Vindiciarum Vindex:

Vindiciarum Vindex:

Vindiciarum Vindex .

VINDICIAR UM

VINDEX.

OR, A REFUTATION of the weak and impertinentRejoinder ofMr. PHILIP CARY.

Wherein he vainly attempts the Defence of his abſurd THESIS, to the great abuſe and injury of the Laws and Covenants ofGod.

ANDmuſt Ibedipt, once more, in thewater-controverfy ?

It is time for me to think of undreſſing myſelf, and making ready for my approaching reſt, and employ thoſe few minutes Ihave toſpend,inmore practical and beneficial ſtudies, for myown, and the church's greater advantage. And it is time forMr. Cary to reflect uponhis past follies, which have confumed too much of his own, and others time, without any advantage ; yea, tothe apparent loſs and injury ofthe cauſehe undertakes todefend.

When I received theſe ſheetsfrom him, in vindication ofhis Solemn Call, I was at a ſtand, in my own reſolutions, whether to let it paſs (without any animadverſions upon it) as a paſſionate clamour for a deſperate cauſe; orgive a ſhort, and full anſwer tohisconfuſed and impertinent rejoinder. But confidering that I had under hand, at the ſame time, the foregoing

Treatise ofThe Causes and Cures of Mental Errors, and that thoughmyhoneſtneighbour diſcoversmuchweakneſs inhisway ofargumentation, yet itwas liketo meetwith fome intereſted readers, towhom, for that reaſon, itwouldbethemore ſuitable ; andhow apt ſuch perſons are to glory inthe laſt word; but eſpecially confidering, thata littletime andpains would ſuffice

(asthe caſe ſtands) toend the unſeaſonable controversy betwixt us, andboth clear and confirm many great and weighty points of religion : I was, upon theſe confiderations, prevailed with,

against my own inclination, to caſtin theſe few ſheets, as a Mantiſſa, to the former ſeaſonable, and neceſſary diſcourſe of errors, reſolving to fillthem with what ſhould be worth the reader's time and pains.

VOL . IV.

Vindiciarum Vindex.

As for the rude inſults, uncomely reflections, and paſſionate expreſſions ofmy diſcontented friend, I shall not throw back thedert uponhim, when I wipe it offfrom myſelf; I can ea fily torgive, and forget them too : The beſt menhave theirpaf fions, Jam. v. 17. even ſweet-briars, and holy thistles, have their offenfive prickles.

I confider myhonest neighbour under the ſtrength ofa temptation; itdiſquiets him to tee the labours of many years, and the raifed expectations of fo great a con queſt, and triumph over men of renown, all truſtratedby his friend and neighbour, who had done his utmoſt to prevent it, and often foretold him of the folly, and vanity of his attempt,

Every thingwill live as long as it can, and natura vexata proditfeipfam.

But, certainly, it hadbeen more for truth's ho. nour, andMr. C-'s comfort, to have confeffed his follies humbly toGod, and have laid his handupon his mouth.

The things in controversy betwixtus, are great and weighty, viz. the true nature of the Sinai laws, in their complexbody: the quality ofGod's Covenant with Abraham; and the difpenſation ofthe New Covenantwe are now under. Theſe are things ofgreatweight inthemselves, and theirdue reſolutions are,atthis time, fomewhat the more weighty, becauſe my Antagoniſt hath adventured the whole controversy of infants baptifm upon them.

I have, inmy Vindicia Legis, &c. ſtated the ſeveral queſtions clearly, anddistinctly; shewnMr. C. whatisno partofthe controverfy, and what is the very hinge upon which it turns; defired him, ifhe made any reply, to keep cloſe to the juſt and neceſſary rules of difputation, by diftinguiſhing, limiting, or denying any of my propoſitions; that the matters in controverſy might be put toa fair, and ſpeedy iſſue. But, inſtead ofthat, I meet with aflood ofwords rolling ſometimes tothis part, and then to another part of my anſwer, andſo back again, without the ſteddy direction of art, or reaſon.

There may, for ought I know, be ſome things of weight, in Mt. Cary's reply, if aman could fee them for words ; but, without ſcoff, or vanity, I muſt ſay ofthe rational part of it, as the poet ſaidof the over-dreſſed woman,-Pars minima eft ipfa puellajui, it is the leaft part of it. To follow him inhis irregular, and extravagantway ofwriting, were tomake myself guilty ofthe fame folly Iblame him for : I am therefore neceffitated to perftringe them, and reduce all I have to ſay, under three general heads.

I. I ſhall clearly evince to the world, that Mr. Cary hath not beenable todiſcharge, andfree his own theſis from the

Vindiciarum Vindex.

horridconſequents,and groſs abfurdities, which I have laid to their charge in my firſtreply; but, instead thereof, in this feeble, and unfuccessful attempt to free the former, he hath entangledhimselfin more, and greater ones.

II. That he hath left my arguments ſtanding in their full ſtrength, against him.

III.Andthen I shall confirm, and ſtrengthenmy three pofiti鳳 ons, which destroy the cauſe he manages,bysome further additions of fcripture, reaſon, and authorities, which, I hope, will fully end this matter betwixt us.

But, before I touchthe particulars, two things must be premiſed, for the reader'sdue information.

1. That the controversy about the true nature of the Sinai laws, both moral and ceremonial, complexly confidered, is not that veryhinge upon which the right of belivers infants to baptifm depends ; that ſtands as it did before, be the Sinai laws what they will: we do notderive the right of infants from any other law or covenant, but that gracious covenant whichGod made with Abraham, which was in being430 years

before Mofes's law; and was noway injured, much less dif annulled, by the addition ofit, Gal. iii. 17. IfAbraham's covenantbe the fame covenant of grace we are now under, the right of believers infants to baptism is ſecured, whatever the Sinai covenant prove tobe which I ſpeak not out of the leaft jealousy that Mr. Cary hath, or ever ſhall be able to prove it to be a pureAdam's covenant of works; butto prevent mitakes in the reader.

2. Itmust be heedfully obſerved, alſo, that how free, gra. cious, and abſolute ſoever the New Covenantbe, (forGod for bid that I should go about toeclipse the glory of free grace, on whichmyfouldepends for falvation) yet that will never prove

Abraham's covenant to be an abolished Adam's covenant of works, unless two things morebe proved, which Inever expect toſee, viz.

First, That Abraham, and his believing pofterity, were bound, by the very nature, and act ofcircumcifion, to keep the whole law in their own perfons, in order to theirjuftificationand falvation, as perfectly and perpetually, and under the ſamepenalty for the least failure, as Adam was to keep the law inparadiſe.

Secondly, It must be further proved, That Abraham, and all his believing offspring, who stood with him under that covenant, whereofcircumcifion was the initiating fign, were all

Mm2

Vindiciarum Vindex. ſaved in a different way from that in which believers are now ſavedunder the gospel; for ſo it must be, ifthe addition of circumcifion made it unto them an Adam's covenant of works.

But this would be a direct contradiction to the words of the apoſtle, ſpeaking ofthem who were under the covenant of circumcifion,

Acts xv. 11. " But we believe, that through the grace ofour Lord Jesus Chriſt, we shall be saved, even as " they." Ifhe ſay, they ſtood, indeed, under that covenant, as apurecovenant of works, but were ſavedby another covenant; and foformany ages, thechurch ofGod ſtood abſolutely under the covenant ofworks, and, at the fame time, under the pure covenantof grace; the one altogether abſolute and free, the other wholly conditional : and though theſe two be in their own natures inconſiſtent, and deſtructive ofeach other, yet ſo itwas, that allthe faints, for many ages, were abſolutely under theone, andyet purely under the other : ſhall I be then cenfured for ſaying he ſpeaks pure contradiction ?

Poſſibly my reader will be tempted tothink Iabuſe him, and that noman of common ſenſe can be guilty of fuch an horrid abſurdity : I must, whatever reſpect I have forMr. C. once more tell him, before the world, that this is not only his own doctrine, but that verydoctrine upon which he hath adventured thewhole cauſe, and controversy of infants baptifm, which I therefore ſay is hereby become a deſperate caufe.

And this brings me tomy firſt general head, viz.

I. First, That Mr. Caryhath not been able to free his thesis from this horridabfurdity; but by struggling to do it, hath(according to the nature of errors)entangled himself in more, and greater ones.

Mr. Cary, in p. 174, 175. of hisfolemn call, was by me reduced to this abſurdity, which he there owns, in expreſs words,

•ThatMofes, and the whole body of the peopleof Ifrael, were • abſolutely under (without the exception of any) the ſevereſt

* penalties of adreadful curſe; and that the Sinai covenant • couldbe no other than a covenant of works, a miniſtration

* of death, and condemnation, and yet, atthe ſame time, both • Moſes, and allthe elect, were under a pure covenant of gofpel-grace: andif theſe were twocontrarycovenants in them- • ſelves, andjuſt oppoſitetheone tothe other, as, indeed, they

• were, we have nothing to ſay, but, with the apostle, O the * depth, &c.

This, reader, is the poſition which mustbe made goodby Mr. Cary, or his cauſe is loſt ; deformed iſſues do not look as

Iftheyhadbeautiful truth for their mother: no falfeor abfurd

Vindiciarum Vindex.

conclufion can regularly follow from true premiſes. But hence naturally and neceſſarily follows this.

Abfurdity 1. That Abraham, Mofes, and all the believers under the Old Testament, by ſtanding abſolutely underAdam's covenantofworks, as a miniſtration of death and condemnation; and, at the ſame time, purely under the covenant of grace(as Mr. C. affirms theydid) muſt neceſſarily,during their lives, hang in the midway between life and death, juftification andcondemnation; and, after death, in the midway between heaven and hell.

During life, they could neither be juſtified nor condemned; juſtified they couldnot be, for juſtification is the ſoul's paſſing from death to life, 1 John iii. 14.

Johnv. 24.

Upon a man's juſtification his covenant and ſtate are changed; but the covenant, and ſtate of no mancanbe fo changed, as long as he remains abſolutely under the ſevereſt penalties, and condemnation of the law, as Mr. C. affirms they did.

Again, condemned they could not be, ſeeing all that are underthe pure covenant of grace (as he faith they were at the ſametime) are certainly in Chriſt, and to ſuch there is nocondemnation, Rom. viii. 1. nor ever ſhall be.

John v. 24. "He " that believeth, ſhall not come intocondemnation, but is paf- " fed from death unto life."

What remains, then, but that during life theycould neitherbe perfectlyjustified, nor perfectly condemned; and yet, being abſolutelyunder the ſevereſt penalties of Adam's covenant, they were perfectly condemned; and, again, being under the pure covenantof grace, they must be perfectly juttified ?

Andthen, after death, they muſt neithergo to heaven, nor hell; but either be annihilated, or ſtick midway in Limbo Patrum (as the Papiſts fancy) betwixt both. No condemned perfongoes to heaven, nor any juſtified perſon to hell. His poſition, therefore, which neceſſarily infers this groſs abſurdity, is juſtly renounced, and deteſted, by learned, and orthodox divines.

The learned and acute *Turretine, the late famous profeffor of divinity atGeneva, proving that the Sinai law could not beapurecovenant of works ; brings this very medium toprove it, as a known truth, allowed by all men :

' The Ifraelites ' (laith he) with whomGod covenanted, were already under Abraham's covenant, which was a covenant of grace, and were faved, in Chriſt, by it; therefore they could not be un- * Turret, part 2d, p. 290..

Vindiciarum Vindex.

• der the legal covenant.

Nemo enim fimul potest duobus fede * ribus totafpecie dytinctis fubeffe ; becauſe no mancan be under two covenants, ſpecificallydifferent, atthe fame time, as theſe two are.'

That great, and renowned divine,Mr. WilliamStrong*, gives four irrefragable arguments to prove that no man can ſtand under both theſe covenants, at the ſame time, which, in coordination, actually destroy, and make void each other.

If • the firſt covenantſtand, there is no place for the ſecond; and • if the ſecond ſtand, the firſt is made void. And this(faith he)

* will fully appear, ifwe confider the direct contrariety inthe terms of thoſe two covenants.

For, (1.) The righteouineſs * of the firſt covenantisin ourſelves, but the righteousness of the ſecond is the righteouſneſs of another, I Johnv. 11 , 12.

(2.) In the covenant of works, acceptation is firſt of the •work, and afterwards of the perſon, Gen. iv. 7. but in the covenant of grace, the acceptation is firſt of the perfon, and • then of the work, Gen. iv. 4.

(3.) The firſt covenant was ⚫a covenant without a priest, but the ſecond is a covenant

• with a priest.

(4.) In the firstcovenantthere is matter of glorying, but in the ſecondthere is none, Rom. iii. 27.

So ⚫that theſe two cannever confift, except you can compound, • or reconcile theſe four oppoſites in the justification of the • ſame perſon.'

Tothe famepurpoſe, ſaith the excellentMr. Samuel Boltont.

• If the lawwere a covenant ofworks, then werethe Jews un- • der a different covenant from us, and ſo noneof them were

• ſaved, which the apoſtle gainſays, Acts xv. 11. or elſe they • were both under a covenant of works, and a covenant of grace; but that they could not be; they are utterly incon- ' fiftent,' Ergo.And thus allfound divines ſpeak. I may therefore fay of Mr. Cary's position, as Ruvens before medid ; omnem abfurditatem excedere videtur, it ſeemeth to exceed all abfurdities . A man may more rationally ſuppoſe two natures, and effential forms, in onebody, andplace the ſame thing under divers ſpecies, in the predicament of substance ; yea, it weremore tolerable to affirm, that ex duobus entibus perfefit unum ens per fe, than to place any (as Mr. C. places all) of God's people under two oppoſite covenants.

If Mr. C. were abfolutely under the condemnation ofthe law, would he not be purely juſtified, think you ? Yet he places Abraham, Mofes,

* Mr. Strong on the Covenant, p. 66, 67.

† Bolton's Bounds, p. 133,

Vindiciarum Vindex .

and all believers with them, abſolutely under the ſevereſt condemnation of the law, and the pure gospel-covenant at once.

But, to cover the ſhame and nakedneſs of his aſſertion, which places believers abſolutely under Adam's covenant, he is fain to make use of two fig-leaves, asAdam did.

(1.) And the firſt attempt henow makes, p. 4, 5, 6, 7. of his reply, isby way ofretortion, by telling us,

That the same •pretendedabſurditiesdofall asheavily, and agreatdeal more, ⚫on our doctrine, who affirm theSinai law(complexly taken)

⚫to be a covenant offaith,or grace, than upon his, whomakes • them two eſſentiallydifferent covenants : becauſe we are forcedto comprize perfect doing, with the curſe for non-perfor- ' mance, under the ſame covenantwith believing; and that if ' cannot bedenied, but that all the people ofGod were abſolutely under the Sinai covenant, Gal. iii. 23. und Gal . iv. 4, 5. and confequently under the curſe, Gal. iii. 10. This is the ſum, and ſubſtance ofhis firſt anſwer.

، Reply. Iwillnot betempted toexpoſe myneighbour toderifion for this his ſtrange anſwer; but rather propound two fober queries to him, and the reader, viz. (1.) What orthodoxdivines he ever met with, and what are their names, who are forced to comprize perfect doing, with the curſe for non-performance, under the fame covenant with believing; and ſo make the two oppoſitecovenants to be ſpecifically one and the fame ? Name your men, with their books and pages; or retract, with shame and forrow, what you have here abuſively affirmed of them.

Cameron, indeed, makes it a ſubſervient covenant; the moſt a true, though obfcure covenant ofgrace; butnonecomprize Adam's covenant with its curſe in the new covenant.

(2. ) Whether it be imaginable, That the fame abfurdity can follow from their doctrine, that make the whole complex body of the Sinai law a covenant ofgrace, though more obſcure, and ſo place all the people ofGod in thoſe ages under it; as does neceffarily follow his doctrine, who makes it a pure Adam's covenant of works, and places the church of God abſolutely under the curse of it, and alſo under the pure covenant ofgrace at the ſame time ? Ifgrace and grace (how different foever in degrees of manifeſtation) be as oppofite and repugnant, as grace and works, asjuſtification and condemnation are, it istime for me to lay down my pen, for I have certainly loft my underſtanding toguide it any further.

But Mr Cary will say, If you do not, yet Mr. Roberts doth comprize both inone covenant.

I ſay, you abuſe Mr. Roberts

Vindiciarum Vindex.

* in ſo affirming; for hefaith, in thatveryplaceyoureferto, that believing in Chriſt was ultimately and chiefly intended in the Sinai covenant; and perfect doing was only urged upon Ifrael in fubordination,andtendencytothatbelieving. Andupon that ground it is, he affirms that covenant tobe acovenantof faith, and ſodenominates itfrom the chiefſcope, and intent of it. He ſets not doing and believing, inco-ordination, or places thechurch under two oppoſite covenants, as you do ; but places the law where it ought to be placed, in fubordination to faith and Chrift ; and therefore you have abuſed that good man as well as me, and yourself most of all, inthis your firſt impertinent and filly anſwer.

(2.) But you have one evaſion more, p. 7. where you ſay, •That how harsh, and dreadful foever the terms, or conditions,

• ofthe legal covenantwere to those that were under it, as Mo- *fes, and the whole body of the Ifraelites, then were; yet the • grace of the gospel covenant far fuperseded, and was byfar

' more victorious, powerful, and efficacious, Rom. v. 17, 20.

Reply.

Worte, and worſe; your difcourſe mends like fowre ale in Summer.

Here you fancy the two covenants (under which you place the whole church of God) tobe in a conflict one with the other; condemnation and juſtification, ſtruggling one with another, as I told you before they would : but, however, thegrace of the new covenant prevails, at laſt, and gets the victory over the covenant of works.

Very good ; but then pray, Sir, if you pleaſe, anſwer me aplain queſtion, or two, at your leiſure.

First, How far did the covenant of grace prevail against the covenant of works ? Was it ſo far prevalent, and victorious, as utterly to vanquish and dſannul it, as a covenant of works to them? Or was it not? Was the victory, you ſpeak of, a complete or a partial one? If you ſay it was incomplete and partial, thenyou leave them(as Itold you beforeyoumust) partly under the promiſe, and partlyunder the curſe; juttified inpart, andcondemnedin part. But if yousay itwas a complete and perfect victory, then itutterlydiſſolved its obligation as a covenant of works; then they did not remain under twooppoſite covenants, as you affirmed they did; but, on their believing, changed their ſtatewith their covenant, as we affirm theydid.

