. He came Preaching the Baptism of Repentance for the Remission of Sins. And accordingly we are told concerning the Redeemer himself, that God hath Exalted him with his own Right-hand, to be a Prince and a Saviour, for to give Repen­tance to Israel, and the Forgiveness of Sins, Acts 5. 31. Now that the Sinai Covenant Admitted not Repentance of Sin, is as Evi­dent; since Pardon of Sin and Curse for Sin are Inconsistent: For the Scripture doth Expressly assure us, that as many as are of the [Page 53] Works of the Law are under the Curse: For it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the Book of the Law, to do them, Gal. 3. 10. which the Apo­stle quoteth from Deut. 27. 26. And hereun­to Mr. Flavell himself gives a full Testimo­ny in that forementioned Passage of his. And if he will not stand to what he hath there Asserted, but will needs shift it off by vain and groundless Distinctions; his Wor­thy Brethren in their forementioned Anno­tations shall Confront him, and Re-inforce the Truth which he hath there Asserted; when they tell us, upon 2 Cor. 3. 6. ‘That the Law was only a Revelation of the Will of God concerning Man's Duty: No Revelation of God's Grace, either in Pardoning Men their Omissions of Duty, doing Acts contrary to Duty; or assisting Men to the Performance of their Duty.’So on the 7 th Verse, ‘The Law only Cursed Man; shewed him no way how he should escape that Curse. It Killed Men, and led them to Eternal Death, and Condemnati­on, without shewing them any means of Life and Salvation.’ The like they tell us upon Gal. 3. 10, 12. where the Apostle tells us, that that the Law is not of Faith, but the Man that doth these things shall Live in them. Their Note upon which is this; ‘The Law, (say they,) saith nothing of Faith in the Mediator. Though Faith in God be com­manded [Page 54] in the first Precept; yet Faith in Christ is not commanded by the Law, as that by which the Soul shall live: For that which the Law saith is, Do this and Live; Or the Man that doth the things contained in the Law shall live in them▪ Life in the Law is promised to those that do the things which it requireth, not to them who having failed in their perfor­mances, yet accept of the Lord Jesus Christ, as the Redeemer which God hath sent, and believe in him who justifieth the Ungodly.’ And if all this be so, that the Law admitted not of Faith in the Redeemer, nor Repen­tance of Sin; then let all Men judge whether my forementioned conclusion be not fully proved, that the Law could be no other than a Covenant of Works; yea the very same for Substance with Adam's Covenant.

Argum. 4. That Covenant that had not Christ for the Mediatour of it, could never be a Covenant of Faith but of Works, yea the same for Substance with Adam's Covenant: But the Apostle speaking of the legal Cove­nant made with Israel at Mount Sinai, tells us, that Christ hath obtained a more excellent Mini­stry. (viz. than that of Moses) by how much also he is the Mediatour of a better Testament, which was established upon better Promises. Heb. 8. 6, 7, 8, 9. From whence it plainly follows that Christ was not the Mediatour of the Sinai Covenant. Therefore that Covenant [Page 55] could never be a Covenant of Faith, but of Works; yea the same for Substance with that made with Adam himself.

Argum. 5. That Covenant that was not confirmed by the Blood of Christ (which alone can cleanse us from all unrighteousness) but onely by the Blood of Bulls, Goats and Calves, and the Ashes of an Heifer, sprinkling the unclean, which onely sanctified to the pu­rifying of the Flesh, and could never take away Sins, nor make him that did the Service perfect as pertaining to the conscience; Could not be a Covenant of Faith, but of Works, the same for Substance with Adam's Covenant: But the Ceremonial Law was of this Nature and the Sacrifices thereof, wherewith alone it was de­dicated. Heb. 9. 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14. chap. 10. 1, 2, 3, 4. &c. Therefore that Covenant could not possibly be a Covenant of Faith, but of Works: yea the same for Substance with Adam's Covenant.

Argum. 6. That Covenant that was not confirmed by the Blood of Christ, no nor so much as by the Blood of Bulls, or Goats, or Calves, could never be a Covenant of Faith, but of Works: yea the same for Sustance with Adam's Covenant. But the Law written in Stones was so far from being confirmed by the Blood of Christ that it was never that we read of dedicated with any other sort of Blood whatsoever. Ergo,

But there are 3. Scriptures from whence you [Page 56] will needs conclude that the Sinai Covenant is a Gospel Covenant, and consequently that it could not be a Covenant of Works. Printed Reply. p. 27, 28, 29, 30.

The First is, Rom. 10. 4. where the Apo­stle tells us, that Christ is the end of the Law for righteousness, to every one that Believeth. Which I have sufficiently An­swered, and cleared in my former Discours, pag. 169. to pag. 172. from the corrupt Inter­pretation by you fastened thereon; which needs not here to be Repeated.

The Second is, Act. 7. 8. Where Stephens expression of the lively Oracles, which you say is to be under stood concerning the Law delivered on Mount Sinai, doth no way prove that Covenant to be a Gospel Covenant, or that it was not therefore a Covenant of Works: For as much as Paul expressly af­firms concerning the same Covenant, Rom. 7. 10. That the Commandment which was Or­dained to Life, he found to be unto Death. 'Tis true the Apostle tells us, Rom. 10. 5. That Moses describeth the Righteousness which is of the Law, that the Man which doth these things shall live by them. But though the Law was or­dained to life, and promiseth life upon con­dition of perfect obedience; yet since it can­not perform what it promiseth, in that it is Weak through the Flesh, it is far enough from being a Life giving Covenant, or a Covenant of Gospel Grace as you affirm it is: And [Page 57] accordingly the Apostle sets it rather in direct opposition to the Righteousness of Faith, or the Gospel Covenant in the following verses. And not onely so; but 2. Cor. 3, 6, 7. He expressly calls it a Ministration of Death and Condemnation, by way of opposi­tion to the Gospel, which is, a Ministration of Life and Righteousness. So that Stephens forementioned expression of the Lively Ora­cles, no way serves your turn at all.

No more doth the third Scripture by you insisted on, Rom. 9. 4. Where the Law is numbred among the chief Privi­ledges in which God's Israel gloried: For though the Law is reckoned among their Chief Priviledges; since God had shewed his Word unto Jacob; his Statutes and Judgments unto Israel, which all other Nations wanted; yet this no way proves the Law to be there­fore a Gospel Covenant: for as much as the Law, even as it is a Covenant of Works, was a Priviledg inestimable beyond what all others enjoyed. And the Reason is plain; because the very Curses and Punishments annexed thereunto, in case of the least Fai­lure, 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 Priviledges the Israelites were Invested with.

[Page 58] Your following Particulars being a Re­petition of what you sent me formerly in Writing, have been already sufficiently An­swered in my former Discourse, from P. 164. to P. 174.

Thus much for the Sinai Covenant.

SECT. III.

IN the next place then; As to what con­cerns the Covenant of Circumcision, I shall first lay down some Scripture Argu­ments, plainly proving that it was also a Co­venant of Works, and of the same stamp with that at Sinai; and then shall attend un­to Mr. Flavell's Arguments, whereby he now attempts the Proof of the contrary, viz. That it was a Gospel Covenant.

In the first place then; Though I do ac­knowledg, that God did indeed make a Co­venant of Grace with Believing Abraham, which is the great Charter by which Belie­ving Gentiles always did and do claim both Heaven and Earth, and all the Promises they have Title to; yet that the Covenant of Cir­cumcision which God made with Abraham, [Page 59] Gen. 17. 7, 8, 9, 10. (though there was Grace in it, as there was in all the Covenants that God ever made with Men,) is not a Cove­nant of Grace properly so called, nor a Gospel Covenant whereof Christ is the Me­diator; and consequenrly, that the Gentiles are not concerned therein, is thus proved,

Argum. 1. If that Covenant was as much a Covenant of Works as the Sinai Covenant before mentioned; yea, as much as the Co­venant made with Adam in Innocency: Then it is not a Gospel Covenant whereof Christ is the Mediator: But it was as much a Cove­nant of works as either of the forementioned Covenants were. Ergo,

That Adam's Covenant was a Covenant of Works, cannot rationally be denied: For as much as Life was Implicitly Promised unto him upon his Obedience, and Death was Ex­plicitly Threatned in case of his Disobedi­ence. And upon these Terms he was to stand or fall: Which was plainly and unde­niably a Covenant of Works, whereof Christ was not the Mediator. That the Si­nai Covenant was of the same Nature, I have before fully proved, since it admitted not of Faith in the Redeemer, nor Repentance of Sin; it required Perfect Working under the pain of a Curse, accepted no short Endea­vors, and gave no Strength. This I have al­ready proved from Express Testimonies of Scripture, and the concurring Suffrage of [Page 60] many Worthy Divines; from whence it is Evident, that the Sinai Covenant was the same for substance with that made with A­dam, and is frequently therefore in the Scrip­ture represented to us under the Denomination of the First, or Old, Covenant: There be­ing therein a plain Manifestation of the Law written in the Heart of Man at the First.

Now that the Covenant of Circumcision is of the same stamp, is as Evident: For though God promiseth to be a God to Abra­ham, and to his Seed, Vers. 7, 8. as he did also in the Sinai Covenant to the same People in the Wilderness: yet still it was upon Con­dition of Obedience, with an Answerable Threatning in case of Disobedience. Vers. 9. TThou shalt keep my Covenant therefore, thou and thy Seed after thee in their Generations. Vers. 10. This is my Covenant which ye shall keep be­tween me and you, and thy Seed after thee, every Man-child among you shall be Circumcised. And Vers. 14. The Uncircumcised Man-child whose Flesh of his fore-skin is not Circumcised, that Soul shall be Cut off from his People, he hath broken my Covenant. The same Terms with the former. Besides, it is Evident, that Cir­cumcision Indispensibly Obliged all that were under it to a Perfect Universal Obedience to the whole Revealed Will and Law of God. Gal. 5. 3. For I Testifie to every Man that is Circumcised, that he is a Debtor to do the whole [Page 61] Law. And if the Sinai Covenant was a Co­venant of Works, as the Apostle doth plain­ly Affirm it is, Rom. 10. 5. why not that made with Abraham also, since the Terms are the same, as well as the Promises were the same?

If Mr. Flavell shall endeavour to shift off the Force of this Argument from Gal. 5. 3. as 'tis like he will, by telling me, that the Law was misinterpreted, and misunderstood by the Jews; and that Circumcision Obliged to a Perfect fulfilling of the whole Law only, as the Ignorance and Infidelity of Unregene­rate Men make it to themselves, and not as God intended it: He may so do if he pleases; though he must know that Men of Reason will not suffer their Eyes to be blinded at so easie a rate. But for a further Answer here­unto, I must refer him to my Reply to Mr. Whiston upon the same subject; as also to what I have already said unto himself in re­ference hereunto in my foregoing Discourse about the Sinai Covenant; and shall accord­ingly proceed unto my Second Argument, which together with the rest that follow, I shall but mention in this place, lest I should Anticipate the necessary Confirmation of them, which I am obliged to produce in my Reply to Mr. Whiston in the latter part of this Discourse.

