Prolegomena,
Prolegomena."
verſy, nottothe perſon, eſpecially ofmy friendly neighbour.
Neither would I have appeared thus publicly against him, if differences could have been accommodated, andthe evil prevented, ina more private way; in order thereunto, I have punctually obſerved and kept the rules andmeaſures of friendthip.
It ispoſſible ſome mayjudge my ſtile against him to be too ſharp; but ifthey pleaſe to read the conclufionofhis Gall, and my Answer, I preſumethey will find enough to make atonement for that fault, ifit be a fault.
It is from the nature of thematterbefore me, not from defect of charity to the perſon orparty, that I am forced tobe ſo plain and pungent as I am.
To conclude, I ſuſpect this very preface may be alfo cenfured for its plainneſs and tediouſneſs.
I confeſs, when times are buſyweshouldbe brief; and Iam perfuaded a ſufficient prefacemaybe contracted into fourwords, ανην προεμείων και πάθων, without preface orpaffions.
However, I have a little eaſedmy ownheart,bydiſcharging my dutyto mydiffering brethren, andpleaſed myſelf, ifnot them.
The God ofpeace create peace in all the borders of Sion, beat ourfwords intoplow-shares, and ourspears intopruninghooks ; I mean, our polemicals into practicals ; that Jeruſalemmayonce more be a city compact, and no more terrible toherself, butonlyto her enemies, as anarmy with banners..
This, brethren, is theprayer, and ſhall ever be the endeavour of, Yourfriendandjervant in Chriſt,
JOHN FLAVEL
PROLEGOMENA .
B it will be neEFORE we enter intothe maincontroverſy, it ceſſaryto acquaint the reader, why I begin with the middle ofthe book ; and it is becauſe I there find theſe thrée principles or poſitions,onwhich the other parts ofhis diſcourſe are ſuperſtructed; and theſe being deſtroyed, his other difcourſes are but arena, fine calce.
I properly therefore begin with the foundation .
Next I shall ſhew how far we are agreed in the matters here controverted, and where it is in each of theſe that the controversy indeed lies betwixt us.
And as to X2
Prolegomena.
I. Pofition, viz.
That the Sinai law is thefame with Adam's covenant of works, made in paradije :
The difference betwixtus here is not (1.) Whether both theſebecalledcovenants in Scripture ? Nor (2.) Whether there was nograce at all in both, or either ofthem ; forwe are agreed, it is grace inGod to enter into covenant with man, whatever that covenant be.
Nor (3.) Whether the Sinai lawbe nota covenant of works to ſome men, bytheirown faultand occafion ? Nor (4.) Whetherthe fcriptures do notmanytimes ſpeak ofit in thatvery fenſeandnotion wherein carnaljusticiaries apprehendand take it; and byrejecting Chrift, make it ſoto themselves ? Nor (5.) Whether the very matter of the law of nature be not revived and reprefented in the Sinai law?
Theſe are notthe points wecontend about.
But the queſtion is, Whether the Sinai law do in its own nature, andaccording toGod's purpoſe and deſign in the promulgation of it, revive the law ofnature, to the fame ends and uſes it ſerved to inAdam's covenant ; and ſo be properly, andtrulyacovenant ofworks ? OrwhetherGod had not gracious and evangelical endsandpurpoſes, viz. Byfuch a dreadful repreſentation of the fevereand impracticable terms ofthe first covenant,inſtead ofobliging them to the perſonal and punctual obſervance of them for righteouſneſs and life, he did not rather deſign to convincethemofthe impoſſibilityoflegal righteouſneſs,humble proud nature, and ſhew them the neceffity of betaking themſelves to Chrift, now exhibitedinthe new covenant,asthe only refuge to fallen finners.
The latter Idefend according to the Scriptures, the formerMr. Caryſeems to affertandvehemently argue for.
2dly, In this controverſyabout the Sinai law, I do not find Mr. Carydiftinguiſh (as he ought) betwixt the law confidered more largely and complexly, as containing both the moral and ceremonial law, for both which it isoften taken in Scripture, andmore ſtrictly for the moral law only, as it is ſometimes uſed in Scripture.