Secondly, If you say it didnot totally free them from the curſeofthe covenantofworks, but, however, prevailedſo far, thattheywerenot actuallydamned by virtue ofthe curſe; then

* Roberts on the Covenant, p. 775,776,777-

Vindiciarum Vindex.

bepleaſed to anſwer me one queſtion more, How was it poffible for them to be absolutely under the curse of the law, (as you affirmedtheywere)andyet that curse to befuperfededby the covenant of grace, as here you speak ?

Tofuperfede thecurse (though it be a phraſe I never metwith before) if it fignify any thing, it muſt ſignify this; that the covenant of grace cauſed the lawto omit, forbear, or give over to curſe that people any more. But did, or can the law forbear, or ceafe to curſe thoſe that are abſolutely under it, as a miniſtration of death and condemnation ? Pray confultRom. iii.

19. andGal. iii. 10.

Are you aware what you ſay, when you place believers abſolutely under the curſe of the law, andthen talk of the new covenant's victory over it; and, after all this, leave them as you do, abſolutely under the curſing power of the one, and ſtill under the victorious grace of the other ?

For thame, my friend, give up your abſurd notion, and repent of this folly ; i would not willlingly ſhame you before the world; I did all that in me lay to prevent it: bur, however, Pudor est medicina pudoris, the only way you have leftme to prevent your glorying in your thame, is this way, to make you ashamed of your vain-glory. As for that ſcripture you alledge to countenance your fancy, Rom, v. 17, 20. you might, to as good purpoſe, have opened your Bible, andhave taken the firſt ſcripture that came to hand, and it would have done your position leſs harm ; for the apoſtle's ſcope there, is to demonftrate the perfection of the abounding righteousness of Chriſt, for the fulldiſcharge of believers from the guilt of fin, and curſe ofAdam's covenant ; and cutsthe throat of yourpo fition, which it is alledged to prove.

Ihave ſtood the longerupon the clearingofthis firſt point; becauſe this being fullycleared, itruns through and clears the whole controverſy betwixt us.

For now it will be evident to all, that neither Abraham's, nor Mofes his covenant (complexly taken, as Mr. Cary takes it) could poſſibly be, for this reafon, an Adam's covenant of works ; and ifnot a covenant ofworks, then, how dark or legal foever the diſpenſations of themwere, they must needs be the ſame covenant of grace for ſubſtance, under which we are, and ſo the main controversybetwixt us is herebyatan end.

Iknow not how many covenants of works, orhow many of graceMr. C. fancies there are ; but orthodox divines conſtantly affirm, * That, as there were never but two ways of life to * Vide Bolton's Bounds, p. 148.

VOL. IV.

Vindiciarum Vindex. mankind, the one before the fall, by perfectdoing; the other after the fall, by fincere believing: fo anſwerably, there can be but two covenants betwixt God and mankind, viz. the covenant ofworks, and the covenant of grace.

The laſt ofwhich hath indeedbeen more obſcurely adminiſtred, and inthat reſpect is called the old covenant; yet that and the new are effentially but one covenant; and the church of God, which for many ages ſtood under thatold covenant,didnot landunder it as an Adam's covenant, or the firſt covenant ofworks, for the undeniable reaſons above given and therefore Abraham's covenant, from whence we derive our childrens title to Baptifm, muft of neceffitybe the veryfame covenant for ſubſtance with this new covenant, which all Abraham's believing offspring, andtheir infant-feed, are now under. And inproving this one point, I have fufficiently confuted both Mr. C's. folemn call, and this his feeble vindication of it together.

But, left he ſhould take this for the only abſurdity proved upon him, though itbe tireſome to me, andmust be ungrateful tohim, give me leave to touch one more, among many ; and that the rather, becauſe I make great uſe ofit in this controverfy, and Mr. Cary both yields and denies it.

Ifhis own words bethe meſſengers of his meaning, either he or I muft miſtake their errand.

Ihad in myProlegomena, diſtinguiſhedofthe law, as ſtrictly taken for the ten commandments ; and more largely and complexly taken, as including the ceremonial law : The former

I confidered according toGod's intention and deſign inthepromulgation of it, which was to add it as an appendix to the promiſe, Gal . iii . 9. And the carnal Jews miſtaking, and perverting the end of the law, and making it to themſelves acovenant of works, by making it the very rule andreaſon of their juſtification beforeGod,Rom. ix. 31, 32, 33. andx.3. Itoldhim, that the controversydepended upon thisdouble ſenſe of the law; for that it ought not tobe denominated from the abuſed and miſtaken end of it, but from God's chief ſcope and deſign, in thepromulgation of it; which was toadd it as an appendix to the promife, as the word προσετέθη there imports; and ſo muft be publiſhed with evangelical purpoſes...Let us now hear Mr.

C'sfenfe of this matter.

In his Call. p.

131. he yields the diftinction in theſe words.

In his Reply, p. 43. proving the law to be a covenant of works, from Rom. x. 15. he " The Jews were right enough, in reference to the faith, " This was the nature ofit

Vindiciarum Vindex.

truenature of the law, That inthe firſt ſanction ofit, as the it was a covenant of works, &c. though they were out in reſpect of its proper use and intention, which wasnot, that any ſhould attain unto lifeand righteouſneſs thereby; but to fruit ofGod's ſpecialdeſignationand appointment; and that it is the greatest violation, and perverting of ſcripture, that can lightly be met with, to affirm, that this is uttered and declaredby Paul, &c. only beſhew them the nature of fin, and the holiness andrighteouf nefs ofGod, to convince them oftheir fin and miſery without Chriſt, and their neceffity ofa Saviour; which they being cauſe the Jews had perverted it, and reduced it (as they thought) toitsprimitive intention.

And again, p. 44. he faith, he hath proved that it was the fame with Adam's covenant inboth reſpects, that is intentionally, as well as materially confidered." And once more, p 20. he exprefly denies that the law was added as an appendixtothe promife ; calls that a crude affertionofmine, ignorant of, and ſtill going about to eſtabliſh their own righteousness which was of the law, and refuſing tofubmit themſelves unto the righ teouſneſs of God, &c. they ſtumbled at that ſtumblingſtone, and were accordingly broken, ſnared, and taken, Rom. ix. 31 , 32, 33., Rom . x. 3. And this (faith he) was the true ground of dispute between the apostle and them." This was orthodoxly ſpoken, and would end the controversy,would he ſtand to it.

But, and asks me, "Why itmight not be added as an appendix rather to the first covenant of works, toreinforce that ?" And after all, gushes out many flighting and opprobrious terms, upon me, which I will not throwback again, but ratherleavehim to reconcile himfelfwith himself.

Ishall only aſk Mr. C. a fober queſtion or two, instead of recriminations, andrendering reviling for reviling.

First, How were the Jews right enough, inreference to the nature of the law, as it was a covenant ofworks, and yet out, inreſpectof its proper uſe and intention, which was not, that any ſhould attain unto life and righteousnessby it, butto convincethemof fin, and of the neceffity of a Saviour; and yet the law be a covenant of works, intentionally, as well as materially confidered: and that in reſpect of God's ſpecial defignation and appointment ?

IfGod deſigned and appointed it inhis Sinai diſpenſation, tobe to them an Adam's covenant of works, then certainly theywere not out (as you ſaythey were)

Nn2

Vindiciarum Vindex. whenthey fought righteouſneſs by theworks of it; nor could that mistakeof theirs be the ground ofthe controversy betwixt theapoſtleand them: for it seems itwas no mistake, being, by God's intention, aswell as its own primitive nature,promulgated at Sinai, as a true Adam's covenant.

Secondly, You deny the law was added to the promise, and aſk me, why itmight notbe added to the firſt covenant to reinforce that ? I anſwer, Becauſe the ſcope ofthe place will not bear it, nor any good expoſitor countenance fuch a fancy *.

You make the Sinai law to be the fame with that firſt covenant, andby ſo expounding the apoſtle, you make him ſay, either that the famething was added to itſelf, (which must, inyour ownphrafe, bebya correspondency ofidentity)or elſe thatthere are two distinct covenants of works (when indeed there is but one) and that the latter was addedtothe former.

This is your way of expounding ſcripture, when driven to a ſtrait by dint ofargument: nothing beſide ſuch a pure neceffity coulddrive you upon fuch an abfurdity.

It was added to the promiſe, (faith Dr. Reynolds +) by way ofſubſerviency and attendance, the better to advance and make effectual thecovenant itſelf.

Mr. Strong, upon thetwo covenants, faith, the apoſtle's meaning is, that the law was added as an appendix to the promise ; but it may be, you had rather hear Dr. Crifpe's expoſition †, than his : for you fay, had it been added to the promise, it would havegiven life. The doctor will at oncegive you the true ſenſe of the text, and with it a full anſwer to your objection.

Though life (faith he) benot the endofthe law, yet there are other fufficient uses of it, requiring thepromulgation thereof : it was published to be an appendix to the gospel, Gal. iii. 19. And this supposes, 1. The priority of thegospel to the law. 2. The principality of the promise oflife by Christabove the law.

3. The consistence ofthe law, andgospel.

Theymay wellstandone by another, asan house, and the addition toitmay.

That it was with ſuch an intention added to the promiſe, I have met with no man that had front enough to denyor ſcruple it, before you ; and that the Jews did miſtake its chief ſcope and uſe, from whence we denominate it a covenant of grace, the generality ofgodly and learneddivines con- *Προσετέθη pofita, pro appofita, hoc est, Promiſſioni adjecta.

Beza.

+ VideDr. Reynold's Uſe of the law, p. 378. fullup tomy ſenſe, and p. 371 .

† Dr. Crifp, lib. 4.ferm ya

Vindiciarum Vindex.

ſtantly affirm.

See Mr. Anth. Burg. de lege, p. 227. Bolton's Bounds, p. 160, 161. Mr. Samuel Mather ontheTypes, p. 11 . with multitudes more, whoſe citations would even weary the reader.

And what you urge from Mr. Pool's Annotations on 2 Cor. iii. 6, 7. It makes nothing at all to your purpoſe; for it is manifeſt, the annotator there takes the moral law in itſelf, ſtrictly taken, and as ſet inoppoſition to thegospel, which it neverwas ſincethe fall,butby the ignorance, and infidelityofunregeneratemen.

You alſo labour to ſhelter your erroneous fancy under the authority of Dr. Owen; but you manifeſtly abuſe him in your citation; for in that very place you refer to, he ſpeaks strictly ofthe covenant ofworks made with Adam in paradiſe, andplainlydiftinguiſhes it from the Sinai covenant, which fufficiently ſhews his judgment inthe point.

For theſe are his own words which you ſuppreſſed in the citation, * As to the Sinai cove- ' nant, and the New teftament, with their privileges thence e- ' merging, they belong not to our preſent argument '

This paragraph you wilfully omit, thatyou might include thatwhich his words plainlyexclude. In the fame place he tells you, that David's and Abraham's covenant, was for effence the covenant ofgrace, notwithstanding the variations madeinit : Butyoutake and leave as beſt ſuits your deſign †.

Oncemore, in p. 16, 17. &c. of my Vindiciae legis, you find yourſelfpinched with another dilemma, from Lev. xxvi. 40.

41, 46. whence I plainlyproved, that there is a promiſe ofpardon found in the Sinai diſpenſation, to penitent fioners.

That this promife was given atMount Sinai, by the hand of Mofes, is undeniable, from ver. 46.

That it contained the reliefofa gracious remiſſionto penitent ſinners, is as undeniable from ver.

40, 41.

If you ſay, this promiſe belongs to Mofes his diſpenſation, (as ver. 46. tells you it did) then,there is remiſſion of fins

* Dr. Owen of Juſtification, p. 396, 397, vindicated fromMr.

C.'sgroſs miſrepeſentations.

† But if you fee the Doctor's judgment, in concurrence with all his brethren, you have it in theſe very words: Although this covenant hath been variouſly adminiſtred in reſpect of ordinances and inſtitutions, in the time ofthe law, and ſince the coming ofChrift in the flesh; yet, for the ſubſtance andefficacy ofit, to all its ſpiritual and ſaving ends, it is one and the fame; upon account of which various diſpenſations, itis called the Old and New Teſtament.

Vide Declaration ofthe faith, and order ofthe congregatignal churches in England,p. 16, at the Savoy, Oct. 12, 1658 .

Vindiciarum Vindex. found inthe Sinai laws.

Ifyou fay it only refers to Abraham's covenant of grace ; then that covenant ofgrace appears to be conditional, which you utterly deny.

Now what is your reply to this ? ( 1.) You object my own words in the Method ofGrace, p. 326. as if you had never read thejuſt, and fair vindication I had beforegivenyou ofthem, p. 134, 135 of my firſt reply toyou. At this rate menmay continue controverfies to the world's end.

Sir, there are many witneſſes, that you are very well acquainted with myMethod ofGrace.

(2.) You say, p. 31. ofyour reply, that that covenantcould not be conditional, because a condition implies merit, either of congruity, or condignity.

This is a furtherdiſcovery ofyour ignorance ofthe natureofconditions, as well as covenants; but that point belonging to the laſt head ofcontroverly between us, I ſhall refer it thither.

Itwere eafy for metoinſtance inmanymoreabſurdities which Mr. C. cannot eluctate, and to prove themupon him as easilyas toname them; but Iwill not preſs him too far ; what hath beennamed, and proved already, is more thanenough tocon vincethe reader that my firſt argument is left ſtanding inits full force and ſtrength againsthim, viz.

Argum. 1. Thatpropoſitioncannever be true, which neceffarily draws manyhorrid, and grofs abſurdities after it, byjuſt confequence.

But ſo doth this : Ergo, Argum. 2. My next argument, Vindiciae, &c. p. 27. is as ſecure as the firſt.

It was this ; If Adam's covenant had one end, namely, the happiness, and juſtification of men by their own obedience; and the law at Sinai had quite another end, namely, to bring ſinners to Chriſt, by faith, for their righte ouſneſs ; the one to keep him within himself, the other totake him quite out ofhimself; then the Sinai law cannot poſſibly be the fame with Adam's covenant ofworks in paradife.

But ſo ſtands the cafe, Rom. x. 4. "Chriſt is the endof " the law for righteouſneſs to every one that believeth."

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

All that touches this argument, is but three lines in the 49th page of your reply; where you ſay, you have ſufficiently anfwered, and cleared this, in p. 169, 172. of your former difcourſe, from the corrupt interpretation by me faſtened thereon.

Now if the reader will give himself the trouble to examine thoſe pages, he ſhall find that Mr. C. there allows thatveryinterpretationwhich he here calls corrupt; and faith it comes all

Vindiciarum Vindex.

toonereckoning with his own.

If this will overthrowmy fecond argument, it is gone.

Argum. 3. My third argumentwas drawn from Acts vii. 38. in this form :

If Chriſt himselfwere the angelby whom the laws were delivered toMofes, which are there called the lively oracles ofGod ; then the law cannot be a pure Adam's covenant of works : for it is never to be imagined that everJeſus Chriſt himself ſhould deliver toMoſes ſuch a covenant, directly oppofite to all the endsof his future incarnation.

But it is more than probable, from that text, that it was Chriſt which delivered the law to Moſes on the mount. Ergo.

To this argument he faith not one word, in p.49. of his reply,where he cites a part of it, nibbling alittle at that expreffion [The lively oracles ofGod,) thinking it unimaginable the Sinai law ſhould be ſuch; when as the apostle Paul, Rom. vii.

10. found the commandment to be unto death; and the apoſtle, 2 Cor. iii. 6, 7. calls ita miniſtration ofdeath.

I must therefore leave Mr. C. to reconcile thoſe two ſcriptures. And withal, I muſt tell him, that * Spanhemius gives the ſame ſenſe Ido of Acts vii. 38. as the currentjudgment of Chriſtians against the Jews, that it was not a created angel, but Chriſt himself.

Argum. 4. The laſt argument Iurged, was from Rom. ix. 4. and thus it may run.

No ſuch covenant as by the fall had utterly loft all its promiſes, privileges, and bleſſings, and could retain nothing but curſes and punishments, could poſſiblybe numbered among the chief privileges in whichGod's Ifrael gloried.

But the law given at Sinai was numbered among their chief privileges, Rom. ix. 4. Erga To this he only faith, p. 57. of his reply, ' That the law,

' even as itwas a covenantof works, was a privilege ineſtimable, beyondwhat all others enjoyed; becauſe the very curfes

' and punishments annexed thereunto, incaſe of the leaſt fai- • lure, were of excellent uſe to convince them of their fin and •miſerywithout Chriſt, and their neceffity therefore of a Savi- ، our ; which was the proper work of the law, as a covenant

* of works; which advantage allother nations wanting, it might well be numbered among the chief privileges theywere inveſt- • ed with.'

But ( 1.) If the law were intended byGod, to be an Adam's covenant to them (as Mr. C. faith it was) where then is the * Fran, Spanhem, Elench. Controv. p. 552.

Vindiciarum Vindex .

privilege of God's Ifrael above other nations ?

(2.) If their privilege conſiſted in the ſubſerviency of that law to Chrift (as he here intimates itdid) then he yields the thing I contend for.

For this being its chiefſcope and end, we do hence juſt lydenominate ita covenant of grace, though more obfcure and legally adminiſtred. And in this judgment moſt of our folid divines concur.

Mr. Charnock on the Attributes, p. 390. is clear andjudicious in the point.

* Mr. Samuel Bolton, inthat excellent book called, The Bounds of Christian Liberty, gives nine folid arguments to prove the law was not ſet up at Sinai as a covenant of works.

† Mr. Anth. Burgess gives us fix arguments to prove the fame concluſion.

‡ Mr. Greenhill on Ezekiel xvi. gives us demonſtration from that context, that ſince itwas a marriage-covenant, as it appears to be ver. 8. it cannot poſſibly be a diſtinct covenant from the covenant of grace. The incomparable § Turretine learnedly and judiciously ſtates this controverfy; and both poſitively afferts, andby many arguments fully proves, that the Sinai law cannot be a pure covenant of works, or a covenant ſpecifically distinct from the covenant of grace.