Argum. 2. That Covenant in which Faith was not reckoned to Abraham for Righteous­ness, [Page 62] could never be a Covenant of Faith. But the Scripture is Express, that Faith was not reckoned to Abraham for Righteousness, when he was in Circumcision, but in Uncir­cumcision, Rom. 4. 9, 10. Ergo,

Argum. 3. That which is Contradistin­guished, or Opposed, unto the Rigteousness of Faith, could never be a Covenant of Faith. But the Law, or Covenant of Cir­cumcision, is by the Apostle plainly Oppo­sed, or Contradistinguished, unto the Righte­ousness of Faith, Rom. 4. 13. Ergo,

By the way let it be Observed in reference to the Two foregoing Arguments; that I have already proved, that that Covenant that is not of Faith, must needs be a Cove­nant of Works, there being no Medium be­twixt them; and consequently must needs be the same for substance with that made with Israel at Mount Sinai, and that made with A­dam also.

Argum. 4. That Covenant that is plainly represented to us in Scripture as a Bondage Covenant, in and by which there was Im­posed such a Yoak upon the Neck of the Jews, which neither those in the Apostles time, nor their Fathers, were able to bear; could be no other than a Covenant of Works, the same for substance with the Sinai Cove­nant. But the Scriptures do plainly declare, that such was the Nature of the Covenant of Circumcision, Acts 15. 10. Gal. 5. 1, 2, 3. Ergo,

[Page 63] In the next place, though it might reason­ably have been expected, that Mr. Flavell should have Answered these forementioned Arguments contained in my forementioned Discourse, so plainly proving, that the Co­venant of Circumcision could be no other than a Covenant of Works; before he had produced any contrary Arguments for the proof of his Assertion, That the Covenant to which Circumcision belonged, neither was nor can be any other than a Covenant of Grace, the same we are now under; yet I shall not refuse to Cope with him in his own Method.

His First Argument then runs thus, Print­ed Reply, P. 42.

Argum. 1. 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 not to be any part of the Covenant of Works: Then Circumcision is no part of the Cove­nant of Works, even by your own Confes­sion. But it is so. Ergo,

Reply, But Sir, what if it be not so, that is, what if I do no where Confess, as you here say I do, that whatsoever is Dedicated by Blood is not any part of the Covenant of Works, what must the Conclusion be then? You know what was said of Levy of Old, The Law of Truth was in his Mouth, Mal. 2. 6. It had been well if you had written after his [Page 64] Copy in this respect: For then you had not been guilty of Abusing your Neighbour after so gross a Rate, as you have in the present Point, as well as in many other Passages of your Book. For the Readers satisfaction therefore in our present Case, it is absolutely necessary that I give him a true and a naked Account of those several Passages in my Book, which you refer to when you come to the Proof of what you here Assert concerning my own Confession.

Mr. Sedgwick having Affirmed, (as the Reader will find his Objection stated P. 146. of my Discourse,) That that Covenant which was Confirmed by Blood and Sprink­ling, (which Typified the Blood of Christ, Confirming and Ratifying the Covenant,) was no Covenant of Works, &c. I tell him by way of Reply, P. 147. First, That it is Evident, that the Covenant, the Blood whereof Moses Sprinkled on the People, mentioned Exod. 24. 7, 8. to which Mr. Sedg­wick Refers could not possibly be the Law Written in Stones. And accordingly I prove it down along that Page, toward the latter end whereof I conclude, that the Law Writ­ten in Stones therefore could not possibly be the Covenant, the Blood whereof was so Sprinkled, but was indeed another Cove­nant, and delivered at a distinct Season, and in a distinct Method, &c. Accordingly, P. 148. I blame Mr. Sedgwick for making no [Page 65] distinction between the Ceremonial Cove­nant that was Dedicated with Blood, and the Law Written in Stones that was not so Dedicated. For First, (say I,) he seems to take it for granted, that there was no other Covenant made with Israel at Sinai, but what was Confirmed by Blood. And Se­condly, That that Covenant which was so Confirmed, must of necessity have been Confirmed also by the Blood of Christ Ty­pified thereby, and therefore not a Cove­nant of Works. But both these, (said I,) are no other than ungrounded Suppositions that want a Foundation. For First, (as I there tell him,) It hath been already proved, that the Law Written in Stones had not been so much as Received from God, when the Ceremonial Covenant was so Confirmed. And accordingly it was so far from being Confirmed by the Blood of Christ, that we do not Read that it was ever Dedicated with any other sort of Blood whatsoever. Which I do further confirm from thence to the end of P. 149. And in the beginning of P. 150. I thence conclude, that it is therefore a great Mistake, for any to affirm, That the Law Written in Stones was not a Covenant of Works, because Confirmed by Blood and Sprinkling; whereas when it comes to be duly Examined, there appears no such mat­ter.

[Page 66] Where by the way, it may be Observed, that I do not say, the Covenant of Works: But that it is a great Mistake, for any to affirm that the Law Written in Stones was not a Co­venant of Works. Mr. Flavell tells me indeed, that I make the Law Written in Stones to be the Covenant of Works: And he knew well enough, that that was an Emphatical Ex­pression, plainly Intimating, that the Cere­monial Covenant was no Covenant o [...] Works, and that this alone was it. But Mr. Flavell doth herein greatly Abuse me and himself too, which he could no other way Accomplish with any shadow of pretence, but by varying my Expression. And so, as I have before Noted, the alteration some­times of one Letter, or Syllable, in a Sen­tence, shall render that to be Odd and Im­proper, which in it self is never so sound or substantial. Just thus Mr. Flavell deals with me in the present Case, You make, (saith me,) the Law Printed Reply. P. 43. Written in Stones the Covenant of Works. Sir, I do not make it so, nor do I say so. I only say, that it was a Covenant of Works; and I do therefore so Express my self purposely respecting what follows in the same Page, where I tell you, that whereas the Apostle, Heb. 9. speaking of the Cere­monial Covenant which was Dedicated by Blood and Sprinkling, doth represent it to us under such Characters as he doth: From [Page 67] all this, said I, it plainly appears, that even the Ceremonial Covenant it self could be no other than a Covenant of Works, as well as that Written in Stones. And accordingly, I tell you in the following Page, That though it is plain, that the Law Written in Stones, and the Book wherein the Statutes and Judg­ments were contained, were Two distinct Co­venants, and delivered at distinct Seasons, and in a distinct Method; yet it is as clear from the Premises, that they were both of the same Nature, that is, no other than a Covenant of Works, and accordingly both now Repealed, and that under the Denomi­nation of the First, or Old Covenant.

Now let the Candid Reader Judg upon the whole of this Discourse, (the substance whereof I have here truly and faithfully recited, not hiding the least Syllable that might make against me in this matter,) whe­ther Mr. Flavell hath any just Reason to af­firm, as he doth, That whatsoever is Dedi­cated by Blood, is by me confessed not to be any part of the Covenant of Works? Or let such as desire further satisfaction herein, take the Book it self, to which this refers, and see if they can there find any the least Syllable that hath any such kind of significa­tion: Which yet Mr. Flavell is pleased to make the very Foundation of his forementi­oned Argument, and by which he endea­vours to render me Ridiculous and Repug­nant [Page 68] to my self. ‘For if Circumcision, (saith he,) be a part of the Ceremonial Law, and the Ceremonial Law was Dedi­cated by Blood, and whatsoever is so De­dicated, is by you confessed not to be any part of the Covenant of Works. Then Circumcision is no part of the Covenant of Works, even by your own confession. But, (saith he,) it is so.’ Ergo,

But, Sir, I must tell you, that after this rate of Arguing, you seem to have taken a Liberty to say what you please, as if there were no future Judgment to be regarded. Sir, 'tis plain matter of Fact that we are now con­tending about; and I appeal unto all that shall Impartially read my Discourse, whether I have not here given a Faithful Account thereof, so far as it relates to this matter. And if upon the whole, there do not appear the least shadow of pretence for you to affirm as you do, what Comfort can you expect ano­ther day, without Repentance now, when these things that have thus passed betwixt you and me, shall be again Revised and set in order before you?

Indeed, I am weary of noteing your Mis­carriages of this kind; your Reply abounds with Transgressions of this nature. The Lord forgive you, and lay it not to your charge.

But whereas in the close of your Discourse, upon this Head, Printed Reply. P. 44. you tell me that the Truth I op­pose, [Page 69] viz. That the Book of the Ceremoni­al Law was sprinkled by Typical Blood, and therefore confirmed by the Blood of Christ, for the time it was to continue shines like a bright Sun-beam in my Eyes, from Heb. 9. 14, 23. I must tell you for a Close, That I do not oppose, but acknowledge, that the Ceremonial Law was sprinkled by Typical Blood: But I utterly deny, that it was there­fore also confirmed by the Blood of Christ Typified thereby: For if it had, it would have made the Comers thereunto Perfect, as pertaining to the Conscience; which the Apo­stle expresly affirms, it could not, vers. 9. and chap. 10. 1. I need say no more as to that, and shall now therefore proceed to the Exa­mination of your Second Argument.

Argum. 2. If Circumcision was a Seal of the Righteousness of Faith, it did not per­tain to the Covenant of Works; for the Righteousness of Faith and Works are oppo­sites, and belong to two contrary Covenants. But Cricumcision was the Seal of the Righte­ousness of Faith; Rom. 4. 11. He, that is, A­braham, received the sign of Circumcision, a Seal of the Righteousness of Faith. Therefore it per­tains not the Covenant of Works, but Grace. Printed Reply, p. 45.

Reply. Sir, by way of Answer hereunto, I must tell you, That when the Apostle tells us of Abraham, Rom. 4. 11. That he received the Sign of Circumcision, a Seal of the Righteous­ness [Page 70] of the Faith which he had yet being uncircum­cised; from thence to infer, That the Cove­nant of Circumcision was a Covenant of Faith, and consequently, that Circuci­sion did not pertain to the Covenant of Works; would be point blank to contradict the whole scope and design of the Apostle in the foregoing Passages of that Chapter: Which, as it was in the general to prove, That Abraham was not justified by Works, but by Faith onely; vers. 2, 3. 4, 5. So in particular to assure us, That Faith was not reckoned to him for Righteousness, when he was in Circumcision, but in Uncircumcision; Vers. 9, 10. And what more convincing Testimony, or Evidence can we desire, that the Covenant of Circumcision was not a Covenant of Faith, but of Works? The Sign of Circumcision was indeed a Seal unto Abraham of the Righ­teousness of the Faith which he had in respect of the Promises made him yet being Uncir­cumcised: But it doth not therefore follow, that the Promises, Gen. 17. 7, 8. That God would be a God unto him, and his Seed after him, in their Generations, &c. upon Condition that He and His were Circumcised; were a­ny part of the Covenant of Faith: For o­therwise the Apostle would never have told us as he doth, That Faith was not reckoned to him for Righteousness when he was in Circumcisi­on, but in Uncircumcision. The Argument hence resulting therefore, as I have already told [Page 71] you, is Irresistible. That Covenant in which Faith was not reckoned to Abraham for Righ­teousness, could never be a Covenant of Faith, and therefore must of necessity be a Covenant of Works: But the Scripture is express, That Faith was not reckoned to Abraham for Righte­ousness, when he was in Circumcision, but in Un­circumcision. Therefore the Covenant of Cir­cumcision must needs be a Covenant of Works. Mr. Whiston's Cavils against which Argument, I have answered in its proper place.