Theſe two he makes one and the fame covenant ofworks; though there be ſome that doubt whether the mere moral law may not be a covenant ofworks ; yet I nevermetwithany man before,that durſt affirm the ceremonial law,which is ſo full ofChriſt, to be ſo; and tothis law it is that circumcifion appertains.; — 3dly, The moral law, ſtrictly taken for the tencommand. ments, is not by him diftinguiſhed(as it ought to be, andas the Scripture frequently doth) according to God's intention'
Prolegomena. and deign in the promulgationor it, whichwas to additas anappendix tothe promise,Gal. iii. 19. andnottoſetitupas anoppofitecovenant, Gal. iii. 21. as the carnal Jews, mistak ingand perverting the use and end of the law, and making itto themſelves acovenant of works, bymaking it the very ruleandreaſon oftheir juftification before God, Rom. ix. 32,
33. Rom. x. 3. Theſe things oughtcarefully to have been diftinguiſhed, foraſmuch as the whole controverſydepends on thisdouble ſenſe and intention ofthe law ; yea, the very denomination ofthat law depends hereon: for I affirm, it ought not to be denominated from the abuſed and mistaken end of it amongstcarnal men, but from the true ſcope, defign and endfor which God publiſhed it after the fall: and though wefindfuch expreffions as theſe in Scripture, " Theman that doth them ſhall live in them;" and," Curſed isevery one
"thatcontinuethrot in allthings," &c. yet thefe reſpecting thelaw, not according toGod's intention, but man's corruptionandabuſe ofit,thelaw is nottherebytobedenominated a covenantofworks.
God's endwas nottojustify them, but to trythem by that terrible diſpenſation, Exod. xx. 20. whether theywould ſtill hanker after that natural way of felf-righteoufneſs; for this endGod propounded the terms of the firſt covenant tothem onSinai, not toopen theway offelf-juftification tothem, but to convince them, and ſhut them up to Chrift ; juſt as our Saviour, Matth. xix. 17. puts theyoung man upon keeping thecommandments, not to drivehim from, but neceffitatehim tohimselfintheway of faith. t The law inboth theſe ſenſes is excellentlydescribed, Gal. iv. inthat allegory of Hagar and Sarah, the figures of the two covenants.
Hagar in her firſt and proper ſtation was but a ſerviceable handmaid to Sarah, as the law is aſchoolmafter to Chrift; butwhen Hagar the handmaid is taken into Sarah'sbed, andbrings forth children that afpire tothe inheritance, then faith the Scripture, " Caſt out thebond- "woman, with her fon."
So it is here; take the law in its primary uſe, as God deſigned it, as aſchoolmaster or handmaid toChriſt and the promise, ſo it is conſiſtent with them, and excellently ſubſervient to them; but if we marry this handmaid, andeſpouſe it asa covenant ofworks, then arewe bound to it for life, Rom. vii. and must have nothing to do with Chrift. The believersofthe OldTestamenthad trueapprehenfions oftheright end and uſeofthe law, which directed them toChriſt, and ſo they became children of thefree-woman.
Thecarnal Jews trufted totheworks ofthe law for righteouf-
Prolegomena. neſs, and ſobecame the children ofthe bond-woman ; but neithercouldbe children ofboth at once,no morethan the fame mancan naturally be born of two mothers. This is the difference betwixt us aboutthe firſt poſition. And as to the II. Position.
That Abraham's covenant, Gen. xvii. is an Adam's covenant of works alfo, because circumcifion was annexedto it, which obligedmen tokeep thewhole law.
The controverſy betwixt us in this point, is notwhether circumcifion were an ordinance of God,annexed by him to his covenant with Abraham ? Nor (2.) Whether Abraham's ordi-
nary and extraordinary feed ought to be, and actually were fignedby it ? Nor (3.) Whether itwere a ſealoftherighteoufneſs offaithto any individual perſon, for he allows it to be ſo to Abraham ? Nor (4.) Whether it pertained to the ceremonial law, and ſo muſt ceaſe at the death of Chriſt? But the differencebetwixt us is, Whether (1.) It was a feal ofthe covenant tononebutAbraham ? And, (2.) Whether inthe very nature ofthe act, or only from the intention ofthe agent, it did obligementokeep the whole law, asAdam was obliged tokeep it in innocency ? (3.) Whether it were utterly,aboliſhed at the death of Chrift, as a condition ofthe covenant of works ? or beinga fign ofthe fame covenant of grace we are now under, itbe not fucceededbythe new goſpel-fign, which is baptifm ?
Mr. Cary affirms,that itwas in itſelfaconditionofthe covenant ofworks, andbeing annexedtoGod's covenant with Abraham,
Gen. xvii. it made that a true Adam's covenant ofworks alſo.