It were easy to fill pages with allegations of this kind; but I hope what hath been faid, may fuffice for this point.

But ſtill Mr. Cary complains, that I have all this while but threatened his arguments to prove them fallacious, or tohave four terms in them ; and therefore he hath drawn out fome ſelect arguments, as he calls them, p. 37. to try my ſkill upon.

I will neither tire my reader ina foolish chaſe of ſuch weak and impertinent arguments as he there produceth, nor yet wholly neglect them, leſt he glory in them as unanſwerable. And therefore to ſhewhim the fate ofthe reſt, I will only touch his firſt argument, which being his argumentum palmarium,de ſervedly leads the van to all the reſt. And thus itruns upon all four.

That covenant that is not of faith, must needs be acovenant of works, yea, the very fame for ſubſtance with that made with Adam.

But the fcripture is expreſs, that the lawis notoffaith,Gal. iii. 12.

Ergo.

The law isconfidered two ways in ſcripture.

(1.) Largely, 1 * Bolton's Bounds, p. 130, &c.

+ Burgeſs, de Lege, p. 225.

‡ Greenhill, in Loc.

§ Turretine, part 2. p. 228, 289.

Vindiciarum Vindex.

for thewhole Mofaical Oeconomy, comprehenſive of the ceremonial as well as moralprecepts; andthat lawisoffaith, as the learned * Turretine hath proved by four ſcripture arguments, partfecond, p. 292, 293.

Becauſe it contained Chriſt the object of faith, &c.

Becauſe it compelled men to ſeek Chrift by faith.

Becauſe it required thatGod be worſhipped, which he cannot rightly be without faith. Andbecauſe Pauldeſcribes the righteouſneſs of faith in thoſe very words whereby Moſes had declaredthe precepts of the law, Deut. xxx. 11 , 12, 13. Again, the law in ſcripture is taken ſtrictly for the moral law only, confidered abſtractly from the promiſes ofgrace, as the legal juſticiaries understood it. Theſe are two far different ſenſes and acceptations of the law.

Your major propofition takes the law in its large complex body, as appears by your 3d page.

Your minor propofition, which you would confirm by Gal. iii . 12. takes the law ſtrictly and abſtractly, as it is ſetdisjunctly from, yea, in oppoſition to faith and the promises; and ſo there are two forts of law in your argument, and conſequently your ar ! gument is fallacious, as all its fellows be, and runs (as I told you before) upon allfour.

I hope this may ſuffice, with reſpect to the Sinai covenant, controverted betwixt me and my neighbour, to evince that itcannot be what he afferts it to be, even anAdam's covenant of works : And that I have diſcharged what I undertook to prove, with reſpect to this covenant, namely, That Mr. C. cannot free his poſition from the groſs abſurdities with which I loaded it, but endeavouring to do that, hath incurred many more : that his reply hath left my arguments ſtanding in their full ſtrength against him, and that the poſition I have ſet up againſt him, is well founded in ſcripture; and hath the general concurrenceand conſent oflearned, holy, and orthodox divines.

To conclude, Let the grave and learned Dr. Edw. Reynolds, in his excellent treatise of the Use of the Law, determine this controversy betwixt us, p. 371 , &c. where deſignedly handling this doctrine from Rom. vii. 13.

That the law was revived • andpromulgatedanew on mount Sinai, by the ministry ofMo-

* The law is ſaid not tobe of faith, Gal. iii. 12. Notas it is taken in a large ſenſe, todenote the Mofaic Oeconomy, but ſtrictly, aswhen it is taken for the moral law abſtractly, and ſeparate from thepromises ofgrace; as the ſelf-juſticiaries did underſtand itwho fought life from it; for it is proved that faithwas alſocommanded in the Sinaitic covenant, &c.

VOL . IV.

Vindiciarum Vindex.

•fes, with no other than evangelical and mercifulpurposes,' he abundantly confirms my lente and arguments, and laves me the labour of refuting the principal, and most of yours : where carrying before him the whole context of Gal. iii. from the 15th tothe 23d, he clearly carries his doctrine with it, proving from ver . 15.

That God's covenant with Abraham was perpetual and immutable, and therefore all other fubfequent acts ofGod (fuch as the giving ofthe law was) do lome way

or other refer unto it. (2.) From v. 16. he further proves, That as God's covenant with Abraham is moſt conftant, in regard of the wisdom and unvariableness of P. 376.

، ⚫him that made it; ſo it can never expire for want P. 377. of a feed towhom it is made.

(3.) From ver. 17. he proves, That if another law be made after the promise, • which, primaspecie, and, in ſtrict conſtruction, doth imply acontradiction in the terms, and nature of the former law ;

'then it is certain, that this latter law must be understood in ، fome other ſenſe, and admit of fome other fubordinate ufe,

• which may well conſiſt with thebeing, and force of the former covenant.

(4.).From ver. 18. he proves, that the coming • of the law hath notvoided the promise, and that the law is

• not of force (as you vainly dream) towards the feed towhom the promife is made; and therefore if it be not to ſtand ina

• contradiction, it follows that it muſt ſtand in fubordination 6 to the gofpel; and ſo tend toevangelical purpoſes.'

(5.) He further proves his concluſion from ver. 19. which ſhews for what end the law was added, προσετέθη .

' It was not (faith he) ' fet up alone, as a thing in groſs by itself; as an adequate, complete, folid rule of righteouſneſs, as it was given to • Adam in Paradiſe: much less was it publiſhed to void and difannulany precedentcovenant; but ſo far was it from abrogating, that itwas added to the promise by way ofſubſerviency, andattendance; the better to advance and make effectual

4.the covenantitself, andthat untilthe feed ſhould come,which, • whether it reſpect Chrift perſonal, or myſtical, in either ſenſe

(1(faithhe) it confirms the point we are upon, viz. That the law hath evangelical purposes.

If the feedbe understood of • the perfon of Chriſt, then this ſhews that thelaw was put to the promise, the better to raiſe and ſtir up in men the expectations of Chriſt, the promised feed. But if we understand by feed, the faithful (which I rather approve;) then the apoſtle's meaning is this, That as long as any are

P. 379. either to come intothe unity of Christ's body, and have the covenant ofgrace applied tothem, &c. ſo long there

Vindiciarum Vindex.

، ' will be uſe of the law, both to the unregenerate, to make them fly to Chrift, and thoſe that are already called,that they may learn to caſt all their faith, hope, and expectation of righteouſneſs upon him ſtill.

This then manifeſtly ſhews, that there was no other intention in publiſhing the 'law, but with reference to the feed: that is, with P. 330.

' evangelicalpurpoſes to ſhewmercy: notwith reference tothoſe ' that periſh, who wouldhave had condemnation enough with- ' out the law.

And further ſtrengthens his conclufion from the laſt words of ver. 19. •That it was ordainedby angels in ' the hands of a Mediator.

This (faith he) evidently declares, That the law was published in mercy and pacification, notin fury or revenge; (for the work of a Mediator is to negotiate

' peace, and treat of reconcilement betwixt parties offended) 'whereas, if the Lord had intended death in the publishing of 'the law, he would not have proclaimed it in the hand ofa

' Mediator, but of an executioner. (6.) From ver. 20.

'Thoſe words (faith he) ſhew why the law was pubP. 381 . liſhed in thehandofaMediator, viz. that they ſhould

' notdefpair and fink under the fear ofhis wrath. Forashemade a covenant ofpromiſe to Abraham, and his feed; fo he is the * ſameGod ſtill, one in his grace and mercy towards finners.

God is one, i. e in ſending this Mediator, he doth declare to mankind, thathe is at peaceand unity withthem again. Moſes

' was the repreſentative, and Chriſt the ſubſtantial and realMediator.

God is one, i. e. he carries the ſame purpoſe 6 andintentionbothinthelawandinthegoſpel ; nameP. 382 . ly, benevolence, and defire of reconcilement with men. (7.) To sum up all that hath been ſpoken

P. 384.

' touching the uſe ofthe law in a plain fimilitude ;

Suppoſe we a prince ſhould proclaim a pardon to all traitors, ifthey ſhould come in and plead it; and after this ſhould

' ſend forth his officers to attack, and impriſon, examine, con- ' vince, arraign, threaten, and condemnthem : Is he now contrary to himself? Hath he repented of his mercy ? No, but ' he is unwilling to loſe his mercy, defirous to have the honour of his mercy acknowledged unto him. The fame is the

cafe between God and us . To Abraham he made apromiſe * of mercy and bleſſedneſs to all that would plead intereſt in it

' for the remiſſion of their fins ; but men were ſecure and heed- ' leſs of their eftate, &c. Hereupon the Lord publiſhed by Moſes a ſevere and terrible law; yetin all thisGod

P. 385 dothbut purſue his firſt purpoſeofmercy,and take

Vindiciarum Vindex. acourſe to makehis goſpel accountedworthy ofall acceptati- ' on; which clears the general point, That Godinthepublication

' ofthe law by Moſes, on mount Sinai, had none but mercifuland • evangelical intentions. And once more, The law was not publiſhedby Moſes on mount Sinai, as it was given

P. 386. to Adam in paradiſe, tojustifyor to ſave men. And p. 385. it is not given, exprimaria intentione, to ⚫condemnmen.

Inconfequenceto allwhich he faith, p. 388, 389. that to preach the law aloneby itſelf, is to preventthe

• uſe ofit; neither have we any power or commiſſion ſo todo.

• It was publiſhed as an appendant to the gospel, and ſo muſt • itbe preached Itwas publiſhedinthehand ofaMediator, and •must be preached in the hand ofa Mediator.

Itwas publi- • ſhed evangelically, and it must be ſopreached.'

Seehow this agrees howwith p. 173. of your call, andhow the ſeveral parts of diſcourſe ofthis found and eminentdoctor

(which I have been forcedtoſumup and contract) do abundantly confuteyour vain notions ofthe law, and cut the very nerves

، ofyour beſt arguments, if theyhad anynerves inthem : for indeed it is moles abſque nervis.

It were eaſy for me to repreſent the ſenſe ofmany other eminentdivines in perfect harmonywith thedoctrine ofthisgreat and excellent divine, who have ſubſtantially proved the point I defend against you : But it is enough .

II. Let us next examine what executionhis reply hathdone upon my ſecond position, ſet up in direct oppoſition tohim ; namely, That God's covenant with Abraham, * Gen xvii. Unto whichcircumcifionwas annexed, isfor its ſubſtance, theself-fame covenant ofgrace with thatwhich Gentile-believers, andtheir Infant-feed, arenow under.

Here I have abundant cauſe again to complain, that Mr. C. hath ſoformed his anſwers, as ifhe had never read the book he undertakes a reply to. And Ido verilybelieve, the greatest part of his reply was made at random, before ever my printed book was in his hands.

For he hath not at all conſidered the ſtate of the queſtion, as I theregave it him; nor kept himself to the juſt and neceſſary rules ofdiſputation, as I earneſtly defired he would.

However, it is not complaints, but confirmation and vindication of my arguments, which is my proper work.

I ſhall therefore recite them briefly, and vindicate and confirm them Arongly ; contracting all into as few words as can expreſs the ſenſe and argument ofthe point before me.

*Abraham's covenant,Gen. xvii. the covenant ofgrace,

Vindiciarum Vindex.

Argum. 1. Ifcircumcifionbeapart oftheceremonial law, and the ceremonial lawwas dedicated by blood; whatsoever is ſodedicated, is by you confeſſed to be no part of the covenantofworks ; then circumcifion can be no Vindiciae lepart ofthecovenant ofworks, evenbyyourown gis, &c.p.42. confeffion.

But it is ſo.

Ergo.

Reply. To this Mr. C. returns a tragical P. 98. complaint, instead ofa rationalanswer.

Infinuates myfalſeandgroſs abuse of him. Appeals to his reader. Tells him, Ihave taken a liberty tosay what Ipleaſe, as ifthere were nofuturejudgment to be regarded. AndthatIcan expectno comfort anotherday, without repentance now. For those things that have thus paffed betwixt him and me, ſhall again be reviſed, and fetinorderbefore me. That heis weary ofnoting my miscarriages ofthis kind.

That there is hardly a page orparagraph in my whole reply, but abounds with transgreſſions of this nature.

He begs the Lord to forgive me ; andwishes he couldfay, Father forgive him, for he knoweth not what he doth ; as if my fin weregreater than thefin of those thatstoned Stephen, or crucified Chrift.

Reply.

Either I am guilty or innocent in the matter here charged upon me by Mr. C.

If guilty, I promise him an in- - genuous acknowledgment.

If innocent(as both myconfcience, and his own book will prove me to be) then I ſhall only fay,

Heknoweth not what ſpirit he is of. The caſe must be tried by his own book, and it will quickly be decided.

Theſe are the very words in his Solemn call, p. 148, ' He (that is, Mr. Sedg- ' wick) makes no diſtinction betwixt the ceremonial covenant

' that was dedicated with blood, and the law written in ſtones ' that was not ſo dedicated. How ſtrangely doth he confound

' andobfcure the word and truth of God, which ought to have ' been cleared and diſtinctly declared to thoſe he had preached or written to ?

With much more, p. 149, 150, 151. where he faith, 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 fea- ' ſons, and in a diſtinct method; the one with, the other with-

out a Mediator; the one dedicated with blood and ſprinkling, the other (that we read of) not ſo dedicated.'

Now let the reader judge whether I have deſerved ſuch tragical complaints and dreadful charges for inferring from theſe words, That the ceremonial law being by him pronounced a diftinct covenant from the moral law, which he makes all one withAdam's covenant; delivered at a dittinct ſeaſon, and in

Vindiciarum Vindex. a diſlinct method; the ceremonial law with a Mediater, the moral law without a Mediator ; the ceremonial law dedicated with blood and ſprinkling, the moral law not ſo dedicated : let him judge ( I ſay) whether I have wronged him in ſaying, that byhis own confeffion, circumcifion being a part of this ceremonial law, it can therefore be no part of the covenant of works.

Exception. But Mr. Cary hath two things to ſay for himself, (1.) That in the fame place he makes the ceremonial law no other than a covenant of works : And the wrong I have done him, is by not distinguiſhing (as he did) betwixt a covenant of works, and the covenant of works. Here it seems lies my guilt,upon which this dreadful outcry againſt me is made.

Reply.

But if Ishould chance to prove, that there never was, is, or can be any more than one covenant of works ; and that any one covenant which is diſtinguished from it (as he confeffes the ceremonial law was) by a Mediator, and theblood ofſprinkling, canbe no partof that covenant of works ; what then will become of Mr. C's distinction ofa covenant ofworks, and the covenant of works ? Now the matter is plain and evident, That as there never were, are, or canbe morethan two common heads appointed byGod, namely, Adam and Christ,

1 Cor. xv. 45, 46, 47, 48. Rom. v. 15. 17, 18, 19. ſo it is impoſſible there ſhouldbe more than two covenants, under which mankind ſtands, under theſe two common heads.

And the firſt covenant once broken, it is utterly impoſſible that fallen man ſhould ever attain life that way, or that everGod ſhould fet itup again with fuch an intention and ſcope, ' unleſs (as • Mr. Charnockſpeaks *) he hadreducedman'sbody to the duſt

' and his foul to nothing, and framed another man to have go- • verned him by a covenant of works ; but that had notbeen

•the fame man that had revolted, and upon his revolt was • ſtained and disabled.'

If Mr. C. therefore be not able to provemore covenants of works with mankind than one, let him rather blush at his filly distinction betwixt a covenantof works, and the covenant of works.

For indeed he makes at leaſt four diftinct covenants of works, one with Adam, two with Mofes ; one moral, the other ceremonial ; and a fourth witch Abraham at the inftitution of circumcifion, Gen. xvii.

(2.) If it appear (as it clearly doth) that as there never was, is, or can be any more than one covenant of works, ſo whatfoever covenant is diftinguished from it by a Mediator, and dedicationby the ſprinkling of blood (as he faith the ceremonial

* Charnock on the attributes, p. 390.

Vindiciarum Vindex .

lawwas)cannot poſſibly, for the reasons hegives, be any part or member of Adam's covenant of works ; then, I hope, I have done Mr. C. no wrong in my aſſumption from his own words, for which he ſo reviles and abuſes me.

But this will appear asplainas the noon-day light: For a covenant with a Mediator, and dedicatedby ſprinkling ofblood, doth, and neceffarily must, effentially difference ſuch a covenant from that covenantthat had no mediator, nor dedication by blood. To deny this, were to confound law and goſpel, Adam's and Chrift's covenant; but the distinction betwixt them is his own, therefore my affumption wasjuſt.

That this blood was typically the blood of Chriſt, and that the Holy Ghoſt ſignified the one by the other, is plain from Heb. ix. 7, 8. And I never met with that •man that ſcrupled it before Mr. Cary.

So then my firſt argument to prove Abraham's covenant of circumcifion tobe the covenant of grace, and not anAdam's covenant, or any part thereof, ſtands firm after Mr. C's paſſionate reply, which I hope the Lord will pardon to him, though he had ſcarce charity enough left to defire a pardon for his friend, who hadneither wronged the truth, nor him.

Argum. 2. My ſecond argument was this.

If circumcifion was the feal of the righteousness offaith, itdid not pertain to the covenantofworks; for the righteousness offaith and works areoppoſite.

But circumcifion was the feal ofthe righteousness offaith, Rom. iv. 11.

Ergo.

The ſum of what he answers to this, p. 72, 73, &c. (as far as I canpick his true ſenſeout ofa multitude of needleſs words) isthis, ' He confeſſes this argumentſeems very plaufible ; but, however, Abraham was a believer before circumcifion ; and tho' indeed it fſealed the righteouſneſs offaith to him, yet it ſealed it tohim only as the father of believers ; and denies that ever Jacob, or Ifaac, or any others enrolled in that co venant were fealedby it ; but to all the reſt, beſide Abraham,

' it was rather a token of fervitude and bondage.'

This is the fum and ſubſtance ofhis reply.

Reply. But, Sir, let me afk you two or three plain questions.