Besides, it is evident, that long before his Circumcision, God had promised Abraham, to Bless him, to make his Name great; that he should be a Blessing; that in him should all the Families of the Earth be Blessed; that he should be the Father of many Nations, (or as the Apo­stle explains it, That he should be the Father of all them that believe) according to that which was spoken, so shall thy Seed be; Gen 12. 2, 3. Gen. 15. 5. And it is evident, that these were the Promises upon the account of which we are told, That he believed in the Lord, and he counted it to him for Righteousness; Gen. 15. 6. Circumcision therefore was a Seal onely to A­braham, and that of the Righteousness of the Faith which he had in respect of those pecu­liar Promises made him long before his Cir­cumcision; and that for this very purpose, that he might be the Father of all them that Believe, which was his Prerogative alone: For none besides him, had ever before their [Page 72] Circumcision such a Faith which entituled them to such singular Promises.

So that though it must be acknowledged, that the forementioned Argument seems at first very plausible. How can it be but that the Covenant of Circumcision must needs be a Covenant of Faith, since Abraham is said to have received the Sign of Circumcision, a Seal of the Righteous­ness of Faith: Yet we see when it comes to be duly examined, there appears no such mat­ter. For, as this now mentioned Argument could be no way plausible, unless the follow­ing words, Which he had yet being Uncircumcised, were cut off from those that go before: So, the onely Argument fairly resulting from Rom. 4. 11. can be no other than this, That Covenant, or those Promises, in respect of which Abraham is said to have received the Sign of Circumcision, a Seal of the Righte­ousness of Faith, must needs be a Covenant of Faith. But the Scripture is express, That Abraham received the Sign of Circumcision, a Seal of the Righteousness of the Faith which he had yet being Uncircumcised; (which must of neces­sity be understood in respect of the foremen­tioned Promises, that had been made him long before his Circumcision, and upon the account of which we are expresly told, That he believed in the Lord, and he counted to him for Righteousness; Gen. 15. 6.) Therefore that Co­venant, or those Promises must needs be a Covenant of Faith. But then, as hath been [Page 73] already observed; it follows not that the Pro­mises made unto him and his Seed after him, in their Generations, upon Condition of his and their Circumcision, mentioned Gen. 17. 7, 8, 9, 10. were any part of the Covenant of Faith, since the Apostle is express, That Faith was not reckaned to him for Righteousness, when he was in Circumcision, but in Uncircumci­sion.

Circumcision therefore, was a Seal onely to Abraham; and that in respect of the Promises made him yet being Uncircumcised, where­by he was confirmed in the assurance of that peculiar Prerogative that had been before conferred on him, and which the Apostle here expresly mentioneth. He received, (saith he) the Sign of Circumcision, a Seal of the Righ­teousness of the Faith which he had yet being Un­circumcised, that he might be the Father of all them that believe. In which respect it is evi­dent, that Circumcision was that to the Fa­ther of the Faithful in its extraordinary Insti­tution, and in his extraordinary Circumstan­ces, that it could not be to any of his natural Progeny in its ordinary use. You tell me indeed, that this was Bellarmine's Invention, and that Dr. Ames hath fully confuted it. Unto which you add: ‘That Printed Reply. P. 46. for me to restrain the publick Seal of a Covenant that com­prehended and equally concerned the whole Church and People of God, to one single [Page 74] Person; so that neither Isaac, the Type of Christ, nor Jacob, a Prince with God, who were by name enrolled in that great Charter, should have any right to the Seal of it, is such a Conceit as amazes an In­telligent Reader.’ But, Sir, I pray consi­der, can you justly or truly say, that Isaac or Ja [...]ob either, are ever in Scripture called the Fathers of all them that Believe, as Abraham was? Or was it possible for them so to be, since this was Abraham's peculiar Prerogative to be so entituled? And doth the Apostle ex­presly tell you of Abraham, That he received the Sign of Circumcision, a Seal of the Righteous­ness of the Faith which he had while Uncircum­cised, that he might be the Father of all them that believe; which therefore could be the Privi­ledge of none else? Indeed there is nothing that can be more evident than this: For as it is absurd to say, that Circumcision was a Seal to all its Subjects, of the Righteousness of the Faith which they had while Uncircum­cised, as 'tis here said of Abraham; since ma­ny of them were never partakers of that Sa­ving Grace, whether before or after: So it is equally absurd to affirm, that it was the Seal of a Paternal Relation to all Believers, un­to any that received it, as it was to Abraham, since neither Isaac nor Jacob, nor any besides, were ever, or could ever, be so dignified as Abraham was.

And indeed, Circumcision was so far from [Page 75] being a Seal of the Righteousness of Faith to the rest that were under it, that it was rather unto them a token of Servitude and Bon­dage, and such a Yoke, that as the Apostles tell the Jews in their time, Neither they nor their Fathers were able to bear it; Acts 15. 10, 24. Gal. 5. 2, 3. which yet it had not been, had it been to them a Seal of the Righteousness of Faith, or of the Gospel Covenant: For that brings with it true Christian Liberty and Freedom. And so much by way of An­swer to your second Argument. Your third follows.

Argum. 3. In the Covenant of Circumcisi­on, Gen. 17. God makes over himself to A­braham and his Seed, to be their God, and to give them a special Interest in himself: But in the Covenant of Works God doth not since the Fall, Printed Reply. p. 48. 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.

Reply. Sir, you are pleased to tell me, that this is so plain and so clear, that none can doubt or deny it that understands the nature of the two Covenants: But can you, indeed, upon second thoughts justly affirm, that God doth not in the Covenant of Works, since the Fall, make over himself to any to be their God by way of special Interest? How comes it then to pass, that in the Sinai Cove­nant, [Page 76] which I have already proved, could be no other than a Covenant of Works, and which you your self have acknowledged to be materially such, the Lord doth expresly tell that People in the Wilderness, Exod. 20. 2. I am the Lord thy God which have brought thee out of the Land of Egypt, out of the House of Bondage. This was the very Introduction to that part of the Law which was written in Stones; which the Apostle doth yet nevertheless ex­presly call A ministration of Death and Condem­nation; 2 Cor. 3. 7, 8, 9. And why? but be­cause it required perfect Obedience, as the Condition of obtaining the Mercy (how Glo­rious or Comfortable soever in it self consi­dered) therein promised, which was impossi­ble to be performed by Man in his lapsed state; Gal. 3. 10, 11, 12. Rom. 3. 20. So that it is too apparent to be justly denied, but that God doth indeed, in the Covenant of Works, make over himself to Sinners to be their God in a way of special Interest; but it being up­on such hard terms, that it is utterly impossi­ble that way to attain unto Life; he hath therefore been pleased to abolish that, and to make a New Covenant, which is not like, or not according to the former, which was Condi­tional; but that which is wholly Free and Absolute; wherein he hath promised to put his Laws into our Minds, and to write them in our Hearts; and that he will be to us a God, and we shall be to him a People; Ezek. 36. Jer. 31. Heb. 8. [Page 77] And this is a Covenant of Grace indeed, sure and certain, a Covenant truly Evangelical, and not of the same Building (as the Apostle speaks) with the Sinai Covenant, Heb. 9. 11.

The like may be as justly said in reference to the Covenant of Circumcision, as hath been now spoken in Reference to the Sinai Covenant. For though there were Promises in it that were full and glorious enough: I will be a God to thee, and to thy Seed after thee, all the Land of Canaan for an everlasting possession, and I will be their God; yet all these Promises, though good enough in themselves, being Conditional, they were therefore failable, and still liable to forfeiture, as they were contained in that Covenant: It being evident that it obliged all that were under it to perfect and universal Obedience as the Condition of obtaining the Mercies therein contained; Gal. 5. 3. From whence, as it is manifest that it could be no other than a Covenant of Works; so it is as evident, that it is not the Greatness or Good­ness of the Promises contained therein, that can excuse it from being such, if Works be the Condition of obtaining the Mercies there­in promised: For, as I have already told you, what else maketh, or wherein else con­sisteth the true Form or Nature of a Cove­nant of Works, but that Works be the Con­dition of it? This was the whole entire Na­ture of the first Covenant, which alone ren­ders the it Essentially or Specifically Different [Page 78] from the Promise of Grace, or the Gospel Covenant.

But all this, notwithstanding, you are pleased to tell me, ‘That it is so clear, that none can doubt or deny what you have asserted that understands the Nature of the two Covenants. And now, Sir, say you, what course do you take to avoid this Ar­gument? Such a one, sure, as no Man that ever I met with took before you; and that is this, You boldly cut Abraham's Cove­nant, Gen. 17. into two parts, and make the first to be the pure Covenant of Grace, which is the Promisory part, to the 9 th. verse. And the Restipulation to be as pure a Covenant of Works. What a hard shift will some Men make to maintain their O­pinions? You say truly (say you) p. 205. that at the 7 th and 8 th verses was their Re­stipulation; why then do you say p. 224. that at the 7 th verse he proceeds to speak of another Covenant than what he had been speaking of before? Does the Pro­mise and the Restipulation make two Co­venants? Or are they just and necessary parts of one and the same Covenant?’ Sir, all this I have answered before, and there have plainly shewed you, how greatly you do here abuse me, and your self too, by a gross misrepresention of my plain words and sense. The like you do in that which fol­lows. ‘You also tell us (say you) that the [Page 79] Covenant, Gen. 17. 1, 2, 3, 4. was a plain Transcript of several Free Promises of the Gospel under the Denomination of a Co­venant: but why then don't you take the Restipulation; vers. 7, 8, 9, 10. to be a part of it?’ The Nonsense of which Question, I have already also shewen you. But to this you make answer on my behalf. ‘Oh, no (say you) there is something required on Abraham's and his Posterities Part, and that spoiles all.’ Well, after you have laughed in your Sleeve at my Answer of your own forming, you thus proceed; ‘Why but, Sir, If the requiring of Circumcision al­ters the Case so greatly as to make it a quite contrary Covenant, how come it to pass, that the Covenant to Abraham himself was a pure Gospel Covenant, and yet Abraham himself was first required to be Circumci­sed? Thus runs this Passage in your Manu­script Copy,’

By way of Reply hereunto, I must tell you, Sir, That whether the requiring of Cir­cumcision alters the Case or no; I am sure you have quite altered the Scope of my Dis­course in reference hereunto: For as I do no where boldly cut the Covenant of Circumci­sion, Gen. 17. into two parts, and make the first to be a pure Covenant of Grace, which is the Promisory part to the 9 th verse, and the Restipulation to be as pure a Covenant of Works? as you would make the World [Page 80] believe I do: So yet nevertheless, I do plain­ly tell you, that though the Promse and the Restipulation mentioned vers. 7, 8, 9. make but one and the same Covenant of Circumci­sion; yet there are two Covenants mentioned in that Context. The first between God and Abraham himself, as I have already proved, vers. 2, 4. which could be made with no o­ther. The other between God and Abraham and his natural Posterity also, vers. 7, 8, 9, 10. The former I call a Covenant of Grace, or a Gospel Covenant; wherein the Believing Gentiles are concerned: For (saith God, ver. 5.) A Father of many Nations have I made thee. Or as the Apostle explains it; The Father of all them that believe; that is, both Jews and Gen­tiles. The latter I call a Covenant of Works; which was made betwixt God and Abraham, and his natural Posterity onely; who were all of them by Vertue thereof to be Circumcised, as a token of their Obedience to the whole Law; which Ordinance of Circumcision doth not concern the Gentiles at all.