This I utterly deny, and fay, Abraham's covenant was a true covenant ofgrace. (2.) That circumcifion was a feal of righteouſneſs offaith, andtherefore could not poffibly belong to the covenant ofworks.
(3.) That as itwas appliedboth to the ordinary and extraordinary infant-feed of Abraham, during that administration ofthecovenant, ſoit is the will of Chrift thatbaptifm ſhould take its place under the goſpel, andbe appliednow to theinfant-feed ofallAbraham's ſpiritual children.
Theſe are the things whereinwe differ aboutthe ſecondpofitiAnd lastly, as to the on.
III. Pofition.
That neither Mofes's law, Exod. xx. nor God's covenantwith Abraham,Gen. xvii. can be any other than an Adam's covenant ofworks, because they have each of them conditions in them on man's part ; but the gospel-covenant hath none at all, but is altogetherfree and abfolute.
The controversy here betwixt us is not (1.) Whether the
Prolegomena.
goſpel-covenant requires no duties at all of them that areunderit? Nor (2.) Whether it requires any ſuch conditions as were inAdam's covenant, namely, perfect, perſonal, and perpetual obedience, under the ſevereſt penalty of a curſe, and admitting noplace ofrepentance ? Nor (3.) Whetherany condition requiredby iton our part, have any thing in its own naturemeritorious ofthe benefits promised ? Nor (4.) Whether we beable in ourown strength, andby the power of our freewill, without the preventing as well as the affifting grace of God, to performany fuch work or duty as we call a condition ?
Intheſe things wehave no controverſy; but the only queſtion betwixt us is, Whether inthenew covenant fome act of ours (tho' ithave nomeritinit, norcanbe done inour own ſingle ſtrength) be not requiredto be performedby us, antecedently to a bleffing orprivilegeconſequentby virtue ofa promife ? And whether ſuch an act orduty, beingof a ſuſpending nature tothe bleffingpromised, ithave notthe true and proper nature ofagoSpel-condition ? This I affirm, andhe poſitivelydenies.
Theſe threepoſitionsbeing confuted, andthe contrary well confirmed, viz. that the law at Sinaiwas not fet up byGod asanAdam's covenant, to open the old way of righteoufneſs and lifebyworks ; but was added to the promise, as ſubſervientto Chriſt in its defign anduſe, andconſequentlycan never be a pure Adam's covenantofworks. And,fecondly,
ThatAbraham's covenant,Gen. xvii. isthe very fame covenant ofgrace we are now under ; and, (2dly,) That circumcifion inthe nature ofthe act did not oblige all men tokeep thewhole lawfor righteouſneſs. And(3dly,)
✓That the new covenant is not abſolutely and whollyunconditional, though notwithstanding a moſt free and gracious covenant; the pillars onwhich Mr. Cary ſetshis new ſtructure; fink under it, and thebuilding falls into ruins.
Ihave not here taken Mr. Cary's two Syllogiſms, proving Abraham's covenant tobe a covenant of works, becauſe I find myſelf therein prevented by that ingenious and learned man,
Mr. Whifton, inhis late anſwer to Mr. Grantham.
Neither have I particularly ſpoken to his twenty-three arguments to provethe Sinai lawto be a pure Adam's covenant, becauſefruftrafit per plura, quodfieri poteft per pauciora : I have overthrown them alltogether at oneblow,byevincing every argument to have four terms in it, and ſo proves nothing.
ButI have ſpoken to allthoſe ſcriptures which concern our fourpofitions, and fully vindicated them from the injurious fenfes
A Reply to Mr. Cary'sfolemn Call. towhichMr. Cary(following Mr. Tombes) hadwreſtedthem.
Theſethings premiſed, I ſhall only further add, that ifMr.
Cary ſhall attemptareply to my anſwer, and free his own thefesfrom the groſs abſurdities with which I have loadedthem, he must plainlyand ſubſtantiallyprove againstme,
(1.) That the Sinai law, accordingto its true ſcope andend, was promulgatedbyGod for man's juſtification andhappiness inthewayof perſonal obedience; and thatthe Jews, thatdid accordingly endeavour after righteouſneſs by the works ofthe law, didnot mistake its trueend andmeaning ; or if theydid, andtherebymade it whatGod neverintended it tobe, a covenant of works tothemselves, that the Sinai law ought rather to be denominated from their mistake and abuſe of it, than from its primaryand proper uſe, and God's deſign in itspromulgation.