(1. ) What is the reaſon you filently fſlide over the question I aſked you, p. 41. ofmy Vindicia, &c ? Did you find it an hot iron which you durft not touch ? It is like you did. My queſtion was this, Had Adam's covenant a feal of the righteouf ness of faith annexed to it, as this had, Rom. iv. 11. The righteousness offaith is evangelical righteousness, and this cir cumcifionfealed.

Say not it was to Abraham only that it fealed

Vindiciarum Vindex. it,forit is an injurious restriction put upon thefeal ofa covenant which extended to thefathers as wellas to Abraham: however, you admit that it fealed evangelical righteousness to Abraham, but Ihope you will notfay, that a feal ofthe covenant of works

(forfoyou made circumcifion tobe) everdid, orcouldfeal evange tical righteousness toanyindividualperfon in theworld.

I findyou a man ofgreat confidence, but certainly here it failed you ; not oneword inreply to this.

(2.) ' I told you •your distinction was invented by Bellarmine, and ſhewed you 'where it was confutedby Dr. Ames : but nota word to that.'

(3.) I ſhewed, Thats the extendingofthat feal to allbelievers, • as well as Abraham, is moſt agreeable to the drift and ſcope

*of the apoſtle's argument, which is to prove, that both Jews ' andGentiles are justified by faith, as Abraham was : and that ' the ground ofjuftification is commonto both : and that how

'great foever Abraham was, yet in this caſe he hath found no- •thing whereof to glory. And is not your expoſition a notable

'one, to prove the community of the priviledge ofjuſtification, becauſe the feal ofit was peculiar toAbraham alone ?' p. 47,

48.

Sir, you have ſpent words enough upon this head to tire your reader.

But why can I not meet with one word among them, that fairly advances to my argument ? or anſwer the important queſtions beforeyou, upon whichthe matterdepends?

Ifthis be allyou have to ſay, I must tellyou, you are but a weak manager of a bad cauſe, which is the leſs hazard to truth.

Arg. 3. In the covenant of circumcifion, Gen. xvii. God makes over himself to Abraham, and his feed, to be their God, orgives them a ſpecialintereſt in himself.

But, in the covenant ofworks, God doth not, ſince the fall, make over himself to any to be theirGod, byway of ſpeecial intereſt .

Therefore the covenant of circumcifion cannot be the covenant ofworks .

Thefum ofyour reply, in p. 76. is under two heads.

(1.) Youboldly tellme, That Goddoth in the covenantof 'works, make over himself to ſinners, to be their God, byway

• of ſpecial intereſt ; but itbeingupon ſuch hard terms, that it *isutterly impoſſible for finners, that way, to attainunto life,

'hehath therefore been pleaſed toaboliſh that, and make anew ' covenant;' and bring Exod. xx. 1. to prove it.

Reply. This is new, and ſtrange divinity, with me. (1.) ThatGodſhouldbecome apeople's God, by wayof ſpecial in

Vindiciarum Vindex.

tereſt, by virtue ofthe broken covenant ofworks ; this whollyalters thenature of that covenant: for then it was a law that couldgive life, contrary toGal. iii. 21. unless you can fuppofe afoul that is totallydeadin fin, tohave aſpecial intereſt inGod, as his God.

(2.) This anſwer ofyours yields the controverfy about the nature of the Sinai law; for this very conceffion of yours is the medium by which our divines prove ittobe a covenant of grace.

(3. ) This conceffion of yours confounds the two covenants, by communicating the eſſential property, and prime privilege of the covenant ofgrace, to Adam's covenant of works.

Either, therefore, expunge Jer. xxxi. 33. as a covenant ofgrace, " I will be theirGod, and they ſhall be my

" people;" or allow that in Gen. xvii. 7. to be ſpecifically the ſame; and that Exod. xx. though more obſcurely delivered.

(4.) You affert, ' ThatGod may actually become a people's 'God by way of ſpecial intereſt, and yet the falvation ofthat

'people be fufpended upon impoſſible terms.

You fent them before intopurgatory, but by thisyou muſtſend themdirectlyto hell: for ifthe ſalvation ofGod's peculiar people be upon impoſſible terms, it is certain they cannotbe ſaved

And, laſtly, itis anhorrid reflection uponthe wisdom, and goodness ofGod, who never did, or will make any covenant, whereinhe takes fallenmen tobe his peculiar people, and makeoverhimſelfto be theirGod ; andyet not make proviſion for their ſalvation in the ſame covenant, but leave their ſalvation for many ages, upon hard, and impoſſible terms, i. e. leave them under damnation.

(2.) I told you, in my Vindicia, &c. p. 49. that you were fain to cut Abraham's covenant, Gen. xvii. into two parts; and make the firſt to be the pure covenant of grace, which is the promiſſory part, to the oth verſe, andthe reſtipulation (as you call it, p. 205.) to be as pure a covenant of works : which I truly faid was a bold action ; and in ſo calling it, I gave it a foftername than the nature of it deſerved.

The ſum of what you reply to this, is, 1. Bydenying the matter of fact, and charging me with miſrepreſentation ; *and inthe next page confeffing the whole charge, ſaying, Though thepromise andthe reſtipulation, mentioned verſ. 7, 8, 9. make butone and the ſame covenant of circumcifion; yet there are two covenants mentioned inthatcontext, the firſt betweenGod and Abraham himself, verf. 2, 4. the other between God and Abraham, andhis natural poſterity alſo, verf. 7, 8, 9, 10. the * Mr. C's Defence,p.79.

PP VOL. IV.

Vindiciarum Vindex. formeryou call acovenant of grace, the latter a covenant of works.

And p. 81. you affirm, that afterGod had entered the covenant of grace with. Abraham, verſes 2, 4. that Abraham himfelfwas required to be circumcited by the comPage 81. mand ofGod, as a tokenof the covenant of works.

Andthen, after ſome unbecoming ſcoffs for miſplacing, ver. 7, 8. where ver. 9, 10. ſhould be; as alſo, ofGen. xii. for Gen. xvii. (whetherby the ſcribe, my self, orthe preſs,

Icannotfay: but ineach placeſufficient light isgiven to ſet you right in the ſcope, and argument of mydiſcourſe) you tell us,

That how harsh and unlikelyjoever it may seem to man's carnal reason, that the latter, to wit, the covenant of works made with Abraham, ver. 9, 10. must needs make void the covenant ofgrace made with him, verf. 2. 4. yet the apostlegives aquite contrary resolution of it, Gal. iii. 17. And after all, p. 79. in return to my argument, That the circumcifion of Abraham, andhis feed, ver. 9, 10. couldnot poſſibly be a condition of Adam's covenant of works from the nature of the act : becauſe

Paulhimselfcircumciſed Timothy, Acts xvi. 1, 2, 3. and afferts it to be a part of his liberty, Gal. ii. 3, 4. which could never be, ifin the very nature of the act ithad bound Timothy to keep the law forjustification; and had been contrary to the whole ſcope of the apoſtle's doctrine: but itbecame anobligation only from the intention of the agent.

All that you fay to this, p.95. is, That as for Paul's compliancewith theJews, however the caſe ſtood in that reſpect, that is certain, That • the bleffed apoſtle would never have expreſſed himself with that vehemency hedoth, Gal. v. 2, 3. if this hadbeen only

• the ſenſe of the Jewish teachers, or that circumcifion in its ' own naturedid not oblige to thekeeping of the whole law; and that this is only my corrupt gloſs upon the text '

Reply. Ifthere be but one covenant made betwixtGod and Abraham, in that 17th ofGenefis, andyou make two, not only numerically, but ſpecifically distinct, yea, oppoſite covenants of it, thenyou boldly cut God's covenantwithAbraham, in two, and are guilty ofan infufferable abuse of the covenant ofGod:

But the former is true ; therefore fo is the latter.

You ſay, p.

223, 224. ofyour call, That at the ſecondand fourth verſes •God made acovenantwith Abraham himselfalone, but at ver.

، 7. hemakes the covenantof circumcifion betwixt himſelf and • Abraham, and his natural feed alfo; and faith, ver. 7. And, or, according to the old tranflation, moreover ; as proceed- •ing to ſpeak ofanother covenant than whathehad beenbefore

* infifting on.'

Vindiciarum Vindex.

Now Iwould foberly aſk, (1.) What vouchers you have amongst expoſitors for this your rafh and daring affertion ? I findnot amanthathath trode this path before you, and I hope nonewill be hardy enough to follow : you certainly ſtand alone, and it is pity but you ſhould.

(2.) Where do you find the juſt parts of thenew covenant inthe 2d and fourth verſes ?

Is it not altogether promiffory, onGod's part, without any reſtipulation on Abraham's ? For you have excluded ver. 1, 7.

10. from that whichyou callGod's covenantofgracewith him.

Andthen foryourcovenantofworks, ver. 7,8, 9, 10. you make this tobe thepromiſſory part ofthat covenant, " to be aGod untothee, and to thy feed after thee;" and again, ver. 8. I will be theirGod.

Was ever ſuch a promise as this found in a covenant of works ? Tell me whatever God faid more in the newcovenant, thanhe faith here ? Obleſſed covenant ofworks, if this be fuch! (3.) Tell me whetheryou can fatisfyyour own confcienccewith the answers you have given to my firſtargument against your paradoxical, yea, heterodoxical expoſition ?

I told you, That if ver. 7, 8, 9, 10. contain another covenant, viz of works, enteredbyGod with Abraham, and his feed, it muft needs make void the former covenant, ver. 2, 4. for wherever the covenant of works takes place, the covenantof gracegives place ; they cannot conſiſt, as I have abundantly prov. ed before. Do you verily think thoſe words of the apoſtle,

Gal. iii. 17. which you bring as a foundation to fupport your fingular, and finful expofition, viz. And this 1 fay, That the covenant that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot difannut, that it should make the promise of none effect ; do you think

(I fay) that, in that, or any other text, the apostle oppoſes the two covenants made (as you fancy) with Abraham, Gen. xvii,

Ordoth he not there ſpeak of God's covenant with Abraham, as diftinguishedfromthe lawmade 430 years afterward ?

(4 ) Have you ſatisfied your ownjudgment, and confcience, in the reply you make to that unanſwerable objection from Paul's circumcifing of Timothy, Acts xvi. 2, 3 where you have the plainmatter of fact before you, that he was circumcifed by Paul ; and this fact of his justified as a part of the liberty he had in Chrift, Gal. ii. 3, 4. * from whence it evidently appears,

* He is bound not ſimplyand abſolutely from the nature of the work itſelf, (viz . Circumcifion,) butin regard ofthe intention ofhim who performs it ; andſuch an opinionbeing ſupported,&c.

Poal on theplace.

Pp2

Vindiciarum Vindex.

That circumcifion, inits own nature, didnot ſimply, andabſolutely oblige men to thekeeping ofMotes's law for righteouf.

Defs, but only for the intention, or opinion of the perfon.

And thoughyou call this mycorruptgloſs uponthetext, therein you grofly abuſe me: the gloſs is neither corrupt, normy own; butthe unanimousjudgment of all found expofitors of the text, asyou might fee, were you capable of feeing it, ina collection oftheirjudgments uponthat text, Gal.v. 2,3,4. in Mr. Pool's Synopfis. And though Eſtius thinks the act of circumcifion might be obligatory to theGentiles, towhom the lawwas not given; yet itwas not ſo to theJews that believed, and fuch was Timothy.

But why do I refer you to the judgmat of commentators? The veryreaſon of it may convince you.

For, If the very act of circumcifiondid,initsownnature, oblige all onwhom it paſſed, tokeep the whole lawfor their righteouſneſs, thenPaul ſo obliged Timothy, and all others onwhom he paffed it, to keep the law for their righteouſneſs.

But Paul did not oblige Timothy, or any other onwhomhe paffed it, by the very act of circumciſion ſo to keep the law.

Therefore the very act of circumcifion, in its own nature, did not oblige all onwhom it paffed, to keep the whole law for righteoufneis .

You may ponder this argument atyour leiſure, and not think to refute it at ſo cheap a rate, as by calling it a corrupt gloſs of my own. And thus I hope I have fufficiently fortified, and confirmedmy third argument, toproveAbraham's covenant to be a covenant of grace. My fourth was this :

Argum. 4. That which in its direct, and primary end, teacheth manthe corruption of his nature by fin,andthe mortificationof fin by the Spirit of Chriſt, cannot be a conditionofthe covenant of works.

But fo did circuinciſion in the very direct, and primary end of it; therefore, &c.

Your reply to this, is, ' That when I have fubftantially * provedthat the Sinai covenant, as it contained the paſſover,

*facrifices, types, and appendages, under which were veiled many spiritual mysteries relating to Christ, and mortification

* offin by his grace, and Spirit, tobe no covenant of works, * but agospel-covenant ; you will thengrant, with me, that the * present argument is convincing; p. 66, 67 of your reply.

Reply. Sir, I take you for an honestman, and every honeſt man will be as good as his word; either Ihave fully proved againft you, that the Sinai law (taken inthat latitude you here

Vindiciarum Vindex .

expreſs it) is not an Adam's covenant of works, orI have not.

If I have not, doubtleſs you have reſerved your more pertinent, -and ſtrong replies inyour own breaſt, and trust not to thoſe weak, and filly ones, which you see here baffled, and have only ſerved to involve you in greater abfurdities than before. But ifyou have brought forth allyour ſtrength (as in ſuch adefperate ſtrait no man can imagine but you would) then Ihave fully proved the point against you ; and if I have, I expect you tobe ingenuous, and candid, in making good your word, that you will then grant, with me, that this argument is convincing, to the end for which it was deſigned. And so I hope we have fully iſſued the controversy between us, relating toGod's covenant with Abraham.

You have, indeed, four arguments, p. 59, 60, 61, 62. of your Reply, to prove Abraham's covenant a covenant of works , ofthe fame nature with Adam's covenant.

(1.) Becauſe as life was implicitely promiſed toAdam upon his obedience, and death explicitely threatened in cafe of his diſobedience, which made that properly acovenant of works ; ſo itwas in the covenant of circumcifion,Gen. xvii . 7, 8. compared with ver. 10, 14.

Reply. This argument, or reaſon, cannever conclude; becauſe asGodnever required ofAbraham, and his children, perfonal, perfect, and perpetual obedience to the whole law for life, as he did of Adam; ſo the death, or cutting off, ſpoken ofhere, ſeems tobeanother thing from that threatened toAdam.

Circumcifion (as I told you before) was appointed to be the difcriminating fignbetwixtAdam'sfeed, and theHeathen world ; and the wilful neglect thereof is here threatened with the cutting offby civil, or eccleſiaſtical excommunication from the commonwealth and church of Ifrael, as Luther, Calvin, Paraeus,

Muſculus, &c. expound ; notby the death of body and foul, as was threatened toAdam, without place for repentance, or hope ofmercy.

(2.) You ſay Abraham's covenant could not be a covenant of faith, becauſe faith was not reckoned to Abraham for righteouſneſs incircumcifion, but in uncircumcifion, Rom. iv. 9, 10.

Reply. This is weak reasoning; circumcifion could not belong to a gofpel-covenant, becauſe Abraham was a believer before he was circumcifed.

You may as well deny the Lord's Supper to be the feal of a goſpel-covenant, becauſe the partakers of it are believers before they partake of it.

Beſide, you cannotdenybut it ſealed the righteouſneſs of faith toAbraham :

And I defired you before, to prove that a feal of the covenant ofworks is capable ofbeing applied to fuch an uſe and ſervice,

Vindiciarum Vindex. which youhave not done, nor ever willbe able todo; but politicly ſlided by it.

(3.) You ſay itcannotbe a covenant of grace, becauſe it is contra-diftinguished to the righteousness of faith, Rom. iv. 13 .

Reply. The law in that place is put ſtrictly for the pure law of nature, and metaleptically ſignifies the works of the law, which is a far different thing from the law, taken in that latitudewherein you take it. And, is not this a pretty argument, that becauſe the promise to Abraham, and his feed, was not through the law, but through the righteousness offaith: thereforethe covenantGodmadewithAbraham,andhisfeed,Gen.xvii. cannotbe agracious,but a legalcovenant ? This promise, mentioned Rom. iv. 13. was made to Abraham long before the law was given byMofes; and free grace, not Abraham's legal righteouſneſs, was the impulſive cauſe movingGod to make that promiſe to Abraham, and to his feed: and their enjoyment of the mercies promised, was not to be through the law, but through the righteousness of faith. By what rule of art this ſcripture is alledged to proveGod's covenantwithAbraham,

Gen. xvii. to be acovenant of works, Iam utterly to ſeek : if it be only becauſe circumcifion was added to it, that's anſwered over and over before, and you neither have, nor can reply toit.

(4.) Laſtly, Itcannot (fayyou) be acovenant of grace, becauſe itis repreſentedtous, infcripture, as abondage-covenant,

Acts xv. 10. &c. Gal. v. 1 ..

Reply. Itis time, I fee, to makean end; your diſcourſe runs low, anddreggy.

Do you think it is one andthe same thing to ſay, That theceremonial law was a yokeof bondage to them thatwere under it, and toſay itwas anAdam's covenant ? Are theſe two parallel diftinctions in your logic ? Alas ! Sir, there is a wide difference ; the difficulty, variety, andchargeableneſs of thoſe ceremonies, made them, indeed, burthenſome and tireſome to that people; but theydid not make the covenant, to which they were annexed, to become an Adam's covenant of works : for in the very next breath, ver. 11. the apostle will tellyou, they were faved; yea, and tells us, that we shall be faved, even as they.

So that either they that were under this yoke, were faved by faith in the way of freegrace, as wenow are; orwe must be ſaved in the way of legal obedience, as they were.

Take which you pleaſe, for one of them you must take.

Weshall besaved, even as they, Acts xv. 10, 11 ..

If you can make no ſtronger oppoſition to my arguments, than ſuch as you have here made, your cauſe is loſt, though yourconfidence, and obſtinacy, remain: itwere eaſy for me to

Vindiciarum Vindex.

fillmorepaperthan I have written on this ſubject, with names ofprincipal note in the church of God, who, with one voice, decry your groundless poſition, and conſtantly affirm, That the law, in the complex ſenſe you take it, as it comprehends the ceremonial rites, and ordinances, whereunto circumcifion pertains, is, andcan be no other thanthe covenant ofgrace, tho more obfcurely adminiſtered.