So that when you ask me; How comes it to pass, that the Covenant to Abraham him­self was a pure Gospel Covenant, and yet A­braham himself was first required to be Cir­cumcised? I must tell you, That your Que­stion confounds the true state of the Question between us: For you know well enough, that I had made a Distinction of a twofold Cove­nant there mentioned; the one a Gospel, the [Page 81] other a Legal Covenant: And therefore this is no other than to turn things upside down; your general practice throughout your whole Reply. How comes it to pass, say you, that the Covenant to Abraham himself was a pure Gospel Covenant? I will tell you, Sir, how it came to pass, if you rightly understand what you should Question me about. If by the pure Gospel Covenant, you mean the Co­venant mentioned, vers. 2, 4. I Answer; It came to pass as the fruit of Gods own Free Grace and Mercy, and that both unto Abra­ham himself, and to the Believing Gentiles al­so that are concerned therein. But then, say you, How comes it to pass, that Abra­ham himself was first required to be Circum­cised, if the Covenant to Abraham himself was a pure Covenant? By way of Answer, I must tell you, that Abraham was required to be Circumcised by the Command of God, as a token of the Covenant of Works he was pleased to make with him; vers. 7, 8, 9, 10. And that even after the establishment of the formentioned Gospel Covenant; ver. 2, 4. which how harsh, or unlikely soever it may seem unto Mens Carnal Reason, as if the lat­ter must needs make void the former, as you after tell me, the Apostle will give a quite contrary Resolution of the present point; Gal. 3. 17. And this I say, that the Covenant which was confirmed before of God in Christ, the Law which was 430 years after, cannot disannul that [Page 82] it should make the Promise of none effect. The like whereunto may be as justly said in refe­rence to the Covenant of Circumcision which God made with Abraham, after the Confirmation and Establishment of the forementioned Gospel Covenant. The lat­ter doth not, cannot disannul the for­mer, that it should make the Promise o [...] none effect; since the Grace of the one pre­vailed, and did by far supersede the Force and Power of the other: For so the Apostle himself resolves the Point in reference to the Law; Rom. 5. 20. The Law entered. saith he, that Sin might abound: But where Sin hath a­bounded, Grace did much more abound.

Well, but if there is something required as a Condition in the Covenant of Circumcisi­on, which quite alters the nature of that Co­venant, from the Gospel Covenant before spoken of (so you should have stated the case, but that I can meet with nothing but crook­edness, throughout the whole of your present Reasonings) ‘Tell Printed Reply, p. 50. me then, say you, why you say, p. 223, that the Covenant made with Abraham, Gen. 12. was a Gospel Covenant; and yet there Abraham is obliged to walk before God and be Perfect? Does not that also there alter the nature of the Covenant, as well as here in the 17 th chapt?’

Reply, Something you would say though you know not what. For the whole of your [Page 83] Reply is full of Mistakes, and Mis-represen­tations. Sometimes, nay twenty, and twen­ty times over, you Mis-represent my plain Words and Sense. Here you mistake, and Mis-represent the Scripture it self; for in Ge­nesis the Twelfth, there is no such word there at all mentioned; as an Obligation upon A­braham, to walk before God and to be Perfect, as you affirm there is, nor any thing of that Nature. And there being no such thing there expressed, how can that alter the Na­ture of that Covenant from being a Gospel Covenant? Which Proof failing, you are so far to seek of a Material Advantage you thought you had against me.

Well, but somewhere 'tis, if it be not in the 12 th of Gen. 'tis in the 17 th. ‘And you also grant, say you, that the Covenant made with Abraham, Gen. 22. was a pure Gospel Govenant: Or if you deny it the Apostles proves it, Heb. 6. 13. And yet there is more appearance of Respect to A­braham's Obedience in that Covenant, tham is in submitting to Circumcision. See Gen. 22. 16, 17. By my self have I Sworn, saith the Lord: For because thou hast done this thing, &c. that in Blessing I will Bless thee, and in Maltiplying I will Multiply thee, Printed Re­ply. P. 50.’

Reply, It is Observable, that the Apostle, Heb. 6. 13. designing to give an Account and Commendation of the Faith and Obedience [Page 84] of Abraham, sutable to his then present Dis­course to the Hebrews, calls not out that Grant of the Gospel Promise; which was Preventing and Calling, Antecedent unto all his Faith and Obedience, and Communica­tive of all the Grace whereby he was ena­bled thereunto, as it is Expressed, Gen. 12. 1, 2, 3. But he takes it from that place where it was Renewed and Established unto him, after he had given the last and greatest Evi­dence of his Faith, Love, and Obedience. Gen. 22. 16, 17, 18. By my self have I Sworn, saith the Lord: For because thou hast done this thing, and hast not with-held thy Son, thine only Son, that in Blessing I will Bless thee, and in Multiplying I will Multiply thee, and in thy Seed shall all the Nations of the Earth be Blessed; which is a plain Rehearsal of those Absolute, Gospel Promises of the same Nature that had been before made unto him, Gen. 12. 2, 3. In which respect it is also further Ob­servable, that even Abraham himself, at the very time of his Call, mentioned Gen. 12. seems to have been tainted with the common Idolatry which was then in the World. This Account we have, Josh. 24. 2, 3. Your Fathers dwelt on the other side of the Flood in old time, even Terah the Father of Abraham, and the Father of Nachor, and they Served other Gods. And I took your Father Abraham from the other side of the Flood. It is true, the charge is Ex­press against Terah only; but it lying against [Page 85] their Fathers in general, on the other side of the Flood, Abraham seems to be Involved in the guilt of the same Sin, whilst he was in his Fathers House, and before his Call. Nor is there any Account given of the least Prepa­ration, or Disposition, in him unto the State and Duties, which he was afterward brought into. In this Condition God of his Sovereign Grace, first, calls him to the saving Knowledg himself, and by degrees Accumulates him with all the Favours and Priviledges after­ward Conferred on him. From hence, in the close of his whole Course, he had no Cause to glory in himself, neither before God, nor Men, Rom. 4. 2. For he had no­thing but what he Gratiously Received. Indeed there were distances of time in the Collation of several distinct Mercies and Blessings on him; and he still through the supplies of Grace which he received under every Mercy, so deported himself, as that he might not be unmeet to receive succeed­ing Mercies. Which is the constant Method of God's Communicating his Grace to Sin­ners. His first Call and Conversion of them is Absolutely Gratious. He hath no no Consideration of any thing in them, that should induce him thereunto. Neither is there any thing required unto a Condecen­cy herein. God takes Men as he pleaseth; some in Condition and Posture of Mind; some in another; some in an open course [Page 86] of Sin, and some in the execution of a parti­cular Sin, as Paul; and he indeed at the In­stant of his Call, was under the Active Pow­er of Two of the greatest hinderances unto Conversion, that the Heart of Man is Ob­noxious unto. For first, he was Zealous above measure of the Righteousness of the Law, seeking earnestly for Life and Salvati­on by it; and then he was Actually Engaged in the Prosecution of the Saints of God. Those Two Qualifications, Constant Rest­ing in Legal Righteousness; with Rage and Madness in Persecution, than which, there are not out of Hell more Adverse Principles unto it, were all the Preparations of that Apostle unto Converting Grace. But after that this Grace which in the First Discovery thereof is absolutely Free and Sovereign is received, there is an Order 'tis true, which for the most part God Observeth in the Com­munication of ensuing Graces and Priviledg­es; namely, that Faith and Obedience shall Precede the Increase and Inlargement of them. Thus it was with Abraham in the Instance before us, who received this last great signal Promise and Priviledg, Gen. 22. upon that signal Act of his Faith and Obedience in Offering up his Son upon God's Com­mand.

But yet nevertheless; In the first place 'tis Evident, that the Gospel Covenant in the First Discovery thereof, is wholly Free and [Page 87] Absolute? So it was to Abraham, Gen. 12. 2, 3. where there is no such Obligation laid upon Abraham, to walk before God and to be Perfect, as you Affirm there was; which ne­vertheless you Insinuate was the Condition or Qualification then required of him in or­der to his Participation of the Gospel Mer­cies there Promised him. If God had in­deed there told Abraham, as you suggest he did: That he would Bless him, and make him a Blessing, &c. provided he walked be­fore God and was Perfect: Then it had been a Covenant of Works as much as the Cove­nant of Circumcision was, which obliged both Him and His to do the whole Law. But as I have already told you, there is nothing of that Nature there to be found, God only tells him, Vers. 1. Get thee out of thy Country, and from thy Kindred, and from thy Father's House, unto a Land that I will shew thee; and I will make of thee a great Nation, and I will Bless thee, &c. which is far from that Per­fection, which you say God there Obliged him to. 'Tis true afterward, this charge was laid upon him. Gen. 17. 1. I am the Almighty God, walk before me and be thou Perfect. For God requireth many things of them whom he Actually takes into Covenant, and makes Partakers of the Promises and Benefits of it. Of this Nature is that whole Obedience which is prescribed unto us in the Gospel, in our walking before God in Uprightness: [Page 88] There being an Order in the things that be­long hereunto: Some Acts, Duties and Parts, of our Gracious Obedience being appointed to be Means of the further Additional Sup­plies of the Grace and Mercies of the Cove­nant. Of this Nature is that General Obli­gation here laid upon Abraham, Gen. 17. 1. Walk before me and be thou Perfect; and here­unto also appertaineth that famous Act of his Obedience mentioned Gen. 22. 16, 17. But then it follows not, that the Gospel Co­venant is a Conditional Covenant: For as it is wholly Free and Absolute in the First Dis­covery thereof; so it is as Free and Absolute still From the Foundation to the Topstone thereof, 'tis all of the same Piece. And the Reason is, because whatever Duties God re­quireth of us, in order to the Enjoyment of the full end of the Covenant in Glory; yet even those Duties or Acts of Obedience which God thus requireth of us, must be Perform­ed by us, if they be Performed aright, in and by vertue of the First Grace of the Cove­nant already received, Col. 2. 6, 7. As ye have therefore received Christ Jesus the Lord; so walk ye in him, Rooted and Built up in him, and stablished in the Faith as ye have been Taught. So likewise, Gal. 3. 2, 3. This only would I Learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the Works of the Law, or by the Hearing of Faith? Are ye so Foolish, having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made Perfect by the Flesh; which First Grace [Page 89] of the Covenant must therefore also be conti­nued and Renewed upon us Day by Day: Else we shall certainly Faint and Perish in our own Corruption at last, 2 Cor. 4. 16. Psal. 36. 10.