But becauſe Latin authors are of little uſe to you, and amongEngliſh ones, the judgment of Dr. Crifp *, I ſuppoſe, will be inftar omnium with you ; I will recite it faithfully, out of his fermon upon the two covenants, where he makes the old and new covenant, tobe, indeed, two diſtinct covenants of grace, (for which Iſee no reaſon at all) butproves the former to be ſo in theſe words :

It is grantedof all men, that in the covenant of works 'there is no remiſſion of fin, there is no notice of Chriſt ; but ' the whole buſineſs, or employment of the priests of the old

' law, was altogether about remiſſionof fins,and the exhibiting ' andholding forth of Chriſt in their faſhion unto the people.

In the 15th of Numbers, ver. 28. (I will give you but one ' inſtance) there you ſhall plainly fee, that the adminiſtration

' ofthat prieſtly office had remiffion of fins,as the main endof that adminiſtration.

If asoulfin through ignorance, beſhalt bring ashe-goat unto the priest, and heshall make an atone- * ment for the foul thatfinneth ignorantly, and itshallbeforgi- ' ven him : See, the main end is adminiſtring forgivenneſs of ' fins.

And that Chriſt was the main ſubjectofthat their miniſtry, ' is plain; becauſe the apostle faith, in the verſebefore my text,

' that all that adminiſtration was but a ſhadow of Chrift, and ' afigure, for the prefent, to repreſenthim, as he doth expreſs

' in the 9th chapter of this epistle.

And the truth is, the uſual ' general goſpel that all theJews had, was intheir facrifices,

* and prieſtly obſervations.--So that it is plain, the adminiſtration oftheir covenant was an adminiſtration of grace, and abſolutely diftinct from the ' adminiſtration ofthe covenant of works.

And what can be faid more abſolutely, and directly contradictory to your pofition, than this is ? And yet again, p. 250. fpeaking to that ſcripture, Heb. viii. 8. 'where the apostle diftinguithes of a better, and a faulty, of first, andsecond, he faith, (finding

' faultwith them) " Thedays come,when Iwillmakea new covenant with the houſe ofIfrael,andwith the houſe ofJu- *Vol, II. Serm. 2, pag, 237, 248, 250.

Vindiciarum Vindex.

، dah; not according to the covenant I made with their fathers, when I took them by the hand tolead them out of • the land of Egypt;" and (as Jeremiah adds it, forthe apof- ⚫tle takes all this out ofJer. xxxi. 31. (although Iwas an hufbandto them ; and, inthe close of all, yourfins and iniquities,

• will I remember no more.

Here are two covenants, anew ' covenant, and the covenant he made with theirfathers.

Some ، may think it was the covenant ofworks at the promulgation ⚫ofthe moral law; but mark well that expreſſion ofJeremiah,

• andyou ſhall fee itwas thecovenant of grace. "For(faith he) not according tothe covenant I madewith their fathers, although I was an huſband unto them."

How canGodbe * confideredas a husband to a people under the covenant of works • whichwas broken by man in innocency, andfo became diſannul- • led, or impoffible, by the breach ofit ? The covenant ofworks

' run thus : Curſed is every one that continueth not in all ، things that are written in the book of the law; and in • the day thou ſinneſt, thou shaltdie the death. Man had finnedbefore Godtook him by the hand, to lead himout oftheland

، ، ofEgypt, andfin hadfeparated manfromGod: How then can • God be calledan husband in the covenant of works ? The covenant, therefore, was not a covenant of works, butfucha cove- ' nant asthe Lordbecame an husband in, and that must be a co- • venant ofgrace,' &c.

How the doctor makes good his two distinct covenants of grace, I fee not, nor expect ever to fee proved, and is notmy preſent concernment to enquire; but once it is evident, by what he hath here ſaid, that the ceremonial law,whereof cir- ، cumcifion is abranch, can be no other than the covenant of grace. And nothing is more common, among our divines, than to prove, not only the Sinai law, butGod's covenant with Abraham, Gen. xvii. to be the covenant ofgrace, by this medium, That God having entered into a covenant ofgracewith

Abraham before, would never bring him under a covenant of works afterwards, which must nullify, and void the former.

And, beſides, fuchacovenant of works as you make this, was never heard of inthe world, whereinGod promiſes tobe aGod toAbraham, and his feed, intheir generations, upon therigo. rous, and impoſſible terms ofAdam's covenant.

By this time, I prefume, you must feel the force of thoſe arguments produced against your vain and groundleſs notion; and how little you are able to deliver your theſis from them, but the more you ſtruggle, the more ſtill you are entangled. Gowhich way you will, your abſurdities follow you,

Vindiciarum Vindex .

as your ſhadow, haeret lateri lethalis arunde.

Leaving, therefore, all your abfurdities uponyou, tillGod thall give you more illumination and ingenuity to difcern and acknowledge them, I ſhall paſs on to the examination ofyour third poſition, which led you into theſe othergroſs miſtakes; and ifGod ſhall convinceyou ofyour error inthis point, I hope it may prove a means ofrecoveringyou out of the reſt; which, in love toyour foul, I heartilydefire.

3. Your third position is, That God's covenantwith Abraham, Gen. xvii, can be no other than the covenant of works, because circumcifionwas the condition ofit : For(layyou) the new covenant is altogether abſolute andunconditional.

Of the Conditionality oftheNew Covenant.

This queſtion, Whether the covenant of grace be conditional, or abfolute, was moved (as a learned manobſerves) in the former age, byoccaſion of the controverfy about juftification, betwixt the Proteftants and Papiſts. Among the Proteſtants, ſome denied, and others affirmed theconditionality of the gofpel-covenant : Thoſe that denied it, did fo for fear ofmingling law and goſpel, Chriſt's righteouſneſs andman's, asthe Papiſts hadwickedlydone before.

Thoſe that affirined it, did ſo out of fear, alſo; left the neceffity offaith and holineſs, being relaxed, Libertiniſm ſhouldbe that way introduced.

But ifthe queſtion were duely ſtated, and theſenſe of its terms agreedupon, the goſpel-covenantmay be affirmedtobe conditional, tofecurethe people ofGod from Libertiniſm, withoutthe leaſt diminution ofthe righteouſneſs of Chriſt, or clouding the free grace ofGod.

Idid, in my firſt anſwer to your call, endeavour to prevent the needleſs trouble you have here given yourſelf, by a fuccinct ſtateof thequeſtion; tellingyou the controversy betwixt us, is not, ( 1.) Whether the goſpel covenant requires noduties at all of them that are under it? Nor, (2. ) Whether it requires any fuchconditions as wereinAdam's covenant,namely,perfect, perfonal, and perpetual obedience, under the penalty ofthe curſe,andadmittingnoplaceofrepentance ? Nor, (3.) Whether anyconditionrequired by iton our part, have any thing in its ownnature meritorious of the benefits promifed ? Nor, (4.)

Whether we be able in ourown ſtrength, and by the powerof our free will, without the preventing, as well as the affiſting grace of God, to perform any fuch work or duty as we call a condition ? Theſe things, Itoldyou, were tobe excluded outofthis controverfy. Butthe onlyqueſtionbetwixtus, is,

VOL. IV.

Vindiciarum Vindex.

Whether in the new covenant,fome act of ours (though it have m merit in tt, nor can be done in our ownfingleftrength) be not required to be performed by us antecedently to a blessing, or privilege, confequent by virtue of a promise : andwhetherfuch an act or duty, being of afufpending nature to the bleffing promised, it have not the true, and propernature of agospel-condi tion ?

In your reply (contrary to all ruleand reaſon) you include, and chiefly argue against the very particulars by me there excluded; and icarcely (if at all) touch the true queſtion, as it was ſtated, and by you ought, accordingly, tohavebeen conſidered.

I might thereforejuſtly think myselfs diſcharged from anyfurtherconcernmentwith you aboutit; for ifyou will include what I plainly exclude, you argue not against mine, but another man's poſition, which Iamnot concerned todefend. You heredifpute again ſtmeritorious conditions, which I explode, and abhor, as much as yourself.

You say, p. 34. ofyour reply, that acondition plainly implies ſomething of merit, byway of condignity, or congruity; which is falte, and turns the quef tion from me to Papiſis. And were it not more for the clearing up of so great a point, for the inſtruction and ſatisfaction of others, than any hopeyou give me ofconvincing you, I ſhouldnot have touched this queſtion again, unless I bad ad foundyour replies more diſtinct and pertinent. But find. ingthe point incontroversy ofgreat weight, I will once more tellyou, 1. What the word [condition] ſignifies .

2. Inwhatſenſe it isbyus used inthis controverfy.

3. Eſtabliſh my arguments for the conditionality ofthe new covenant.

1. And firſt, we grant, That neither our word [condition], nor your term [abfolute], are either ofthemfound in fcripture, with reſpect to God's covenanting with man; ſo that we con tendnotaboutthe ſignificationofa fcripture term. Butthough the word conditionalbe not there, yet the thingbeing found there, thatbrings theword conditionalinto uſein this controverfy.

Forwe know not how to expreſs thoſe ſacred particles, εἰς ὅτι, ἐαν μη, μόνον, ουδε ουχί &c. if, if not, unless, but if, except, only, and the like, which are frequently uſed to limit and reſtrainthe grants and pivileges ofthe newcovenant, Rom.x.

9. Matth. xviii. 3. Mark. v. 36. Mark xi. 26. Rom. iv. 244

Ifay, we know not how toexpreſs the true fente and force of theſe particles inthis conroversy, by any other word, fo fit and fuil as the word conditional is. Now thisword condition being

Vindiciarum Vindex.

a law term, is varionfly ufed among the Jurifts; and the various use of the word, occafions that confufion which is foundin this controversy. He, therefore, that ſhall clearly diftinguiſh the various ſenſes and uſes of the word, is moft likely tolabour with fucceſs in this controverſy.

I ſhall, therefore, briefly note the principal fenfes anduſes ofthe term, and ſhewinwhat ſenſe wehere take it.

Of conditions, there be two forts, 1. Antecedent.

2. Confequent conditions.

As to the latter, namely, confequent conditions, you yourſelfacknowledge, p. 100.

That in the outward difpenfation ' of the covenant, many things are required of us, in order unto the participation or enjoyment of the full end of the covenant in glory."

So then the covenant is acknowledged to be conſequently conditional , which is no more than to ſay with the apoſtle,

" Without holiness no man ſhall fee God;" or that, " Ifany " mandraw back, his foul ſhall have no pleaſure in him," &c.

Ourcontroverfytherefore is notaboutconfequent conditions, laid byGod upon believers, after they are in Chrift and the covenant; the covenant, ſo confidered, a posteriori, will not be denied to be conditional. The only queſtion is about antecedent conditions, and of theſe we are here to confider,

1. Such as reſpect the firſt ſanction of the covenant inChrift.

2. Such as refpect the applicationofthe benefits ofthe covenant unto men t.

Asto the firſt ſanction of the covenant in Chriſt, we freely acknowledge it hath no previous condition on man's part, but depends purely and only upon the grace ofGod, and merit of Chrift : So that our queſtion proceeds about ſuch antecedent conditions only, as refpect the application ofthe benefits ofthe

Qq2 * If the promises of the covenant concerning the end, as diſtinct fromthemeans of falvation, are the promises meant, then no body candeny that theſe areconditional,becauſe they always are made on conditionof faith and repentance.

Turretine.

+ Ifthe covenantis viewedinreſpect ofits being firſt ſet on foot, and eſtabliſhed in Chrift, it has no previous condition, but is found. edonly onGod's free favour and Chrift's merit; but ifit is viewed as to the acceptance and application in the believer, it has for its condition faith, which unitesa man to Chriſt, and ſo inſtates him in the fellowship andjoint participation ofthe covenant.

Turret,Vols 2.p. 203.

Vindiciarum Vindex. covenant untomen; and of theſe antecedent conditions, there are likewiſe two forts which must be carefullydiftinguiſhed.

1. Such antecedent conditions which have the force ofa meritorious and impulsive cauſe, which being performed by the proper ſtrength ofnature, or, at moſt, by the help of common, affifting grace, do give aman a right tothe reward or bleſſings of the covenant. And inthis ſenſe we utterly disclaim antecedent conditions, as I plainly told you, p. 61. of my Vindiciae, &c.

Or, 2. An antecedent condition ſignitying no more than an act of ours, which, though it be neither perfect in everydegree, nor in the leaſt meritorious of the benefit conferred, nor performed in our natural ſtrength; yet, according to the conftitution of the covenant, is required of us, in order to the bleſſings conſequent thereupon, by virtue of the promiſe : And, conſequently, the benefits and mercies granted in the promite, in this order, are, and mustbe ſuſpended by the donor or diſpoter of them, until it be performed Such a condition we affirm faith to be.

But here again, faith, in this ſenſe, the condition of the new covenant is confidered ; 1. Effentially ; or , 2. Organically, and inftrumentally.

Inthe firſt confideration of faith, according to its effence, it iscontained under obedience, and in that reſpect we exclude it from juſtifying our perſons, or entitling us tothe ſaving mercies of the new covenant, as it is a work ofours; and ſo I ex cluded it, p. 133. ofmy Method of Grace, which you ignorantly orwilfullymistake, when, inyour reply, p. 88, 89. you object against me: Faith, confidered in this ſenſe, is not the condi tionof the covenant, por can pretend tobe ſo, more thanany othergrace.

But, We conſider it organically, relatively, and (as moſt ſpeak) inſtrumentally, as it receives Chriſt, John i. 12 , andſo gives us power tobecome the fons of God; it being impoſſible for any man to partake of the ſaving benefits of the covenant, but as he is united to Chrift " For all the promises of God are in him

" yea, and inhim amen," 2 Cor. i. 20. And united to Chrift nomancanbe, before he be a believer ; for Chriſt dwelleth in our hearts by faith, Eph. iii. 17.

Upon which ſcriptural grounds and reaſons it is, that we affirm faith to be an antece dent condition, or causa fine qua non, to the ſaving benefits of the new covenant; and that it must go be ore them, at leaſt inorder ofnature, which is thatwe mean, whenwe ſayfaithis

Vindiciarum Vindex.

- the antecedent condition of the new covenant.

And thoſe that deny it tobe ſo, (as theAntinomians do, who talk of actual andperſonal juſtification frometernity, or at leaſt from the death of Chriſt), muſt conſequently affert the actual juſtification of infidels; and not only disturb, but deſtroy the whole orderof the goſpel, and open the fluices and flood-gates to allmanner of licentiouſneſs.

And thus our pious and learneddivines generally affirm faith tobe the condition of the covenant.

So * Mr. Jeremiah Burroughs, Faith (faith he) hath the honour above all other ' graces, to be the condition of thesecond covenant; therefore

'it is certainly ſomegreat matter that faith enables us todo.

Whatsoever keeps covenantwithGod, brings ſtrength, tho'

' itſelf be never ſo weak : asSampson's hair.

What is weaker * thana little hair ? yet, becauſe the keeping that, was keeping ' covenant withGod; therefore even a little hair was fo great

ſtrength to Sampson, Faith then, that is the condition ofthe covenant, in which all grace and mercy is contained, if it be

' kept, it will cauſe ſtrength indeed todo great things.'

Andas this excellent man, Mr. Burroughs, is in this ſenſe for the conditionality of the new covenant, ſo are the moſt learned and eminent of our own divines.

Dr. Edward Reynolds †, afſigning the differences betwixt the two covenants, gives this for one : ' They differ in the condition (faith he) ;

' there legal obedience, here only faith; and the certainconfe-

quent thereof, repentance.

There is difference likewife in ' the manner of performing theſe conditions : For nowGod himself begins firſt towork upon us, and in us, beforewe

'move or ſtir towards him. Hedoth not only command us, and leave us to our created ſtrength toobey the command; but he furnisheth us with his owngrace and Spirit to obey

' the command.'

Of the famejudgment is Dr. Owen ‡ : ' Are we able (faith ' he) of ourſelves tofulfil the condition ofthe new covenant ?

' Is it not as eaſy for amanby his own ftrength to fulfil the 'whole law, as to repent and believe the promise of the * goſpel ? This then is one main difference of theſe two cove- ' nants, That the Lord did in the Old only require the con- ' dition ; now in the New, he alio effects it in all the foede- *Mofes's Self denial, p. 288 .

† Dr. Reynolds, his Life ofChriſt, p. 512, ‡ Dr. Owen's Treatife ofRedemption, book 3. chap. 1.p. 103.

104. And in his Tractofjuftification, p. 299, &c.

Vindiciarum Vindex. rates, towhom the covenant is extended.

This is the man you pretended to be against conditions.

Mr. William Pemble *, opening the nature of thetwo covenants, faith, The law offers life untomanupon condition of •perfect obedience; the gospel offers lifeunto manupon ano ther condition, to wit, of repentance and faith in Chrift.'

And after his proofs for it, faith, ' From whence we conclude firmly, That thedifference between the law and the gospel, aſſigned by our divines, is moſt certainandagreeable to the fcriptures, viz. That the lawgives life unto the juſt, upon •condition ofperfect obedience in all things; the goſpel gives

' life unto ſinners,upon condition they repent, andbelieve in • Chrift Jefus.'

Learned andjudicious Mr. William Perkins + thus, The ⚫covenantofgrace is that,wherebyGodfreely promifing Chrift andhis benefits, exacts again ofman, that hewould by faith receive Chrift.

And again, in the covenant ofgrace two ⚫things must be confidered, the ſubſtance thereof, and the con- ⚫dition.

The ſubſtance ofthe covenant is, That righteouf * neſs and life everlasting, is given toGod's church and people by Chrift f.

The condition is, That we, for our part, areby * faith to receive the forefaidbenefits ; and this condition is by grace, aswellas the ſubſtance.'

That learned, humble, and painful minister ofChrift, Mr.

John Ball §, ftating the difference betwixt the two covenants, ſhews, that in the covenant at Sinai, in the covenant with Abraham, and that with David, that in all theſe covenant-expreffures, there are for fubftance the fame evangelical conditions of faithand fincerity.

Dr. Davenant|| thus :

In the covenantofthe gospel it is otherwife; for in thiscovenant, to theobtainment of reconci- • liation, juſtification, and life eternal, there is noother con- 'dition requiredthan of true and lively faith, John iii. 16.

Therefore justification, and the right to eternal life, dothde- 'pendonthecondition offaith alone.'

Dr. Downame * harmonizeth with the reſt in these words:

* Pemble ofjuſtification, fect. 4chap. 1. p. 214, 215, 216, 217.

+ Perkins order of cauſes, chap. 31. p. 17.

† Reformed Catholic ofjuſtification, p. 570 .

§ Mr. J. Ball of the covenant of grace, ch, 1. Of the new covenant. p. 198 , Davenant de justific.

Act. cap. 30.

** Tract. 1. ofjuftification, b. 6. chap, 8. fect. 10. and b. 7. chap. 2. fect 6.

Vindiciarum Vindex.

That which is the only conditionof the covenant ofgrace, ⚫by that alone we are justified : But faith is the condition of • the covenant of grace, which is therefore called lex fidei.

• Our writers (faithhe) diſtinguiſhingthe two covenants ofGod, that is, the law and the gospel, whereof one is the covenant

' ofworks, the other the covenant of grace, do teach, That the law ofworks is thatwhich tojuftification requireth works asthe condition thereof: the law of faith that, which to juſtification requireth faith as the condition thereof.

The former faith this, Do this, and thoushalt live ; the latter, Believe in Christ, and thoushalt besaved.'

But what ſtand I upon particular, though renowned names ?

You may fee a whole conftellation of our found and famous divines in the affembly, thus expreſſing themselves about this point.

The grace ofGod (ſay they) is manifeſted in the ſecondcovenant, inthat he freely provideth, and offereth to finners a Mediator, and life and falvationby him, and requiring faith as the condition to intereſtthem inhim, promiſeth and giveth his Holy Spirit to all his elect, to work in them that faith, with all other ſaving graces, and to enable them to all holy obedience, as the evidence of the truth oftheir

• faith, &c. *.

I could even tire the reader with the teftimonies of eminent foreign divines, as Cameron, de triplici foedere, Thef. 82. Urfinus et Paraeus, explicatio Catech. Queſt. 18. de foedere.

Wendeline, Chriftian Theology, lib. 1. cap. 19. thef. 9. Poliander, Rivet, Wallaeus, and Thyſius, the four learned profeffors at Leyden, Synopf. Dif. 23. ſect. 27. &c.

And as for thoſe antient and modern divines, whom the Antinomians have corrupted and miſreprefented, the reader may fee them all vindicated, and their concurrence with thoſe I have named, evidenced, by that learned and pions Mr. John Craile, inhis Modest vindication of the doctrine ofconditions in the covenant of grace, from p. 58. onward; a man whoſe name and memory is precious with me, not only upon the account ofthat excellentfermonhe preached, and thoſe fervent prayers he poured out many years fince, at my ordination; but for that learned and judicious treatise of his against Mr. Eyre, whereinhe hath caft great light upon this controverſy, as excellent Mr. Baxter and Mr. Woodbridge have alſo done.

But, alas ! what evidence is ſufficient to fatisfy ignorant and obſtinate men !

Sir, It pities me tofee the lamentable confufion you are in ; :

* Larger catechiſ. 4to. London, 1648. P.8.

Vindiciarum Vindex. you are forced,bythe evidence of truth, toyieldand own the ſubſtance of what I contend for : you have yielded the covenant tobe confequently conditional, in p. 84. of your Reply; you have alſo as plainly yielded thatthe application ofpardoning mercy untoourfouls, is in order of nature, consequent unto believing, p. 31. of your Reply.

From both which conceffions, in your own words recited, this conclufion is evident and unavoidable, viz.

That no adult perſon, notwithstandingGod's eternal election, and Chriſt's meritorious death and latisfaction, according to the conſtitution and order of the new covenant, can either bejustified in this world, or ſaved in the world to come, unleſs he firſt believe.

For if the application of pardoning mercy unto our fouls is in order of nature, conſequent unto believing, (as you truly affirm it to be) then, according totheconſtitution and order of the new covenant, no application of pardoning mercy can an'be made to our fouls before we believe. And if it be evident.(as you ſay it is, p. 84.) that unto afulland complete enjoyment of all the promises of the covenant, faith on ourpart is required; then, as noman can be actuallyjustified in this world, ſo neither can he be ſaved before, or without faith, in the world to come.

And if you didbut fee the true ſuſpending nature of faith, which you plainly yield, in theſe two conceffions ; you would quickly grant the conditional natureof it: for what is the proper nature and true notion ofacondition, but to fufpend the benefits and grants of that covenant, in which it is ſo inſerted ? And thus the controversy betwixt us is fairly iſſued.

But I doubt you underſtand not what you have here written, or are troubled with avery bad memory; becauſe I find you in a far different note from this, in p. 103. ofyour Reply, where you ſay, ' That if Jesus Chriſt fulfilledthe law, and purchaſed

•heaven andhappiness formen,(as all true Proteſtants hitherto • have taught) then nothing can remain, but to declare this tothem, to incline them tobelieve, andaccept it; and topre- • ſcribe inwhat way, and bywhatmeans they ſhall finallycome

⚫to inherit eternal life .

To affirm, therefore, that faith and • repentance, are the conditions of the new covenant required

• of us, in point ofduty, antecedent to the benefit of thepro- •miſe, doth neceſſarily ſuppoſe, that Chriſt hath not done all

⚫for us, nor purchased a right to life for any; but onlymade way that theymayhave it upon certain terms, or (asfeme

• ſay) he hath merited, that we might merit: but the conditi- • onsof the covenant are not tobe performedby thehead and ،

Vindiciarum Vindex.

* members both, Gal. iv. 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 જે ' effect thereof to them that believe in him, together with means

' of obtaining the full poffeffion, which here we want.'

Reply. Either theſe paſſages Ihave here cited and compared, were fetched at a great diſtance of time, out of authors differing as much injudgment as you and Ido, and ſo the diffonancyof them is the mere effect of oblivion, and incogitancy; or elfe your intellectuals are more confused, and weak, than I am willing to ſuſpect them to be.

For if the application of pardoning mercy to our fouls, is, in order of nature, confequent to believing (as you truly ſay itwas) then, certainly, notwithstanding Chriſt's fulfilling the law, and purchaſing heaven and happiness for men, ſomething else muſt remain to bedone, beſides declaring this to them, to incline them tobelieve and accept it, or preſcribing to them inwhatway they ſhall finally come to inherit eternal life.

For, beſides thoſe declarations, and preſcriptions you talk of, faith itſelf must be wrought in the fouls of men, or elſepardoning mercy is not, inorder of nature, confequent unto believing, as you faid it was: for all the external declarations, and preſcriptions, in the world, are not faith itſelf, but only the means to beget it ; which may, or may not become effectual to that end.

Secondly, Whereas you ſay, this (fenfeleſs notion) is conſequent upon the doctrine of all true Protestants ; you grofly abuſe them, and make all the true Proteftants in the world guilty of worse than Arminian, or Antinomian dotage.

The Antinomian, indeed, makes our actual juſtification tobe nothing elſe but the manifeſtation, or declaration of our juſtification from eternity, or the time of Chriſt's death.

And the Arminiantells us, that the declaration ofthe goſpel to men, is ſufficient tobring them to faith, by the aſſiſting grace of the Spirit.

But your notion is worsethan the very dregs of both, and yet you tack itas a juſtconſequenttothe doctrine ofall trueProteſtants.

P. 104.

Reply, Thirdly, You say, That to affirmfaith, and repentance, to be the conditions of the new covenant required of us, in point of duty, antecedent to the benefit of the promise, doth neceſſarily suppose that Chrift hath not done all for us, nor purchased a right to life for any ; but onlymade waythat theymayhaveit upon certain terms, or merited, that we might merit.

Here, fir, you vilely abuſe all thoſeworthy VOL. IV.

Vindiciarum Vindex. divines before-mentioned, who have made faith the condition of the new covenant, pinning upon them both Popery and Judaifm.

Popery, yea, the dregs of Popery, in fuppofing their doctrine neceffarily implies that Chrift hath merited that wemight merit. AndJudaism to the height, in ſaying, their doctrine neceffarily supposes that Christ bath not purchased, a right of life to any.

What can a Jew fay more? Ah, Mr. C. canyou read the words I have recitedout ofbleffedBurroughs,

Owen, Pemble, Perkins, Davenant, Downame, yea, the whole affembly of reverend and holydivines, with multitudes more

(whohave all, with one mouth, afſerted faith tobe the conditionof the new covenant required onman's part, in point of duty; and that men muſt believe before they canbe juftified; which is the very fame thing with what I say, that it is anantecedent to the benefit of the promise) and not tremble to think of thedireful charges you heredraw against them ? The Lord forgive your raſh preſumption.

Fourthly, Whereas you ſay, Chriſt hath, in our ſtead, performed the conditions of life, and thatthere remains nothing but a promise, &c. you therein ſpeak inthe highest dialect of *Antinomiauiſm; hath not Chriſt, by his life, anddeath, performed the conditions of life, in our stead ?

Yet you yourſelf confeſs, that pardoningmercy isinorderofnature, confequent to ourbelieving; certainly, then, there is ſomething more to bedonebefide the mere making, orbeing of apromife : there must be the effects ofthe promise inour hearts, yea, the effects of thoſe abfolute promiſes of the firſt grace, Ezek. xxxvi. Jer. xxxii . Or elfe, notwithstanding Chrift's performance of redemptionon his part, we can neitherbe juſtified nor faved.

For Ido not think you intend to laythe condition of repentance, orbelieving, uponChriſt, who, in thenewcovenant, hath laid themupon us, though, in the fame covenant, he gracioufly undertakes to workthem in us; andyetyour words found in that wild Antinomian note.

Objection. But, I ſuppoſe, you takemy notion tobe as ſelfrepugnant as your own, when I ſay faith is an antecedentcondition to juftification ; becauſe I alſo ſay, this grace is alſo ſupernaturally wroughtin us, and is not ofourſelves. This flaggers you, and is the very ftoneyou ſtumble at all along this controversy: for inyour fenſe, p. 34. every condition is mesitorious, by condignity, or congruity.

Reply. First, Whatdo I ſay more, in all this,thanwhat thoſe * Saltmarſh of freegrace, p. 126, 127.

Vindiciarum Vindex.

worthies,before-mentioned,doexpreſly affirm ? Doth notDr.

Owen(the man whom you deſervedly value) make conditions, both in Adam's covenant and the new, with this difference, that Adam's covenant requiredthem, but the new covenant effects them in all the foederates?

Sir, We take it for no contradiction to affert, That the planting of the principle, and the afſiſting andexciting ofthe acts of faith, are the properworks of the Spirit of God, and are, alſo, contained in the abſolute promiſes ofthe new covenant, Ezek. xxxvi. 26, 27. Jer. xxxii.

39, 40. Andyet faith, notwithstanding this, is truly and properly our work and duty; and that upon our believing, or notbelieving, we have, or have not, an actual intereſt in Chriſt, righteouſneſs, and life.

Forthough the author of faith be the Spirit ofGod, yet believing is properlyouract,and an act required of us by a plain command; 1 John iii. 23. This is the command of God, That ye believe. And if its beingwrought in God's ſtrength makes it cease to be our work, I would fain

know what expoſition you would give of that place, Phil. ii.

12, 13. Work out your own falvation, &c. for it isGod that worketh in you, both to willand todo. And as this faith is truly and properly our work, though wrought inGod's ſtrength

(for it is notGod, but we thatdo believe) ſo it is wrought in us by him (by your own confeſſion) before the application of pardoning mercy, which is conſequent, inorder of nature, thereunto : and therefore hath the true nature of an antecedent condition, which is that Icontend for ; anddidyou but under.

ſtand your own words, you wouldnotcontend against it.

Object. 2.

Oh, but ſay you, p. 34.every condition is meritorious, either byway of congruity, or condignity.

Reply. This is your ignorance of thenatureof acondition, withwhich I find you as unacquainted, as withthe natureof a covenant. A condition, whilst unperformed, only ſuſpends theact ofthe law, or teſtament ; itbeing the will of the testator, legislator, or donor, that his law, or teſtament, ſhould act, or effect, when the condition is performed, and notbefore :

But it is not effential to a condition, tobe a meritorious, or im-. pulſive cauſe, moving him to beſtowthe benefit for the fake thereof.

A man freely gives another, out of his love and bounty, ſuchanestate, orfum of money, which he ſhall enjoy, ifhe live to ſuch a year, or day, and not before; is this quando dies veniet, this appointed time the meritorious, or impulſive cauſe of thegift? Surelyno man will say it; but that it is a caufafinequanon, oracondition fufpending the enjoyment of Rr2

Vindiciarum Vindex. thegift, no man will deny, that knows what the nature ofa condition is. An act meritorious, byway of congruity, isthat towhich a reward is not due, out of strict juſtice, but outof decency, or ſome kind ofmeetneſs. Merit ofcondignity is a voluntary action, for which a reward is due to a man, out of juſtice, and cannot be denied him, without injuftice; our faith is truly the condition of the new covenant, and yet we deteft the meritoriouſneſs of it, ineither ſenſe.

Object. 3. But you object my words to me, inmy Method of Grace, where I aſſert the impoſſibility of believingwithout the efficacyof fupernatural grace, p. 102, 103.

Reply. Sir, I own the words you quote, andam bold tochal lenge themoſt envious eye that ſhall read thoſe lines, to ſhew me the leaſt repugnancy betwixt what I faidthere, andwhatI have faid in my Vindicie Legis, &c. p. 9. of the Prolegomena, andp. 61 : of that book.

You ſhew your good-will to make an advantageous thrust, but your weapon is too ſhort, and can drawno blood. But leaving theſe weak and impertinent ca vils, letus come to your ſolution ofmy arguments, p. 98. by which I proved the conditionality of the new covenant. My firſt argument was this:

Argum. 1. Ifwecannotbejuſtified,or faved,till webelieve, and arejustified when we believe; then faith isthe conditionon which thoſe conſequent benefits are ſuſpended, &c.

Answer. The fum of your anſwer(without denying, diftin guiſhing, or limiting onepropoſition) is this, That, ' here faith

⚫is properly put intothe room ofperfect obedience, and isto • do what perfect obedience was to do under the law : Where as (ſay you) faith is only appointed as an inſtrument tore ceive and apply therighteousness ofChriſt,which is thealone matter of our juſtification before God; and faith itſelfis not our righteouſneſs, as it would be if it were a condition,' p.

105, 106.

Reply. Not to note the weakneſs and impertinence of this anfwer, I ſhall only take notice ofwhat you here allow, and grant, Thatfaith is appointed as an instrument to receive, and apply the righteousness ofChrist, which is the alone matter ofour justification beforeGod. Whence I infer threeconclufions.

First, That we cannot be juſtified before God till we be lieve, exceptyou can prove, that the unaccepted and unapplied righteousness ofChriſt, doth actually justify our perſons beforeGod.

Secondly, That the juſtification of our perſons before God, is, andmust be ſuſpended (asby a non-performed condition)

Vindiciarum Vindex.

untilwe actually believe. Which twoconclufionsyield up your cauſe tomyargument,which you here ſeem to oppoſe.

Thirdly, That hereby you perfectly renounce, and destroy yourAntinomian fancy before-mentioned, That if Christ have fulfilled the law, and purchased heaven for men, nothing can remain but to declare this to them, &c. for it seems by this, they must receive, and apply Chrift's righteouſneſs by faith, or theycannot be justified (you ſay notdeclaratively in their own confciences, but) before God. And thus, inſtead ofanſwering, youhaveconfirmed, and yielded my firſt argument, and only

-oppoſe yourown mistakes, not the ſenſe, or force ofmy arguments, inall thatyou ſay to it, or the ſcriptures produced to proveit.

{ Argum. 2. Tomy second argument, recitedp.94. where I argued from God's covenant with Abraham, and proved it to be conditional; and yet by you acknowledged to be a pure gofpel covenant: all that you ſay, is, Thatyou have difpatchedthatbefore, in your difcourſe about the covenant ofcircumcifion, andtherefore will fay nothing to ithere.

Reply.

In faying nothing to it here, you have faidas much as you did before, in the place you refer to; and therefore finding nothing faid here, or there, I conclude you can fay nothing to it at all.

Argum. 3. My thirdargument was this: if allthe promiſes of thegofpel be abſolute and unconditional, then they do not properlybelong to the newcovenant. That cannot properly and ſtrictly be a covenant, which is not a mutual compact, and inwhich there isno reftipulation, nor re-obligation : it is a naked promife, notacovenant.

Answer, To thisyou answer three things. Inthe firſt branchof your answer, you impudently beg the queſtion, by faying, That you haveprovedalP. 113, 114. ready, in your replies to my former arguments, that the new covenant iswholly free and abfolute.

Upon this abfurd Petitio principii, you makebold to invertmyargument thus, in your ſecond reply :

If all the promises ofthe gospelbe wholly ab, •ſolute andunconditional, theydo properlyand truly belong

، tothenew covenant; but ſothey are: therefore, &c. ' O rare difputant! In the laſt place, inoppoſition tothe ſequel of my major propoſition, you tell me, You willoppoſe the judgment ofDr. Owen on Heb. viii. 10. where he faith,

That a cove-.

6 nant properly is a compact, or agreement, on certainterms, • ſtipulated by two or more parties, &c. and that the word

• Διαθήκη, thereuſed, ſignifiesacovenantimproperly,' &c.

Vindiciarum Vindex.

Reply. If you call this an oppoſition to the ſequel of my major, either your brains or minedowantHellebore.

Dothhe not ſay the very ſame thing Ido, That there muſt be a reftipulation in a proper covenant ? And, as for the word Διαθηκη, which, he faith, ſignifieth acovenant improperly, but properly is a teſtamentary diſpoſition, I fully concur with him therein; but Ihope a teſtamentary diſpoſition mayhave a condition in it; tobe ſure ſuch a one as I aſſert faith here tobe, which is the free gift of God: and in this ſenſe I ſhewed you before, where the Doctor yields faith tobe the condition of the new covenant.