In this respect it is Evident, that the Gos­pel Covenant is so far from being at all Con­ditional, that it is expressed in the Nature and Form of a Promise throughout the Scripture. Thus it was to our First Parents soon after the Fall; a Promise, that the Seed of the Woman should overcome the Devil and his Seed. No Terms, no Condi­tions added, but a bare Declaration of a Way of Mercy to their Dejected, Self-con­demned, Consciences. Next when the Co­venant was Revealed to Abraham, Gen. 12. 2, 3. It is a Formal Absolute Promise, that God would Bless him and all Nations in his Seed. And ever after it is called the Promise made to Abraham, which Israel waited to see accomplished. And so the Apostle stiles it in the forementioned Heb. 6. 13. when God made Promise to Abraham, saying, Surely in Blessing I will Bless thee, &c. And according­ly the Apostle, Gal. 3. 18. affirms, that the Inheritance was given to Abraham by Promise and not by Law: For, saith he, If the Inhe­ritance be of the Law, it is no more of Promise; but God gave it to Abraham by Promise; which clearly Argues the Absoluteness of this Gos­pel Covenant? For wherein differs the Law [Page 90] from a Free Promise, but that the one is Con­ditional, the other Absolute; the one Pro­miseth Life upon Condition of Obedience, the other without Money and without Price. The like doth the same Apostle tell us, Rom. 4. 13, 14, 15, 16. For the Promise that he should be the Heir of the World, was not to Abraham, or to his Seed, through the Law, but through the Righteousness of Faith: For if they which are of the Law be Heirs, Faith is made void, and the Promise made of none Effect. And why? Be­cause the Law worketh Wrath. And how doth the Law work Wrath? Why, as it is a Con­ditional Covenant, wherein alone it is op­posed unto the Promise, which is Free and Absolute: For as the Apostle rightly adds, Where no Law is there is no Transgression; that is, where no Conditions are added, there can be no Violation, or Breach of Covenant. And consequently, It is therefore of Faith, that it might be by Grace, to the end the Promise might be sure to all the Seed; which else it could not be: For if any Conditions be added, though never so mild and gentle, we are still in ha­zard. Nay, had it been so, it would have rendred the Gospel Covenant worse then that made with Adam himself: Since we have now no strength to Obey, nor Power to ful­fil these Conditions, though in the least, or lowest degree; no not so much as to a thought. So Paul acknowledgeth of himself, and that even after his acquaintance with New Cove­nant [Page 91] Mercy, 2 Cor. 3. 5. Not, saith he, that we are sufficient of our selves to think any thing as of our selves; whereas Adam was furnished with a Capacity sufficient for the discharge of the most Perfect Obedience.

And if you say, that God requireth no­thing of us but what he giveth Strength and Grace to Perform, having Promised to put his Laws in our Hearts, &c. This doth but so much the more clearly Evince the Abso­luteness of the Gospel Covenant: Since the Gospel Promise can depend on no Condition on our part: For as I have already told you in reference to the first Discovery of New Covenant Mercy; whatever is Antecedent thereunto, being only a Work, or Act, of Corrupted Nature, can be no Condition whereon the Dispensation of Spiritual Grace is superadded. And indeed so it is also even in reference to the after Discoveries thereof: Since in us, that is, in our Flesh there dwel­leth no good thing. So Paul himself acknow­ledgeth concerning himself, even after his Conversion unto God. Rom. 7. 18. For to will, saith he, is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not. So that as it was at first with us, so it is still, further than the Free, Sovereign and Absolute, Grace of the Covenant is still set at Work for our Relief. Thus it was with Paul himself. He could find no Condition, or Pre-disposition, in himself to Plead it out with God, why the [Page 92] further Dispensations of Spiritual Grace should be afforded unto him. Our sufficiency, saith he, is not of our selves. In me, that is, in my Flesh dwelleth no good thing. How to perform that which is good I find not. The good that I would I do not, but the evil which I would not that I do; and when I would do good, evil is present with me. In respect whereof; let who will betake themselves to the Pharisees Plea, God I thank thee, I am not as other Men. For my own part, I am resolved to make use of none other but that of the poor Publican, Lord be Merciful to me a Sinner.

Upon the whole you see that the Apostle expressly Affirms, that the Inheritance was given to Abraham by Promise, not by Law. And you can Assign no other Difference be­twixt the Law and the Promise, but that the one was Conditional, the other Absolute. From whence it unavoidably follows, that the Gospel Covenant made with Abraham, was wholly Free and Absolute. So it was at first, and so it is at last, Rom. 4. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5.

But I have so far anticipated what I have to offer by way of opposition to your follow­ing Arguments concerning the conditionality of the Gospel Covenant, which I intend Anon to take distinctly to task. In the mean Season you tell me you'il trou­ble me on this Head, but with Printed Re­ply. P. 51. one Query more, and that is [Page 93] this. ‘If the four first verses of the 17 th. Gen. contain a pure Gospel Covenant, and the Restipulation in the following verses make a Covenant of Works, because it thereby becomes conditional, still crookedness.’ For is there nothing but Restipulation in the fol­lowing verses? Do not the 7 th. and 8 th. vers. contain the Promises of the Covenant of Cir­cumcision, distinct from the Restipulation, mentioned, vers. 9, 10? Well, but what then?) Then tell me, say you, if you please; ‘Whether what God granted to Abraham in the former verses, be not all nulled and made void again by their [...]estipulation?’ No, say I, if the Question be stated a right. The Gospel Covenant mentioned, ves. 2. 4, 5, 6. cannot be nulled or made void by the Covenant of Circumcision that followed after, and is accordingly mentioned, vers. 7, 8, 9. 10. And my Reason is the same the Apostle gives in Reference to the Law, Gal. 3. 17. The Covenant which was Confirmed before of God in Christ, the Law which was 430, Years after cannot Disannul that it should make the Promise of none effect. The like may be said in reference to the Covenant of Circumcision, as I have already told you. And therefore how harsh soever it may seem unto you, as you say it doth, withal telling me, that I have brought Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and all the Belie­vers of Abraham's Race, just into the same case I brought Moses and all the Israelites before, [Page 94] under two opposite Covenants, where one cut's off all that the other granted; Yet as I have already detected the vanity of this No­tion of yours, that the one of these Cove­nants cut's off all that the other granted. And as I have already also plainly and justly Re­turned the same Absurdity which without cause you charge on my Doctrin, on your own, in respect of Moses: So I may as justly, and for the same Reason, in respect of Abra­ham also.

‘But, say you, There is a stronger reason urged than the conditionality of the Cove­nant to prove it a Covenant of Works, and that is Circumcision is made the condition of Abraham's Covenant, and that's the worst of all conditions; for it obliges a Man to keep the whole Law, Gal. 5. 3. 'tis the yoke of Bondage, and to whatsoever Covenant it be so annexed, it makes it become a Bondage Legal Covenant. If we be Circumcised Christ shall proffit us nothing. Printed Reply, pag. 51.’

Reply. Sir, you seem to Express your self in this Paragraph at a scoffing rate. Circum­cision, say you, is made the Condition of Abra­ham 's Covenant, and that's the worst of all Condi­tions. But as I have already told you, how­ever you deal with me, you must withall re­member, God's truth will not be so mocked. Great use you tell me is made of those Scrip­tures by you now mentioned, in many parts [Page 95] of my Discourse; but that I am greatly mi­ [...]aken in applying those texts to the purposes [...] do, for that the Apostle all along in the Epi­ [...]tle to the Galathians, argues against the false Teachers who taught and pressed the necessi­ [...]y of Circumcision, as a bond obliging them to the strict and perfect obedience of the Law, in order to their Justification thereby. And withal you tell me of the Circumcision of Timothy, which had not been in case Circum­ [...]ision had bound Men to keep the Law for [...]ustification.

Reply. As for Paul's compliance with the [...]ews in the Circumcision of Timothy, however [...]e case stood in that respect; This is certain [...]hat the Blessed Apostle would never have ex­pressed himself with that vehemency as he doth, Gal. 5. 2, 3. For I testify again to every Man that is Circumcised, that he is a Debtour to do the whole Law. If this had been onely the [...]ense of the Jewish Teachers, or the Opinion [...]at they had concerning the nature of Cir­ [...]umcision, as you would have it. It being plain that he expresseth it as his own Sense [...]n reference to the true nature of that Cove­nant: No way contradicting theirs; which yet without doubt he would have done, had not this been the true state of the Case. From whence therefore the conclusion is evident, that it could be no other than a Covenant of Works, as that at Sinai was. You are pleased to tell me indeed, that Circumcision in its [Page 96] own nature did not oblige to the keeping] of the whole Law, but from the intention of the Agent. But the Apostle saith not so▪ This is onely your corrupt Gloss upon tha [...] Text. The Apostle tells us expressly. If y [...] be Circumcised, you are Debtours to do the whol [...] Law. Plainly shewing that let Men desig [...] what they will, this is the true nature of th [...] thing in it self. Had Paul expressed himsel [...] as you do, the Case had been clear on your part; but for you to impose your Conceits▪ as of equal validity with Scripture Dictates 'tis not to be endured. If the Work-man' [...] hand were his Rule, 'tis certain he could never Erre in Working. And if your Glosse [...] were as Authentick as the Text, you coul [...] never Erre in the Interpretation: But 'ti [...] well we have a more sure word of Prophesy to Rely upon than your bare Ipse dixits, o [...] Arbitrary Dictates.

I now come to your fourth and last Argu­ment, whereby you pretend to prove that the Covenant of Circumcision, could be no Co­venant of Works, which I find thus formed. Printed Reply, pag. 55.

Argum. 4. That which teacheth Man the corruption of his nature by Sin, and the mor­tification of Sin by the Spirit of Christ, can­not be a condition of the Covenant of Works▪ But so did Circumcision that in the direct and Primary end of it. Ergo.

Reply. By way of Answer hereunto, I shall [Page 97] need onely to tell you, that you must first prove the Law, or Sinai Covenant, to be no Covenant of Works, but a Gospel Covenant, before you can prove the Covenant of Cir­cumcision to be such, by this Argument: Since there were many things belonging to the Law, as the Passeover, and several other Sa­crifices, wherewith that Covenant was dedi­cated, besides many other Types, which were annexed, as Appendages unto the Legal Ad­ministration, under which were vailed many Spiritual Mysteries, relating to Christ the true and onely Sacrifice, as also concerning the Mortification of Sin by the Grace and Spi­rit of Christ; Which yet do not therefore prove it to be a Gospel Covenant, as hath been already declared and made Evident in my foregoing Discourse upon that Subject; which when I see Substantially refuted, I will then grant with you that the present Argu­ment is convincing to the end for which it is Designed.

SECT. IV.

I Shall in the next place therefore proceed unto the third Point; and that is concern­ing the Conditionality of the New Covenant. In reference whereunto that Notion of yours, [Page 98] that there is in it something as an Act required of us in point of Duty, Printed Reply. P. 61. which is Antecedent to the Benefit of the Promese: I have already Examined and Discussed in my foregoing Discourse, which needs not here to be repeated. Your first Argument for the proof whereof runs thus; Printed Reply, p. 65.

Argum. 1. If we cannot be Justified or Sa­ved till we believe; then Faith is the Condi­tion on which these consequent Benefits are suspended: But we cannot be Justified or Sa­ved till we believe, Ergo.

Reply. Before I give a direct Answer to the present Argument, there are some things ne­cessary to be Premised in order thereunto.

In the first place then; as to what concerns the Quality of the New Covenant, whereof we are now to treat, whether it is wholly Free and Absolute or Conditional? It ought to be duely observed, that in the Account or Description that is given us thereof, both by Jeremy, and the Author to the Hebrews, Jer. 31. Heb. 8. it is too evident to be justly deny'd, but that the whole of the New Co­venant is there expressed: For if it were o­therwise, it could not be proved thence, that this Covenat was more excellent than the former; especially as to Security that the Co­venant Relation between God and that People should not be broken or disannulled: For this is the principal thing which the Apostle de­signs [Page 99] to prove, Heb. 8. where the New Cove­nant is for this very purpose industriously and punctually recited and compared with the Old. The want of a due observation whereof hath led many out of the way in their Exposition of it. If therefore this be not an entire Description of the Covenant, there might yet be something reserved, essentially belonging thereunto, which might frustrate the End: For some such Conditions might yet be required in it, as we are not able to ob­serve; or could have no security that we should abide in the observation of them, and thereon this Covenant might be frustrated of its End as well as the former, which is directly contrary unto God's Declaration of his Design in it.

Secondly, It is evident, that there can be no Codition previously required unto our en­tring into our participation of the Benefits of this Covenant, Antecedent unto the making of it with us: For none think there can be any such with respect unto its Original Constituti­on, nor can there be so, in respect of its ma­king with us: For first, this would render this Covenant Inferiour in a way of Grace unto that which God made with the People at Sinai: For he declares, that there was not any thing in them that moved him either to make that Covenant, or to take them into it with himself. Every where he asserts this to be an Act of his meer Grace and Favour: [Page 100] Yea, he frequently declares, that he took them into that Covenant not onely without Respect unto any thing of good in them; but although they were evil and stubborn. See Deut. 7. 7, 8. chap. 9. 4, 5. Secondly, It is contrary unto the Nature, Ends, and Ex­press Properties of this New Covenant; for there is nothing that can be thought or sup­posed to be such a Condition, but it is com­prehended in the Promise of the Covenant it self: For all that God requireth in us is pro­posed as that which himself will effect by vertue of this Covenant.

Thirdly, Though there is nothing that can be thought or supposed to be such a Con­dition of the Covenant, but it is compre­hended in the Promise of the Covenant it self; yet it is certain, that in the outward Dispensation thereof, wherein the Grace and Mercy of it is proposed unto us, many things are required of us in order unto a Participa­tion or Enjoyment of the full End of the Covenant in Glory: For God hath ordained, that the full extent of that Grace and Mercy that is prepared in it, shall be communicated unto us ordinarily in the use of outward means, wherewith a Compliance is required of us in a way of Duty. To this end hath he appointed all the Ordinances of the Gos­pel, his Word and positive Institutions, with all those Duties publick and private, which are needful to render them effectual to us: For [Page 101] he expects the Service of the Rational Facul­ties of our Natures, that he may be glorified in them and by them; which yet cannot be properly called Conditions of the Covenant. For Frst, God doth work the Grace of the Covenant, and communicate the Mercy of it antecedently unto all Ability for the perfor­mance of any such Duty. Secondly, A­mongst those who are equally diligent in the performance of the Duties intended, he makes a Discrimination, preferring one before ano­ther. Many are called, but few are chosen. And what hath any Man that he hath not re­ceived? Thirdly, He actually takes some in­to the Grace of the Covenant whilst they are engaged in an opposition unto the outward dispensation of it. An Example of this Grace he gave in Paul. From all which it is evident, that the principal Grace of the Covenant, or God's putting his Laws in our Hearts, which is influential to all the rest can depend on no condition on our Part.

These things then being thus premised; the Answer which I shall return unto the fore­mentioned Argument is this;

First, That it is evident that unto a full and compleat enjoyment of all the Promises of the Covenant, Faith on our part, from which Evangelical Repentance is inseparable, is required: But then it must withal be con­sidered, that these also are wrought in us, given to us, and bestowed upon us, by vertue [Page 102] of that Promise and Grace of the Covenant, that depends on no Condition in us, which renders it wholly free and absolute from the Foundation to the Topstone thereof. Where­as therefore you are pleased to tell me, That there is something as an Act required of us in point of Duty, which is Antecedent to the Benefit of the Promise. If you intend here­by, that Faith, from which Evangelical Re­pentance and Good Works are inseparable, is such a Condition of the Covenant, as to be by us performed Antecedently unto the parti­cipation of any Grace, Mercy, or Benefit of it, as your words imply (for you admit of no Benefit from the Covenant till this be per­formed.) It is most untrue, and as I have al­ready told you, 'tis not onely contrary to the express Testimonies of Scripture, but de­structive of the Nature of the Covenant it self: For if so, Men must do all those things before they receive the Remission of Sins: Yea, while they are as yet dead in Trespasses and Sins. Yea then must they do them whilst they are under the Law, and the Curse of it: For so are all Men whose Sins are not pardon­ed. But this is to make Obedience unto the Law, and that to be performed by Men whilst under the Curse of it to be a Conditi­on of Gospel Mercy, which is to overthrow both the Law and the Gospel.

‘How notoriously false and absurd is that Doctrin which asserteth the possibility of [Page 103] Believing without the efficacy of Supernatu­ral Grace?’ (saith Mr. Flavell himself, p. 395. of his forementioned Book, entituled, The me­thod of Grace) ‘the desire of Self-sufficiency, saith he, was the ruin of Aadam, and the con­ceit of Self-sufficiency is the ruin of multi­tudes of his Posterity. This Doctrin, saith he, is not only contradictory to the current stream of Scripture, Phil. 2. 13. 1 Jo. 1. 13. with many other Scriptures; but it is also con­tradictory to the common Sense and Experi­ence of Believers; yet, saith he, the Pride of Nature will strive to maintain, what Scrip­ture and Experience plainly contradict and overthrow.’

I shall need to make no other Descant up­on these words of his, but this. If that Do­ctrin is notoriously false and absurd which asserteth the possibility of Believing without the efficacy of Supernatural Grace: Then so is that Doctrin which asserteth, that Faith is required of us in point of Duty, antece­dent to the benefit of the Promise.

Secondly, If Jesus Christ fulfilled the Law, and purchased Heaven and Happiness for Men (as all true Protestants hitherto have taught) then nothing can remain but to declare this to them, to incline them to believe and accept it; and to prescribe in what way, and by what means they shall finally come to in­herit Eternal Life: To affirm therefore, that Faith and Repentance are the Conditions of [Page 104] the New Covenant, required of us in point of Duty antecedent to any Benefit of the Pro­mise, doth necessarily suppose, that Christ hath not done all for us, nor purchased a right to Life for any, but onely made way, that they may have it upon certain terms; or as some say, He hath merited that we might me­rit. But the Conditions of the Covenant are not to be performed by the Head and Members both. The Scriptures do assure us, That when the fulness of time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a Woman, made under the Law, to redeem them that were under the Law, that we might re­ceive the Adoption of Sons; Gal. 4. 4. Christ therefore having in our stead performed the Conditions of Life, there remains nothing but a Promise, and the Obedience of Children, as the Fruit and Effect thereof to them that be­lieve in him; together with means of obtain­ing the full possession which here we want.

Well, but as under the Old Covenant Man was bid to do this and live: So under this New Covenant he is commanded to Believe and live. And as Death was threatened to the failure of Obedience to the Law: So it is now threatened to the want of Faith under the Gospel: Faith being the Condition on which the consequent Benefits of Life and Salvation are suspended; Mar. 16. 15, 16. Go preach the Gospel. He that believeth and is Baptized, shall be saved. He that believeth not shall be damned. Jo. 3. 36. He that believeth on the Son hath [Page 105] everlasting Life, and he that believeth not shall not see Life. Where Faith seemeth to be put into the room of perfect Obedience, and therfore to be as proper a Condition of Life as that was. So Rom. 10. 9. That if thou shalt consess with thy Mouth, and believe in thine Heart, thou shalt be saved. Mat. 18. 3. Except ye be converted and become as little Children, ye shall not enter into the Kingdom of Heaven Mar. 11. 26. But if ye forgive not, neither will your Heavenly Father forgive you. With multitudes more, saith Mr. Flavell, of such kind of Expres­sions which are all Conditional Particles, in­serted into the Grants of Benefits; it being not possible to put words into a frame more lively expressive of a Condition than these are.

Reply. First, whereas it is supposed, that Faith under the Gospel seemeth to be put in­to the room of Perfect Obedience unto the Law, and therefore to be as proper a Condi­tion of Life as that was: This cannot be, for as much as it is Christ's Perfect Obedience onely, which is put into the room of ours to justify and save us, as our own should have done, had we been able to perform it. And so his Sufferings take away the Curse which our Disobedience brought upon us.

Secondly, It must also be observed, that God having promised Salvation upon the ac­count of his Sons satisfaction to all that come to him or believe in him; Faith is therefore no other than a Coming, Believing, or [Page 106] Trusting in this Promise of God, and so in the Righteousness of Christ exhibited in the Promise, whereby it is applied unto us. Where­fore Faith is not properly put into the room of Perfect Obedience, nor doth it what Per­fect Obedience was to do, which was to be the Condition of Life: For though that was to be our Righteousness under the Law; yet it is evident, that Faith on the other hand, is appointed onely as an Instrument to receive and apply the Righteousness of Christ, which is the alone matter of our Justification before God. For indeed, Faith it self is not our Righteousness, as it would be, if it were as you affirm it is, the Condition of the New Covenant; and that as an Act or Work re­quired of us in point of Duty, antecedent to the Benefit of the Promise: For that would be to make an Act or Work of our own to be the formal matter of our Justification before God; but this it is not, it being only design­ed as an Instrument to receive and apply the Righteousness of another: Even that wrought in the person of Christ for us, which is whol­ly distinct from our own, or any thing wrought in us, or done by us; Phil. 3. 9. Tit. 3. 5.

You tell us indeed in your forementioned Book, Entitled, The Method of Grace, P. 133, 134. That though Faith is a Condition of the Covenant, yet you cannot allow, that it Justifies as a Condition. And why? Be­cause, [Page 107] (as you there also tell us,) you can­not see according to this Opinion any Rea­son, why Repentance may not as properly be said to Justifie as well as Faith: For, (say you there,) Repentance is a Condition of the New Covenant as much as Faith: And, (say you) If Faith justify as a Condition, then not onely Repentance, but every other Grace, that is a Condition, must justify as well as Faith. And, say I, 'tis very true. If Faith is a Condition of the New Covenant, Repen­tance is a Condition as much as that, and so are all other Graces, Conditions of the New Covenant, as well as Faith and Repentance. This cannot be avoided; And if all these are the Conditions of the New Covenant, why they should not justify as Conditions, I see not, nor I think you, nor any Man else: For you give no other Reason why you cannot allow that Faith justifies as a Condition, but that this will necessarily bring in Repentance and all other Graces to justify as Conditions also, as well as Faith: as indeed it doth; Since whatsoever is the Condition of the New Covenant, must needs be the Condition of our Justification: For this is too evident to be ju­stly denied, but that as Perfect Obedience under the Law, being the Condition of that Covenant, was to have been the Condition of our justification before God, had we been able to Perform it: So, after this Reckoning, it is noless evident, in reference to Faith, Re­pentance, [Page 108] and good Works under the Gospel also. If therefore these must be ackdowledged to be the Conditions of the New Covenant, the consequence is unavoidable that they are also the Conditions, nay the very matter and ground of our acceptation before God. And so at last in stead of making the Gospel Cove­nant, to be a Covenant of Faith, free and ab­solute, we shall make it a plain Covenant of Works: For what else maketh, or wherein else consisteth the true Form or Nature of a a Covenant of Works, but that Works, whe­ther perfect or imperfect, be the Condition of it? This being that alone that renders it essen­tially different from the Promise of Grace, or the Gospel Covenant.