Argum. 4. Myfourth argument was this, Ifallthe promiſes ofthe newcovenant be abſolute and unconditional, andhave no reſpect nor relation to anygrace wrought in us, or duty donebyus; then the trial of our intereſt in Chriſt by marks andfigns ofgrace, is not our duty, norcanwetakecomfort in fanctification, as it is an evidence of ourjuſtification, &c.

Your anſwer, p. 120. is, That ' at this rate I may prove * quidlibet a quolibet : for it doth not follow, that, becauſe the ⚫newcovenantis abſolute, therefore ithath noreſpect, nor re- ' lation, to anygrace wrought in us, nor dutydone by us, or ⚫that we may notjuſtly take comfortin ſanctification, as an e- • vidence ofour juftification.'

Reply. If Ihada mind tolearn the art of proving quidlibet aquodlibet, and makemyself ridiculous toothers,byſuch foolish attempts, I know no book in the world fitter to inſtruct me therein than yours.

Certainly you have the knack of it, and gaveus an inſtance of itbut now, in confuting the ſequel ofmy major, by an allegation out of Dr. Owen, which exprefly confirms and eſtabliſhes it.

But to the point; I would willingly know how it is poſſible for fanctification tobe atrue and certainmark and ſign ofjustification, when (according to theAntinomian principle, which you here toomuch comprobate and eſpouſe) amanmaybe justifiedbefore he believe, yea, before he is a man, even from the time of Chrift's death, and(as others of them ſpeak)frometernity. Atruemark and ſignmuſt be proper to, and inſeparable from that which it ſignifies. Now, ifthatbe true which you faid before, That after Christ's fulfilling ofthe law in hisown perfon, &c. nothing can remain, but to declare this to men to incline them to believe and accept it, and to preforibe in whatway theyshallcome to inherit eternal life.

Ifthis beall thatcan remain to us, then nothingbut the declarations, and preſcriptions of the gospel, which are things without us, can remain to be marks and ſigns ofjustification tous: and

Vindiciarum Vindex.

confequently all thoſe to whom thoſe declarations and preſcriptions are made and given, have therein the marks and evidences of their juſtification. But Iam truly weary of ſuch ſtuff, I am sure the apoſtle places vocation before justification.

Rom. viii. 30. "Whom he called, them he justified." And without an immediate teſtimony from heaven, I know not how to evidence andprovemy juſtification, but from, and bymy faith, and other parts of fanctification ; whereby I apprehend and applied the righteousness of Chrift : if you can prove it from the declarations, and preſcriptions ofthegofpel, I cannot.

Argum. 5. My fifth and laſt argument, ran thus : if the covenant of grace be altogether abſolute, and unconditional, requiring nothing tobe done on our part, to entitleus to its benefits; thenit cannot beman's duty, in entering covenant with God, to deliberate the terms, count the coſt, orgive his conſent by word or writing, to the terms of this covenant : for where there are no terms at all (as inabfolute promiſes there are none) there can be none todeliberate.

But I ſhewedyou, this is man's duty, from clear and undeniable fcriptures, &c.

122, 123.

You ſay, by way of anſwer hereunto, that • You must tell me, that the ſcripturesdo make a plain diſtinction betwixt the new and everlasting covenant,whichGodhathbeenpleaſed to makewith finners in • Jeſus Chriſt ; and the return of that fincere and dutiful obe.

⚫dience which he requires ofus, by way of anſwer thereunto.

Answer, p.

(2.) You ſay, there are many things, which though promifed • inthe covenant, and wrought in us by the grace of God;

→are yet duties indiſpenſably required ofus in order tothepar- • ticipation of the full end ofthe covenantin glory : and in refpect hereof, we are indeed to deliberate the terms, count

•thecoft, andgive up ourſelves ſolemnly tohim, with fincere ' reſolutions, &c.

But then you thought I had understood • there had been a vaſt difference betwixt God's covenant with us, andourcovenantwithGod, citingEzek. xvi. 59,60, 61.

• whereGod promiſeth to " give them their ſiſters for daughters, but not by their covenant."

And with this you compare Pfal. lxxxix. " My covenant will I not break;" where • (you ſay) we find aplain diſtinction betwixtGod's covenant

•with them, and theirduty toGod. And lastly, you ſay, p.

105. thatthewant ofadue obſervationofthis plain fcripturedistinction, betwixt God's free and abſolute covenant made

' with finners in Chriſt, and our covenants with God by way of return thereunto, is the true reaſon of all our miſtakes about the true nature of the goſpel covenant, whilft wejumble and

Vindiciarum Vindex.

⚫confoundtogether thatwhich the ſcripturesdoſoplainlydif- • tinguiſh.'

Reply. To your firſt anſwer, I ſay; it is true, the ſcriptures do distinguish betwixt covenant and covenant; that ofworks, andthat of grace.

It alfodiftinguiſhes the ſame covenant of gracefor ſubſtance, according to its various adminiſtrations into theold and new covenant.

It alfo diftinguishes betwixt the promiffory partofthe fame covenant ofgrace,andthe reftipulatorypart ; not as oftwo oppoſite covenants, (as you diſtinguiſh them, Gen. xvii.)but as thejuſt and neceffary parts of oneand thefame covenant.

It alfo diſtinguishes betwixtvows madeby mentoGod inſome particular cafes, andthecovenant ofgrace betwixtGod andthem. But what's all this toyour purpose ?

Or in what point doth ittouch my argument ? You defire me to caſt mine eye upon Ezek. xvi. and Pial. lxxxix.

I have done ſo, and that impartially; anddo aſſure you, I admire why you produce them against my argument.

That in Ezek. ſpeaks ofthe enlargement of the church by the acceſſion of the Gentiles to it; and the ſenſe ofthoſe words seems to me to be this; That thisenlargementofthe church isa gracious addition, or fomething beyondwhat God had ever done in his former diſpenſations of the covenant to that people. And for Pfal.

Ixxxix. I know not whatyou meanto produce it for, unleſs itbe toprove, what I neverdenied, That notwithstanding our failures induty towardsGod, God will still keep his covenant with us; though hewill visitthe iniquities of his covenantpeople witharod.

To your fecond aufwer,That we are todeliberate the terms and count the coſt, with respect to thoſeduties, which are in order to the participation ofthe full end of the covenant in glory: by which I ſupppſe you mean felf-denial, perfeve rance, &c. I have nocontroverfy with you about that.

Our question is, Whether there be no deliberations required of, or to be performed by men who are notyet in Chrift by juſtifying faith, but under ſome preparatory works towards faith? And whether at the very time of their clofing with Chriſt, there be notaconfent of the will unto thoſe terms required of them ? If you fay there be (as by the places I alledged it evidently appears thereare) thenyou yieldthe point

Icontend for.

Ifyou say they are notbefore, or at the time ofbelieving, to confider any terms, or give their conſent to themby wordor writing; fuch an answer would fly in the ve ry face ofthoſe ſcriptures I produced: for then amanmaybe incovenant without his own confent; he that deliberates not ,

Vindiciarum Vindex.

conſentsnot; non confentit, qui nonfentit. And therefore you durſt not ſpeak it out (for which modeſty I commend you) and ſo leave me with half an anſwer, not touching that part, viz.

Antecedent deliberations, which were concerned in this argument. And now letyour moſt partial friendsjudge, whether from this performance ofyours, you have anyjuft ground for that vainboaſt which concludes your anſwer, viz.

That the * covenants themselves, which thoſe privilegesare bottomed on; are now repealed, and that there is no room left for any o- ⚫ther argument to infer the baptifm of infants :' at least, 1 ſhall willingly commit it to thejudgment of all intelligent and impartial readers, Whether Mr. Cary hath any real ground in this performance ofhis, for fuch a thrafonical conclufion, fuch avain and fulſome boast ?

I find that with like confidence he hath alſo attempted a reply toMr. Joſeph Whiſton, a reverend, learned, and ageddivine, who hath accurately, and fucceſsfully defended God's covenant with Abraham, against Mr. Cox, and doubt not, if Mr. Cary, and his party, have but confidence enough to expoſe it to the public view, and to adventure the cauſe of infant-baptifm upon it, the world would quickly fee an end of this long-continuedand unhappy controverſy, which hath vexed the church of God, and alienated the affections ofgood men ; and that the wisdom ofprovidence hath permitted and overruled this laſt attempt, to the ſingular advantage of the truths ofGod, and tranquility of good men, whoſeconcernment (at this time eſpecially) is rather to ſtrengthen their faith, and heightentheir encouragements fromGod's gracious covenant, than toundermine it,when allthings beſide it are ſhaking and tottering round aboutthem.

Andnow, Sir, for a coronis toall thoſe things that havebeen controverted betwixt us about the covenants of God, and the right of believers infants tobaptifm, reſulting from one ofthem, which Ihave aſſerted, and argued, againstyou in my firſtanſwer, and you have filently and wholly paſſed over in your reply, hoping to destroy them all at once, byproving God's covenant with Abraham, Gen. xvii. to be a pure Adam's covenant of works ; Ijudge it neceſſary, as mattersnow liebetweenus, to givethe reader the grounds and reaſons ofmy faith and practice with reſpect unto the ordinance ofinfantbaptifm, and that as fuccinctly and clearly as I can, in the following Theses ; which beinglaidtogether by an unprejudiced and confiderative reader, will, I think, amount to more than a ſtrong probability, That

VOL . IV.

Vindiciarum Vindex. itisthe will ofGod,that the infantfeedofbelievers oughtnow to bebaptized.

Buthere I muſt remindthe reader, andbeg him

P. 61, 62.

to review what I havefaid before inthethird Caufe ofErrors,That to arriveto fatisfaction inthispoint, requires a due and ferious ſearch ofthe whole word ofGod; with a ſedate, rational, and impartial mind; comparing one thingwith another, though they lie ſcatteredata diſtance in the fcriptures; fome in the Old Testament and fome in the New.

Bringbut theſethings toan interview, as wedo indiſcovering the change of the ſabbath, and we may arrive unto adue fatisfaction of the will ofGod herein.

This I confefs, calls for ſtrength ofmind, great ſedulity, attention, andimpartiality ; and yetwhat man would think allthis too much, ifitwerebut to clear his children's title unto a ſmallearthly inheritance? Iintend not to give the reader here an account of all the arguments drawn from ſeveral ſcripture topics bythe ſtrenuous defenders of infants baptifm; but tokeep only to the arguments drawn fromGod's covenant with Abraham, Gen. xvii. which is the fcripture mainly controverted betwixtus : You affirming boldly and dangerously, thatcovenant to be no other than anAdam's covenant ofworks; and I juſtly denying and abhorring your poſitionuponthe grounds and reasons before given, whichyou neitherhave, nor ever will be able to destroy. Now that the reader, who hath neither time nor ability to read the larger, and more elaborate treatiſes on this ſubject may ὡς ἐντυπω in one ſhort view, ſee the deduction of believers infantsright tobaptifm fromthisgoſpel covenant ofGod with Abraham, I ſhall gather the ſubſtanceof what I contend for, and lay itas clearly as I can before the eyes of my reader in the following Theses; which being diſtinctly confidered as to the evident truth of each, andthen rationally compared one with the other, he will fee how each fortifies other, and how all together do ſtrongly confirm this conclufion, That the infants ofbelievers under the gofpel, as they naturally deſcend from Abraham's ſpiritual feed, are therefore partakers at leastof the external privileges of the viſible church, and therefore ought now to be baptized.

Theſis 1. It hathpleased God, in allages of theworld, fince man was created, to dealwith his church and people, by way ofcovenant, and in thefame way he willftilldealwith them unto the end the world.

Godmight have dealtwith us in a fupremeway ofmere fovereignty and dominion, commanding what duties hepleaſed,

Vindiciarum Vindex.

andeſtabliſhinghis commandsbywhat penaltieshe had pleaſed,

andnever have brought himself under the tye and obligation ofa covenant to his own creatures : but he chuſes to deal familiarly with his people, by way ofcovenanting, being a familiarway, 2 Sam. vii. 19. Isthis themanner ofmen, O LordGod, or, (as Junius renders it) andthat after the manner ofmen, O

L LordGod! itis a way full of condeſcendinggrace andgood. nets: he is willing hereby his people ſhould know what they may certainlyexpect from their God, as well as what theirGod requires ofthem. Herebyalſo he will furnish them with mighty pleas and arguments in prayer, ſuccour their faith againſt temptations; ſtrengthen their hands in duties of obedience, ſweeten theirobedience to them, anddiſcriminatehisownpeople from the world.

As foon therefore as manwas created and placed in paradiſe, beingmade upright, and throughly furnished with abilities perfectly and completely to obey all the commands ofhisMaker, the Lord immediately entered into the covenant of works with him, and all his natural poſterity inhim : And in this covenanthis ſtandingor fallingwasaccordingtothe perfectionand conſtancyofhis perſonal obedience,Gen. ii. 17. Gal. iii. 10.But inthis firſt covenant ofworks no proviſion atall was made for his recovery(in caſe ofthe leaſt failure) by his repentence or betterobedience; but the curſe immediately ſeizedboth foul and body: and fin, by the fall entering into man's nature, totally diſabledhim to the perfect performance of any one duty, as thatcovenant required it tobedone, Rom. viii. 3. nor would

Godacceptany repentance, or after-endeavours, in lieu of that perfect obediencedue by law. So that fromthefall ofAdam, tothe endofthe world, this covenant ceaſeth as a covenant of life, or a covenant able to give righteousness and life unto all mankind for evermore, Rom. iii. 20. " Thereforeby the deeds

" ofthelawthere ſhall no fleſh bejustifiedin his fight." Gal. ii.

16. " By the works of the law ſhall no fleſhbejustified." Gal. iii. II. "But that no man isjustifiedby the lawin the fight

" ofGod, is evident." And itbeingſo evident, that righteoufneſs and life being for ever impoſſible to be obtained upon the terms of Adam's covenant, it must therefore be a felfevident truth, Thatsince thefall, Godnever did, and tothe end ofthe world he never will open that way or door to life (thus block'dup by an abfolute impoffibility)for thejustification and Jalvation ofany man..

Theſis 2. Soon after the violation and ceffation of this first Sf2

Vindiciarum Vindex.

Covenant, as a covenant of life, it pleaſed the Lord toopen and publish the second covenant of grace by Jesus Christ, the first dawning whereof wefind inGen. iii. 15. where thefeed is promisedwhichshallbruiſe theserpent's head. And though this be but a very ſhort, and somewhat obſcure diſcovery of man's remedy and falvation by Chriſt ; yet was it a joyful found tothe ears of God's people, itwas even life from the dead to thebelievers of thoſe times.

For we may rationally conclude, That that ſpace of timebetwixt the breaking of the firſt, and making ofthe ſecond covenant, was the moſt diſmal period oftime that ever the world did, or ſhall fee.

This covenant ofgrace now tookplaceof the covenantofworks, comprehended all believers in theboſom of it.

The covenantofworks took place from the time it was made until the fall ofAdam, and thenwas abolished as a life-giving covenant.

The ſecondcovenanttook place from the time it was made foon after the fall, and is to continue to the endof the world. And theſe only are the two covenants

God hath made with men; the latter fucceedingthe former, and commencing from its expiration; butboth cannotpoffibly beinforce together at the ſame time, andupon the fame perfons, as co-ordinate covenants of life and talvation.

For in co-ordination they expel and destroy each other, Gal. v. 4.

" Whosoever of you are juftified by the law, ye are fallen from " grace."

The firſt covenant was a covenant without amediator; the ſecond is a covenant with a mediator.

Place a believer under both at once, or put theſe two covenants in co-ordination, and that which results will be a pure contradiction, viz. That a man is ſaved without a mediator, and yet by a mediator .

Moreover, if there be away to life without a mediator, there was no need to make acovenant in and with a mediator; nor can thoſe words of Chriſt be true, John iv. 6. " I " am the way, the truth, andthe life: no man cometh to the " Father but by me."

The righteouſneſs ofthe firſt covenant was within man himfelf; the righteouſneſs ofthe ſecond covenant is withoutman in Chriſt.

Put theſe two in co-ordination, and that which refults is as pure a contradiction as the former, viz. That a man is justified by a righteouſneſs within him, and yet is justified by a righteouſneſs without him, expreſly contrary to the atheapoſtle'sconcluſion, Rom. iii. 20. " Therefore by the deeds

" ofthelaw there ſhall no fleſh be juſtified in his fight."

It is therefore an intolerable abſurdity toplace believers under both theſe covenants at the ſame time; under the curſe of the firſt, andbleſſing of the fecond, For whenfoever the ſtate ofany

Vindiciarum Vindex.

perſon is changedbyjuſtification, his covenantis changedwith his ſtate, Col. i. 13.

'Tis as unimaginable that a believer ſhould thus ſtand under both covenants, as it is toimagine amanmay beborn oftwo mothers, Gal. iv. 22, 23, 24, 25. or a woman lawfully married to two huſbands, Rom. vii. 1, 2, 3, 4. and moreabſurd(if itbe poſſible any thing can be more abſurd) to attribute the moſt glorious privilege of the covenant ofgrace,

(viz. " I will be a God to thee, and to thy feed after thee,"

Gen. xvii. 7.) to the impotent and aboliſhed covenantofworks ; bothwhich abſurdities are afferted in defence ofAntipaedo-baptifm.

And though it be true, that after the firſt edition ofthe covenantofgrace, the matter ofthe firſt covenantwas repreſented tothe Ifraelites in the moral law: yet that repreſentation was intended anddeſigned tobe ſubſervient, and added to the promiſe, Gal. iii. 19. and ſo (as an acute and learned divine * ſpeaks) the very decalogue or moral law itſelf pertained tothe covenant of grace ; yea, in ſome fort, flowed out of this covenant, as it was promulged by the counſel ofGod tobe ferviceableto it; both antecedently toleadmenbythe conviction of fin, fear of wrath, and ſelf-deſpair, tothecovenantofgrace; and alfo conſequently as it is a pattern of obedience and rule of holineſs.

For had it been publiſhed as a covenant deſigned intentionally to its primitive uſe and end, it had totally fruſtrated thecovenantof grace.