Thirdly, It is true that Believing is Obe­dience to the Command of Believing, that is, it is the Act or thing Commanded, and that in order to Salvation. He that Believeth, shall be saved. He that Believeth not, shall be Damned. He that Believeth on the Son, hath Life. He that Believeth not, shall not see Life. But then it fol­lows not that it is the Condition of the new Covenant. A Physitian bids his Patient to trust himself with him, and he will Cure him. The Patient by trusting in him doth what is Required; yet this is not the condition of his Cure, but the means of accepting and using the Physitians Care and kindness. We bid a poor Man hold forth his hand, and we will give him an Alms. His holding out the hand [Page 109] is a Means to receive the Alms, and so re­quired by us, not a Condition of our giving it, though in so doing he doth what we bid him. If one should say to a hungry Man, there is Meat, which shall be yours to live by it, if you will eat it and digest it, else not. Who will call this a Condition? Since it is the very Partaking of the Meat it self, whereby a Man makes it his own. If a Man redeem a Captive from Slavery, and lays down the Price, will any Man call his bare acceptance of Liberty, the Condition of his Ransom? True it is, that if he do not accept thereof he will never be freed; But this is not therefore the Condition of his Ransom; for that was performed by another hand. So for a Father to say to one that he bestows his Daughter upon in Mar­riage. Lo she is your Wife, take her and Marry her. This is not a Condition of her being his Wife, as external to it, but it is that very intrinsecal and essential Act whereby she becomes his, and he her Husband. Additio­nal unto all which, it ought to be duely ob­served, that in all those foregoing instances, there is to be supposed a Power, or capacity in the Poor, Sick, or Hungry Man, to receive the Alms, make use of the Food, or accept of the Physitians kindness, and so in the rest: But so there is not in us to believe, being by nature Dead in Trespasses and in Sins; and therefore utterly uncapeable to perform this supposed Condition, unless the Power and [Page 110] and Vertue of the New Covenant, Mercy be first set at Work to accomplish it in us. From whence it is manifest that the New Covenant is wholly free and absolute; Since Faith it self is the Fruit, and therefore cannot be the Con­dition thereof.

As for that Scripture, Mark. 11. 26. But if ye for give not Men their Trespasses against you, neither will your Heavenly Father for­give you with many other Scriptures that seem to require Repentance and good Works, as the Conditions of Life and Salvation.

To this I Answer, That it is true, that the immediate causes of Salvation, are those things which do prepare and dispose for the Possession of Heaven, and the state of Happy­ness, which is Sanctification: For this is that that makes us meet to be Partarkers of the Inhe­ritance of the Saints in Light. And without Ho­lyness no Man shall see God. But then it doth not therefore follow that the New Covenant is a Conditional Covenant. It is the Law of the Land, and the Fathers love that Entitles an Heir to the Inheritance, Consequently these are not the Prime, but remote Causes of his actual enjoying the inheritance, when he co­mes of Age: But the Immediate Causes of his Possession, are his being of full Age, and being of capacity to use it these giving Jus in Re; the other Jus ad Rem. Doth it therefore follow that the full Age and capacity of the Heir, are Causes or Antecedent Conditions of his Title [Page 111] to the Estate? Without these, 'tis true, if he live not, or lack understanding, he cannot In­herit the Estate, or come to the full enjoy­ment thereof, though never so Absolutely Purchased: But none will say they are there­fore Antecedent Conditions of his Title, or Interest therein; it being plain that Life and Discretion are not Conditions of the Purchase, but Qualifications of the Subject necessary to enjoy it. Sir, you cannot be ignorant of Bernard's famous speech concerning good Works. Sunt via Regni non Causa Regnandi. They are the way to the Kingdom, not the Cause of Reigning. I know it is usual with many besides your self to call them Conditions of Life: But Dr. Ames gives a Distinction, which might fairly end all this Controversy. To require Conditions, saith he, as the Cau­ses of our Right to Life is proper to the Law: But to require them as Concomitants or Ef­fects of what God hath Promised, and the Actual Bestowing it, is agreable to the most mild Kingdom of Grace.

If it be said God cannot forgive Sin, till Man resolves to leave it, and so Repentance must be before forgiveness.

I Answer, this is untrue, as is evident in Infants, And as for the Adult; It is true God cannot Pardon Sin, and suffer Men to go on in Sin; but it is sufficient that he Pardoneth, and together with Forgiveness, he giveth a Heart to Repent and obey. And Faith it self [Page 112] which apprehendeth Pardon, doth implicite­ly contain Repentance and all other Graces: Forasmuch as unfeigned flying to and Trusting in the Mercy of God for Pardon and Eternal Life, is a turning of the Heart to God and Spiritual things, and doth naturally dispose the Heart to use all the Means which God hath Prescribed for the Obtaining of his King­dom.

The same Answer is to be given to those Scriptures that require Men to Forgive their Enemies, and if they do not Forgive, neither shall they be Forgiven. For,

First, This doth at the most but shew that Christians must be Merciful, and disposed to Forgive, as they expect Mercy and Forgive­ness from God: But it proveth not that a Man is not Forgiven, or Justified, till he doth actually Forgive all Enemies, at least in Pur­pose, much-less that it is a Condition of his being Reconciled to God. For,

Secondly, The Scripture supposeth a Man to be first Forgiven, and maketh that an Ar­gument to incline him to Forgive others, Eph. 4. 32. Forgive one another, even as God for Christ's sake forgave you. And this is the Scope of that Parable, Mat. 18. 23, 24 &c. The Servant is himself first Forgiven; and therefore it was Judged meet that he should Forgive his Fel­low Servant, vers. 32, 33.

Thus much by way of Answer to your first Argument whereby you pretend to have [Page 113] proved the Conditionality of the New Cove­nant, your second follows;

Argum. 2. If God's Covenant with Abraham, Gen. 12. 2, 3. and that Gen. 17. 2, 3. were, as you say, pure Gospel Covenants of Grace, and yet in both some things are required as Duties on Abraham's part to make him Parta­ker of the Benefits of the Promises; then the Covenant of Grace is not Absolute but Condi­tional: But so it was in both these Cove­nants, Ergo,

Reply. This Argument I have already dis­patcht in my Answer to your third Argument upon the former Head in reference to the Co­venant of Circumcision: And therefore I need say nothing to it here. I shall accor­dingly proceed to your third Argument, whereby you labour to prove the Conditiona­lity of the new Covenant, which runs thus. Printed Reply, pag. 69.

Argum. 3. If all the Promises of the Gospel be Absolute and Unconditional, requiring no Restipulation from Man, then they cannot properly and truly belong to the New Cove­nant. But they do properly and truly belong to the New Covenant; Therefore they are not all Absolute and Unconditional.

Reply. That the New Covenant is wholly Free and Absolute, I have already Proved by way of Answer to your foregoing Argument; there being noCondition at all Annexed there­unto, neither in Jeremy; nor in the Apostles [Page 114] Recital thereof, Heb. 8. In respect whereof your present Argument might more justly and truly have been thus formed.

If all the Promises of the Gospel do pro­perly and truly belong to the New Covenant, then they must needs be absolute and uncon­ditional, as that was. But they properly and truly belong to the New Covenant; therefore they are all absolute and unconditional as that was.

‘The sequel of the Major, say you, is on­ly liable to doubt or denial; namely, That the absoluteness of all the Promises of the New Testament, cuts off their relation to a Covenant.’ You should have said, That the Absoluteness of all the Promises of the Gospel cuts off their relation to the New Co­venant; according to the scope of your fore­mentioned Argument, if you had kept close to that. And then you must have examined the New Covenant, and have compared the Promises of the Gospel therewith: But you knew well enough, that there are no Condi­tions annexed to the New Covenant, whe­ther in Jer. 31. or in Heb. 8. the considerati­on whereof, it may be, startled you off, (when you came to prove the Sequel of your Major) from that expression of the New Co­venant, to their relation to a Covenant in general; ‘That the absoluteness of all the Promises in the New Testament cuts off their relation to a Covenant.’ (This, by the [Page 115] way, looks with no good Countenance, and [...]s indeed no other than a plain Shuffle: But to proceed) ‘And that it doth so, say you, no Man can deny that understands the dif­ference betwixt a Covenant and an Abso­lute Promise. A Covenant is a mutual Compact, or Agreement, betwixt Parties, in which they bind each other to the per­formance of what they Respectively pro­mise: So that there can be no proper Co­venant where there is not a Restipulation, or Re-obligation on one part, as well as a Promise on the other: But an absolute Promise binds onely one Party, and leaves the other wholly free, and un-obliged to any thing, in order to the enjoyment of the Good promised. So then, if all the New Testament Promises be Unconditional, and Absolute, they are not part of a Covenant, nor must that word be applied to them, they are Absolvte Promises, binding no Man to whom they are made, to any Du­ty, in order to the enjoyment of the Mer­cies promised: But those Persons that are under these Absolute Promises, must and shall enjoy the Mercies of Pardon and Sal­vation, whether they Repent, or Repent not; Believe, or Believe not; Obey, or Obey not.’

Reply. You might have added; Although God hath therein promised, to put his Laws in our Hearts, and his Fear in our inward [Page 116] parts; and, that as he will not depart from us; So neither shall we depart from him. But that this would have marred and over­thrown all your foregoing Discourse: For these are the Promises of the New Covenant, as well as the Mercies of Pardon and Salvation. Nay, therefore God hath promised to put his Laws in our Hearts, and to write them in our Minds; because he will freely pardon our Sins. Now if our Sins are freely pardoned; and if in the self same Covenant, God hath also freely promised to write his Laws in our Minds, and put them into our Hearts, that we might thereby be made meet for himself, and the enjoment of himself in Glory: Where lies the ground of your Inference; thrt those persons that are under those abso­lute Promises, must and shall enjoy the Mer­cies of Pardon and Salvation, whether they Repent, or Repent not; Believe, or Believe not; Obey, or Obey not? May you take to your self a liberty, think you, to say what you please, right or wrong, so you may ren­der odious the Principles of such a Diffent from you? Will you make the Promises of God to be of none effect? Hath he spoken it, and will he not peaform it? Or will he alter the thing that is gone out of his Lips, that he will write his Laws in the Hearts of those whose Sins he pardoneth?

[Page 117] But, say you, the Absolute­ness of the Promises cuts off Printed Reply. P. 69, 70. their relation to a Covenant. And this no Man can deny that understands the difference betwixt a Covenant and an Ab­solute Promise.

Reply. Sir, to this Opinion of yours, I shall only oppose the Judgment of that Accute and Learned Divine, whom I know you greatly Respect and Reverence, the late worthy Dr. Owen, in his Third Volume upon the Epistle to the Hebrews, p. 267, 268. The words he insisteth on, are these, Heb. 8. 10. For this is the Covenant that I will make with the House of Israel after those days, saith the Lord, I will give my Laws into their Mind, and write them upon their Hearts. And I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a People. The thing pro­mised in the Prophet, saith the Dr. is a Co­venant.—We render the words [...] and [...], in this place by a Covenant; though afterward the same word is transla­ted by a Testament. A Covenant properly, is a Compact or Agreement on certain terms mutually stipulated by two or more Parties. As Promises are the Foundation and Rise of it, as it is between God and Man; so it com­priseth also Precepts, or Laws of Obedience, which are prescribed unto Man on his part to be observed. But in the Description of the Covenant here annexed, there is no mention of any Condition on the part of Man, or a­ny [Page 118] terms of Obedience which are prescribed unto him; but the whole consists in free gra­tuitous Promises, as we shall see in the Ex­plication of it.