Theſis 3. Though the primordial light or first glimmerings of this covenant ofgrace, were comparatively weak and obfcure ; yetfrom thefirst publication of it toAdam, God in allages hath been amplifying the privileges, andheightning the glory ofthis

Secondcovenant in all the after expreſſures and editions of it unto this day, and willmore andmore amplify and illustrate it to the . end of the world.

That firſt promiſe,Gen. iii. 15. is like the firſt ſmall ſpring or headof agreatriver, which the farther it runs, the bigger it grows by the acceſſion ofmore waters to it.

Or like the fun in the heavens, which the higher it mounts, the more bright and glorious the day ſtill grows.

In that period of time, betwixt Adam, andAbraham, we find no token ofGod's covenant orderedtherein tobe applied to the infant-feed ofbelievers.

But in that ſecond edition of the covenant toAbraham, the privileges of the covenant were amplified, and his infant-feed not only taken into the covenant

*** Turretini Pars 2da loc. 12.p. 248.

Vindiciarum Vindex.

(as they were before)butalso addedtothe viſible church, by receiving the token of the covenant, which then was circumcifion; and ſo here is a great addition made to the viſible church, even the whole infant off-ſpring of adult believers.

From that period, until the coming of theMeſſiah in the fleſh, the Jewish church, and their infant-feed, except only ſome few proſelytes out of theGentile nations, made up the viſible church of God, and the poor Gentiles were without Chriſt, being aliens from the commonwealth of Ifrael, and ſtrangers fromthe covenant of promiſe, having no hope, and withoutGod in the world, Eph. ii. 12. but in this glorious third period the covenant again enlarges itſelf more thanbefore, and the privileges of it are no longer limited, and retrained to the Jewiſh believers, and their infant-feed; but the Gentiles alſo are taken into the covenant, and the door of faith was opened unto them,Acts xiv. 27. the partition-wall was nowbrokendown, which ſeparated the church from the Gentile world, Eph. ii. 14. This was a glorious enlargement of the covenant, and many glorious prophecies, and promiſes, were fulfilled in it; ſuch as thoſe, Ifa. xi. 10, and xlii. 1, 6. xlix. 22. liv. 3. lx. 3, 5, 11, 16. lxii. 2, &c.

Andthough the covenant, as to its external part, ſeems to have loſt groundinthebreaking off of theJewish nation from the church; yet, like the ſea, what it loſes in one place, it gains with advantage, upon another : The addition of many

Gentile nations to the church, more than recompences for the preſent breaking off of that one nation oftheJews. And, indeed, they are broken off but for atime, forGod ſhall graff them in again, Rom. xi. 23.

This therefore being thedeſign ofGod, and ſteadycourſe ofhis covenant ofgrace, more and more to enlarge itſelf in all ages ; nothing can be more oppofite tothe nature of this covenant, than to narrow and contract its privileges in its farther progreſs, and cut off awhole ſpecies from it, which it formerly took in.

Thesis 4.

It is paſt alldoubt, and contradiction, that the infant-feedofAbraham, under the ſecond edition of the covenant ofgrace, were taken with their believing parents intoGod's gracious covenant, had the ſeal of that covenant applied to them, and were thereby added to the viſible church, Gen. xvii.

7,8, 9, 10, 11. which was a gracious privilege ofthe covenant fuperadded to allthe former, andſuch as ſweeps away all the frivolous, andgroundleſs cavils, and exceptions of thoſe that object the incapacity of infants to enter into covenant with God, or receivebenefit from theexternal privileges of the vi

Vindiciarum Vindex .

fiblechurch. Nor can the ſubtileſt enemy to infantsbaptifm, giveus a convincing reason whythe infants ofGentile believers arenot equally capable of the fame benefits that the infants of Jewiſh believers were, if they ſtill ſtand underthe fame cove nant that the former ſtood under ; andGod hath no where repealed the gracious grant formerly made to the infant-ſeedof his covenant-people.

Thesis 5. It is to me clear, beyond all contradiction, from Rom. xi . 17. " If some of the branches be broken off, and " thou being a wild olive-tree, wert grafted in amongst them,

" andwith them partakeſt ofthe root and fatneſs ofthe olive- " tree ? " I ſay, I can ſcarcedefire a clearer ſcripture-light than this text gives, to fatisfymy underſtanding inthis cafe, that when God brake off the unbelievingJews from the church, both parents and children together ; the believing Gentiles, which are as truly Abraham's feed as they were, Gal. iii. 29. yea, the more excellent feed of Abraham, were implanted or ingrafted in their room, anddo as amply enjoy the privileges ofthatcovenant, both internal and external, for themselves, and for their infant-feed, as ever any members of the Jewish church did or could do.

Our adverſaries inthis controversy do pitifully and apparently ſhuffle here, andinvent many strange and unintelligible diftinctions to be-cloud the light of this famous text. What theyare, and how theyare baffled, the reader will eaſilydifcern from what hath already paſt betwixt my antagoniſt and me, in p. 108, &c. of my Vindicia Legis et Fæderis. It isplain, that Abraham is the root, the olive-tree, the viſible church ; the ſapand fatneſs of the olive, are church-ordinances and covenant-privileges, theGentile believers, who are Abraham's feed according to promife, are the ingrafted branches ſtanding in the placeof the natural branches, and with them, or in like manner as theydid, partakingof theroot and fatness of the olive-tree, that is, as really and amply enjoying allthe immunities, benefits, and privileges of the church and covenant

(amongst which the initiating ſign was one, and a chief one too) as ever the natural branches that were broken off, that is the Jewish parents and their children, did or might havedone.

And todeny this (as before was noted) is to ſtraiten covenantprivileges in their farther progreſs.

Thesis 6. Suitablyhereunto we find, that no fooner was the Chriſtian church conſtituted, and the believing Gentiles by faith added to it, but the children ofſuch believing parents are declared tobe foederallyholy, 1 Cor. vii. 14. and the unbeliev- :

Vindiciarum Vindex. ingJews, who were fuperftitiouſly fond of circumcifion, and prejudiced againſt baptifm, as an injurious innovation, are by the apostle perfuaded to ſubmit themselves to it, Acts ii . 38, 39, afſuringthem that thesame promiſe, viz. I willbe aGod to thee, andto thy feed after thee, is now as effectually fealed to them and their children by baptifm, as it was in the former age by circumcifion : And that theGentiles, which are yet afar off, whenever God ſhall call them, ſhall equally enjoy the fame privilege, both for themselves and for their children alſo.

We alſo find acommiſſion given by Chriſt to the diſciples, Mat. xxviii. 19, 20. To disciple all nations, babtizingthem , &c. from which diſcipleſhip, infants ought not to be excluded,

Acts xv. 10.

Yea, we find, that as at the inſtitutionofcircumcifion, Abraham, the father and maſter of the family, was firſt circumciſed in his own perſon, and then his whole houſhold,

Gen. xvii, 23, 24. anſwerably as ſoon as any perſon by converfion, or public profeſſion of faith become a viſible child of Abraham, that perſon was firſt baptized, and the wholehoushold with him or her, Acts xvi. 15, 33. It is unreasonable to put us upon the proof, that there were infants in theſe houſes; it being more than probable that in ſuch frequent baptizing of houtholds belonging to believers, there were ſome infants ; but ifthere were none, 'tis enough for us to prove from their foederal holiness ,

1 Cor. vii. 14. And the extent ofGod's promiſes tothem, Acts ii. 38, 39. ifthere had never been ſomany in. fants in thoſe houſholds, they might and ought to have been baptized. How the true ſenſe and ſcope ofthe two laſt mentioned ſcriptures are maintained and vindicated againft Mr. Cary's corrupt gloſſes and interpretations, ſee my Vindiciae Legis et

Foederis, p. 90, 91. We donot lay the ſtreſs ofinfants baptifm upon fuch ſtrictures as the baptizings of the houſholdsofbelievers, or Chriſt's taking up in his arms, andbleſſingthe little ones thatwere brought to him.

Theſe and many other fuch things found in the hiſtory of Christ, andActs ofthe apostles, have their uſe and fervice to fortify that doctrine.

But ifwe can produce no example of any believer's infant baptized, the merit of the cauſe lies not in the matter offact, but covenant-right.

For our adverſaries themselves, if wego to matter of fact, will be hard put to it to produce us one inſtance out ofthe New Testament of any child ofa believing Chriſtian whoſe baptifm was deferred, or byChriſt or his apoſtlesordered tobe deferred, until

he attained the years ofmaturity, andmadea perſonal profeſſion of faith himself.

Theſis 7. The change ofthetokenandfeal ofthe covenantfrom

APostscript toMr. Cary,

tiremcifion tobaptism, will by no meansinferthechangeor diverfity ofthe covenants, especially when the latter comes into the place, andferves to thefame useandendwith theformer, as itis manifeſt baptijm deth,from Col. ii. 11. 12. as hath been, Ithink,

Jufficiently argued against Mr. Cary's gloſſes andexceptions, pag.

100, 101. of my Vindiciae Legis et Foederis. The covenant is ſtillthe fame covenantofgrace, though the externalinitiating fign bechanged.

For what is the ſubſtantial partof the covenant of gracenow, butthe ſame it was toAbrahamandhis feed before ?

Is not this our covenant ofgrace, Heb. viii. 10. " I will be to " them aGod, and they ſhall be tome a people ?" Andin what wordswas Abraham's covenant expreſſed, Gen. xvii . 7. "Iwill

" eſtabliſh my covenant between me and thee, and thy feed " after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to " beaGodunto thee, and tothy feed after thee."

This makes Abraham's covenant, ſealed to him and his feed, as truly and properly thecovenant ofgrace, as that which baptifm now feals tobelievers and their feed.

The raſh ignorance of thoſe that affirm, God may become a people's God in the way of a ſpecial intereſt, by virtue ofthe broken andaboliſhed covenant ofworks, rather deſerves ſharp reprehenfion, and ſad lamentation, thana confutation; which, nevertheless out of reſpect to my friend

Mr. Cary, I have givenitin its properplace in this rejoinder.

I hope by this time I have made it evident, that the defendersof infants baptifm, as it is eſtabliſhed uponGod's covenant with Abraham; Gen xvii. have not ſomiſtaken their ground, as Mr. Cary hath, by his endeavours to carry that covenant, as anAdam's covenant ofworks, through ſuch amultitude of other errors and abſurdities, as he draws along with itin hisway of reaſoning.

A POSTSCRIPT

MR. CARY.

SIR, Reſolvednot to disturb my mind with your paſſionate pro I ſearching for reaſon andargument, (two ſcarce commodities) amongstheapsofvain and fulſome words : Nor will I now imitateyour folly and rudeneſs, leſt I become an offender, whilst I amtoactthepartofareprover. When Ireadyour title,Ajust

VOL . IV.

A Poftfcript toMr. Cary. andfober reply, andpreſently fell in among rude inſults, filly e vaſions,and tuch inartificial diſcourſes as follow, in your book,

Ibegan to challenge you in my thoughts for matching ſuch badstuffwith ſofair andlovely a title : But a ſecondthought quickly corrected the former , for Iconfidered, noman living could justly forbid the marriage betwixt your book and itstitle, ſince there is not the leastkindred, or relation, between them.

Had your anſwers been juſt, you would have obſerved the rules of arefpondent, which you have notdone ; and if they hadbeen ſober, you had never beenſo free inyour reproaches, and ſparing in your arguments, as you have been.

Is this the man, ofwhom it is ſaid, in the Epiſtle to his Solemn Call, That his lines are free from reflection and reproach, towards those oftheperfuafion he contends with? Is this myold friendly, neighbour ? It calls to my mind the Italian proverb, Godkeep us from ourfriends, and we willdo what we can to keep ourjelves fromour enemies.

And though you act the part ofan enemy, you ſhallbe my friend,whether you willor not.

Ifyou will be my friend outof love, I will make you ſo by agood improve. ment ofyour hatred.

I havebeenmuſing with myself, whatmightbethetruecauſe ofall your rage against my book; one while I thought it proceeded from want ofdifcretion, that you were not able todiftinguish betwixt an adverſary in acontroversy, and anadverſary tothe perfon ; but thought every blow that was given to your error, muſt needsbe amortal wound toyour reputation.

But, Sir, how cloſe, and ſmart ſoever my diſcourſes againſt your errors be, I am furethey are more full of civility, and reſpect to you, thanſuch a reply asyouhavemadedeſerves:And if, in expofing your errors, your reputation be expoſed, you must blamethem for occafioning it,and not me.

Sometimes I thought itan effect ofyour policy, that when followed cloſe, and hard putto it, you endeavoured aneſcape thisway.

Camero, ſpeaking ofthis kind offubtilty inhis adverſaries, faith, Faciunt quodquarundumferarum ingenium eft, ut faetoreetgraveolentia, defectaejam viribus,acfractae, venatorem abigunt.

Some cunning animals, as foxes, &c. when pursued at the heels, drive away both dogs andhuntſmen with their intolerable ſtench. AndHierom, long ago, toldHelvidius, his adverſary, Arbitror teveritate convictum, ad maladieta converti ; being vanquished by truth, he betook himself to illlanguage.

Afterthe fame manner you act here,beingnolonger able todefend yourselfby folid andſober ratiocination,you truſt toyour

A Postscript to Mr. Cary.

faculty incrimination; bad cauſes onlydrive men into ſuch refuges.

Inaword, Iam satisfiedthatnothing but your extravagant zeal for your idolized opinion, couldhave thrown you into ſuch difingenuous methods, and artifices, as theſe.

The Ephesians were quiet enough, till their Diana began to totter.

Your paſſionate outcries ſignify to me, ſomething is touched to the quick, which you are more fondly in love with than you ought.

When one told Luther what hideous outcries his enemies made against him, and how they reviled him in their books; Iknow by their roaring (faith he) that Ihave hit them right.

You tell me, in your reply, p. 24. That you perceive Ihave amighty itch tofind outyour abfurdities.

I wiſh, Sir,you were nomoretroubled with the itch after them, than I am after the diſcovery of them.

Had I affected ſuch employments, I could eaſily have gathered three toone out ofyour book, more than I did; andhave repreſentedthoſe Igathered, much more odiouſly

(and yet juſtly) than I did: but friendſhip conſtrained me to handle them (becauſe yours) as gently as I could.

Imight havejuſtlychargedyou fromwhatyou ſay,p. 174, 175. ofyour SolemnCall, whereyou place allthe believers on earth, withoutexceptionof any, under the covenant of works, as a miniſtration ofdeath and condemnation, and the ſeverelt penalties of a dreadful curſe: I might thereupon have juſtly chargedyou for preſenting to theworld ſuch a monſtrous fight aswas never ſeenbefore, ſincethe creation, viz . a whole church of condemned and curſed believers.

This I might as wellhave chargeduponyour poſition,and done itnowrong.

Icould tell you, from what you ſay, p. 76. of your reply, ThatGod doth indeed, in thecovenant of works, make over himSelf tofinners, to be their God in a way ofspecial interest ; but itbeing upon such hard terms, that it is utterly impoffible, that way, to attain unto life, &c.

I could juſtly have told you, that theſe paſſages ofyours drop pure nonſenſe uponthereaders underſtanding; as if falvation were impoſſible to be attained by the ſame covenant, wherein God becomes our God, and makes over himself by way of ſpecial intereſt tous.

Had Ihad an itch to expoſe the burleſque, and ridiculous ſtuff which lies obvious enough inyour book, I ſhould then have toldyour reader, That according to your doctrine, how oppoſite and inconſiſtent ſoever the two covenants of works and grace are, yet the ſame ſubjects, viz, believers, may, at

T12

A Poftfcript to Mr. Cary. once, notonly ſtand under them both, but that the fame com mon feal, viz . circumcifion, equally ratifies,and confirms them both : For you allow, in your Call, p. 205. That it fealed the covenant ofgrace to believing Abraham, and yetwas afeal of the covenant of works, yea, the verycondition of that covenant, as you frequently affirm it tobe.

Vide p. 81. of your Reply, and Pafim.

I could as easily and juſtlyhave told you, That the moſt malicious Papiſt could ſcarcely have invented a more horrid reproach againſt our famous orthodox Proteſtant divines, than you (I dare not ſay maliciously, but) ignorantly have done; when you charge ſuch men, as Mr. Francis Roberts,

Mr. Obadiah Sedgwick, and, indeed, all that affert the law, complexly taken, to be an obſcurer covenant of grace; that theycompriſe perfect doingwith the conſequent curſe for nonperformance, and believing in Chriſt unto life and ſalvation, in one and the ſame covenant : This is an intolerable abuſe of yours, p. 5 of your Reply.

They generally affert the law, in that complex ſenſe and latitude you take it, to be a true covenantof grace, though more obſcurely adminiſtred ; and that the diſtinction of the covenants into old andnew, is no parallel diſtinction with that of works and grace, or Chriſt's andAdam's covenant.

Your public recantation of the injury you have done the very Proteftant cauſe herein, is your unqueſtionable duty, yet ſcarce adue reparation of the injury.

In a word, I cannot but look upon it as adiſcovery of your great weakneſs, Thatwhen you meet with such adifficulty as pofes your understanding, and you cannot poſſibly reconcile with your notion ; as that of Panl's circumcifing Timothy, and you affirming that the very act of circumcifiondid, in its ownnature, oblige all, on whom itpaſſed, tothe perfect obſervation of the law for righteouſneſs, you will rather chuſe toleave the bleſſed apostle in a contradiction to his own doctrine, than toyour vain notion:

For whatdo you say, p. 95. of your Reply ? That however the case stood, in that respect, this is certain, &c.

It alfo argues weakness in you, to infift upon, aggravate, jeer, and reproach at that rate youdo, p. 38. of your Reply, for the mistake, and mitplacing of one figure, viz. Gen. xii. for Gen. xvii. as if the merit of the whole cauſe depended on it.

The like I may ſay of your charging me with nonſenſe, for puttingGen. xvii. 7, 8. for Gen. xvii . 9, 10, when yet yourſelf, p. 205. ofyour Call, tell us, That circumciſionwas appointed as a ſign, or token of the covenant, Gen. xvii. 7, 8, 9.

What pitiful trifles are theſe, to raiſe ſucha

↑ Back to top