First, The Word Berith used by the Pro­phet, doth not only signifie a Covenant, or Compact, properly so called; but a Free, Gratuitous Promise also: Yea sometimes it is used for such a Free Purpose of God with respect unto other things, which in their own Nature are uncapable of being obliged by any Moral Condition. Such is God's Co­venant with Day and Night, Jer. 33. 20, 25. And so he says, that he made his Covenant not to Destroy the World by Water any more, with every living Creature, Gen. 9. 10, 11. Nothing therefore can be Argued for the Necessity of Conditions to belong unto this Covenant from the Name or Term whereby it is expressed in the Prophet. A Covenant properly is [...]. But there is no Word in the whole Hebrew Language of that Precise Signification.

The making of this Covenant is declared by [...]. But yet neither doth this require a mutual stipulation, upon Terms and Con­ditions, prescribed unto an entrance into Co­venant: For it refers unto the Sacrifices wherewith Covenants were confirmed; and it is applied unto a meer Gratuitous Promise. Gen. 15. 18. In that Day did God make a Cove­nant with Abraham, saying, unto thy Seed will [Page 119] I give this Land. As unto the Word [...], it signifies a Covenant improperly. Proper­ly it is a Testamentary Disposition; and this may be without any Conditions on the part of them unto whom any thing is Bequeathed. Thus far the Doctor.

‘Now, say you, to what Licentiousness this Doctrin leads Men, is Obvious to eve­ry Eye, yet this Absoluteness of the Cove­nant, as you improperly call it, is by you Asserted, &c.’

In reference whereunto, I shall only mind you of one Passage more of the same Worthy Person, in his forementioned Discourse upon the Hebrews, P. 15. It cannot be denied, saith he, but that some Men may, and it is justly to be feared, that some Men do abuse the Doctrin of the Gospel, to Countenance themselves in a vain expectation of Mercy and Pardon, whilst they willingly live in a course of Sin: But as this in their manage­ment is the principal means of their Ruin: So in the Righteous Judgment of God, it will be the greatest Aggravation of their Condemnation. And whereas some have charged the Preachers of Gospel Grace, as those who thereby give Countenance unto this Presumption: It is an Accusation that hath more of the Hatred of Grace in it, than of the Love of Holiness: For none do or can press the Relinquishment of Sin, and Re­pentance of it, upon such Assured Grounds, [Page 120] and with such Cogent Arguments, as those by whom the Grace of Jesus Christ in the Gos­pel is fully opened and declared.

I shall need to say no more upon this Head, and shall therefore proceed to your Fourth Argument, which I find thus stated,

Argum. 4. If all the Promises of the New Covenant be Absolute and Unconditional, having no respct nor relation to any Grace wrought in us, nor Duty done by us; then the Trial of our Interest in Christ by Marks and Signs of Grace is not our Duty, nor can we take Comfort in Sanctification, as an Evi­dence of Justification. But it is a Christian's Duty to try his Interest in Christ by Marks and Signs, and he may take Comfort in Sanctification, as an Evidence of Justificati­on. Ergo,

Reply, After this rate you may Prove Quid­libet a Quolibet: For doth it 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 doth it follow, that because we may just­ly take comfort in Sanctification, as an Evi­dence of Justification, that therefore the New Covenant is Conditional: Pray Sir, make it out, For as yet you have not, how this con­clusion is naturally deducible from such Pre­mises? May not the Grace of God in the New Covenant be wholly Free and Absolute, as it is from the very Foundation to the Top­stone [Page 121] thereof, when yet we may justly take comfort in those Gracious Operations of the Spirit in us, which are brought forth as the Fruit of the Divine Grace so revealed unto us, and that as an Evidence of our Interest in him?

As for the Antinomian Slurs which upon this occasion you are pleased so liberally to reflect upon me, in the following part of your Discourse upon this Head, I must tell you, that I know none that deserve that Cha­racter, but such as refuse to come under the sweet and easie Yoak of Christ; renouncing their Duty to God in Obedience to Christ's Authority. But as for such as profess, that they are not without Law to God, but under the Law to Christ, as Paul did, and accordingly make it their business to walk Holily and Unblameably in Obedience to all God's Commands, it must needs proceed from Sa­tan's Influence, for any of their Brethren to Slur them as Antinomians. But the comfort is, it is not their Lot alone: The Blessed A­postle Paul himself was so stigmatized, by those he had then to do with, as evidently ap­pears from Rom. 3. 8, 31. & 6. 1, 2. And if he was so reproached, no wonder if the Fol­lowers of him, and of Christ, in respect of that truly Evangelical Doctrin by them Preached, be so served also.

I come now to your Fifth and Last Argu­ment, whereby you pretend to prove the [Page 122] Conditionality of the New Covenant, which I find thus formed, Printed Reply, P. 78.

Arg. 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, explicitly to the Terms of this Covenant. But it is Man's Duty, in entring Covenant with God, to de­liberate the Terms, and count the Cost, Luke 14. 26, to 34. and explicitly to give his Consent thereto, either by Word, or Wri­ting. Ergo,

Reply, Sir, By way of Answer hereunto, I must tell you, that the Scriptures do make a plain distinction betwixt that New and Ever­lasting Covenant which God hath been pleas­ed to make with Sinners in Jesus Christ, whereof we have been all this while dis­coursing, which is the sole Foundation of all our Hopes and Blessedness; and the return of that sincere and dutiful Obedience, which he requireth of us, by way of Answer there­unto. 'Tis true, there are many things which though Promised in the Covenant, and wrought in us by the Grace of God, are yet Duties Indispensibly required of us, in order to the Participation or Enjoyment of the full end of the Covenant in Glory. And in respect hereof we are indeed to deliberate [Page 123] the Terms, to sit down and count the Cost, and to give up our selves solemnly to him with sincere Resolutions and Promises of all Faithful Obedience, to the end of our Lives. For hereunto the Scriptures by you alledged, and many more, do oblige us. But then I thought you had understood, that there is a vast difference betwixt God's Covenant with us, and our Covenant with God: If not, the Scriptures will inform you.

And in this respect, in the first place, I beseech you to cast your Eye upon what God speaks to Israel of old, Ezek. 16. 59, 60, 61. For thus saith the Lord God, I will even deal with thee as thou hast done, which hast despised the Oath in breaking the Covenant, (which must of necessity be understood of the Sinai Cove­nant,) nevertheless, I will remember my Cove­nant with thee in the Days of thy Youth. And I will Establish unto thee an Everlasting Covenant. Then shalt thou remember thy ways, and be a­shamed, when thou shalt receive thy Sisters, thine Elder, and thy Younger, and I will give them un­to thee for Daughters; but not by thy Covenant. And I will Establish my Covenant with thee, and thou shalt know that I am the Lord. Here you see is a plain notice given us of a twofold Co­venant betwixt God and them; the one pro­perly theirs, the other Gods; the one a Co­venant that might be broken, as it was, the other that which should endure for ever; the one respecting their Duty to God, the other [Page 124] God's Promise to them. And this is the Co­venant, saith God, that I will Establish.

If this do not sufficiently Instruct you in this Important Point, I beseech you look in­to the 89 Psalm, and there you shall find it fully cleared up, Vers. 30. If his Children for­sake my Law, and walk not in my Judgments; if they break my Statutes, and keep not my com­mandments; then will I visit their Transgression with the Rod, and their Iniquity with Stripes: Nevertheless my Loving Kindness will I not utterly take from him; nor suffer my Faithfulness to fail. My Covenant will I not break, nor alter the thing that is gone out of my Lips. Where we find a plain distinction made betwixt God's Covenant with them, and their Duty to God. My Covenant, saith God, will I not break, though you fail in your Duty to me.

Alas Sir! Is it not Obvious to our most constant Experience, that both you and I, and all of us, (the more is our Misery,) do every Day more or less, break our own Vows, Covenants, and Resolutions, by our Daily Transgressions? And what shall re­lieve us under the guilt of such Daily Cove­nant Breaches? But that which the Lord himself directs us to. Though it be thus and thus with you, saith he, though you for­sake my Law, and walk not in my Judg­ments, though you break my Statutes, and keep not my Commandments; yet My Co­venant will I not break, nor alter the thing that is [Page 125] gone out of my Lips. It shall be Established for ever as the Moon, and as a Faithful Witness in Heaven.

And indeed this was that alone, which the Sweet Singer of Israel himself found Re­lief in at last, when he drew near unto his last Moments. We know, that in many places of the Psalms, he doth frequently Ap­peal unto God concerning his Integrity, and the cleanness of his Heart and Hands; his Vows, Resolutions, and Performances: But what were the last Words of the Son of Jesse? Or what does he take Comfort in, when he comes to the winding up of his Days? Doth he insist upon his own Covenant Engage­ments, and the Faithfulness of their Perfor­mance? Not at all. What then? Although my House be not so with God; yet he hath made with me an Everlasting Covenant, ordered in all things, and sure: For this is all my Salvation, and all my Desire, although he make it not to grow, 2 Sam. 23. 5.

Sir, I must tell you, that the want of a due Observation of this plain Scripture di­stinction betwixt God's Free and Absolute Covenant which he hath been pleased to make with Sinners in Jesus Christ, which as I have told you, is the Foundation of all our Blessedness. And our Covenants with God, by way of return thereunto; is the true rea­son of all your Mistakes about the true Nature of the Gospel Covenant, while you Jumble [Page 126] and confound together, that which the Scrip­tures do so plainly distinguish. 'Tis true, there are many things to be Observed on our part, and many Duties to be Performed: But we cannot say, that our Hearts, or Houses, our Lives, or Ways, are so with God as they ought to have been. Were there not therefore a Free, Absolute, and Ever­lasting Covenant that God hath made with us in Jesus Christ; a well ordered, sure, and unchangeable Covenant, which cannot be broken, wherein is contained all our Salvati­on, our Hopes, and Expectations, in refe­rence to all our own Covenants, would soon fail us, and expose us to the greatest of Dis­appointments at last.

Thus I have at length gone through your Discourse concerning the Covenants. And in particular, I have shewn you, that the Co­venant of Circumcision which God made with Abraham, Gen. 17. 7. which you tell me, is the Foundation on which our Divines have built the Right of Infant's Baptism; was so far from being a Gospel Covenant, reaching Gentile Believers, and their Seed, that it could be no other than a Covenant of Works, as that at Sinai was, which was built thereon; and consequently both now Repealed. From hence therefore, as I have already told you, it unavoidably follows, that all the Arguments for the Support of In­fant's Church-Membership, and Baptism, [Page 127] under the Gospel, which are founded upon the like Priviledges granted unto the Natural Posterity of Abraham under the former Ad­ministration, do of themselves fall to the ground, forasmuch as the Covenants them­selves which those Priviledges were then Bottomed on, are now Repealed. Neither is there any room left for any other Argu­ment to infer the Baptism of Infants, the Obligation upon Believers concerning the Gospel Sign, being wholly left unto the time of its Institution, which Determines both the Duties and Subjects thereof, to the Exclusion of Infants; as I have already Proved. Your Foundation therefore being destroyed, you might have saved your labour, in the follow­ing Part of your Present Reply; as I shall do mine by way of Return thereunto, except further occasion be offered; and then the Impertinency, as well as Fallacy, of your present Reasonings may be yet further de­tected. The substance of what you now of­fer having been already sufficiently Answer­ed, had you been pleased to take notice of it in the same Discourse you pretend to An­swer.