(2.) Hemust prove againstme,with likeevidenceof truth, thatcircumcifiondiſcovered nomore ofman's native corruption, norany moreof his remedyby Chriſt ; nor fealed toany perfonwhatsoever the righteouſneſs offaith, thanAdam's covenantinparadiſedid ; and that itdid in itsown nature oblige alluponwhom itpaſſed, tothe ſame terms ofobedience that Adam's covenant obligedhim. And, (3.) That there is not tobefound in the new covenant any fuchactordutyofours, as hathbeen defcribed and limited a bove; which is ofa fufpending nature to the benefits therein granted. And, (4.) That the reſpective expoſitions hegives ofthe ſeveral texts to be explainedand vindicated, are more congruous to theſcope, andgrammarthanmine are, andmore agreeable to thecurrentfenfe oforthodox expofitors ; andthen he ſhall be fure to receive an anſwerable return from me, elſe it isbut la bour loftto write again.
REPLY TO Mr. PHILIP CARÝ's Solemn Call, &c.
THE book Ihaveundertakentoanimadvert brieflyupon, bears the title of afolemn call, but I am not fo much
A Reply to Mr. Cary's folemn Call.
concernedwith thefolemnity, as I amwith the authorityofthis call.
Not how it is, but whoſe it is.
Ifit bethe callofGod, itmust be obeyed, though it be to part not only with theprivileges,but lives of our dearest children ; but thenwehadneed tobe verywell affured it is the call of God, elfe we areguilty atonce ofthehighest folly, and baſeſttreachery, to partwith fo richaninheritance, conveyed by God's covenant with Abraham,to usbelievingGentiles, andour feed, at Mr. Cary's call.
Youdirect your Solemn Call to all that would be owned as Christ's faithful witneſſes .
Here you are too obſcure and general: doyou mean; all that wouldbe owned byyou; orby Chrift ? Ifyou mean, tha thatwe muſtnot expect to be owned by you tillwe renounce infants baptifm, you tell us no news, foryou have long ſinceturned yourback uponour miniſtry and affemblies: yet, methinks it is ſtrange, that we who were lately owned as Chriſt's faithful witneſſes under our late ſufferings, mustnowbe diſowned by you,whenwe have libertyto amplify andconfirm ourteftimonyinthepeaceful improvement of our common liberty.
But ifyour meaning be, (as I ſtrongly ſuſpect it is) thatwe muſtnot expect tobe owned by Chrift, except we give up infants baptifin; then, I fay, it is the most uncharitable, as well asunwarrantable,anddangerous cenſure that ever dropt from thepen ofa fober Chriſtian.
It is certainlyyour great evil to lay falvation itſelfonſuch a pointas the proper ſubject ofbaptiſm, and to make it articulusftantis vel cadentis religionis, the very basis on which the whole Chriſtian religion, and its profeſſors falvation muſt ſtand. I hope the rest of your brethren are more charitable thanyourſelf; but however it be, I doopenly profeſs, that I ever have, and ſtilldo own you, and manymore ofyour perfuafion, for my brethren in Chriſt, and am perfuaded Chrift will own you too, notwithstanding your manyerrors and mistakes about the leſſer and lower matters of religion. Nor need your cerifure much to affect us, as long aswe are fatisfiedyou have neither a faculty nor commiflion thus folemily to pronounce itupon us.
Butwhat is the condition upon which this dreadful ſentence depends ? why, it is our attendance ornon-attendance tothe primitive purity ofthe goſpel-doctrine.
Sir, I hope we do attend it,and, in ſome reſpects,betterthan ſome great pretenders to primitive purity, who have caſt off not onlythe initiating ſign ofGod's covenant, (this did not Abraham)but alſo that most comfortable and ancient ordinance
VOL. VIII.
AReply to Mr. Cary'sfolemn Call. offinging pfalms ; and what other primitive ordinance ofGod may be caſhiered next, who can tell ?
We have a witneſs in our bofom, thatthe defence ofChrist's pureworship and institution hath coſt us ſomething ; and as for me, were I convinced by all that you have here faid, or any of your friends, that in baptizing the infants ofbelievers, we did really depart from the primitive purity, I would renounce it, and turnAnabaptiſt the fameday.
But really, fir, this discourse ofyours hath very much convinced me of the weakness and ficklineſs ofyour cauſe, which is forced to feek a new foundation, and is here laidby you uponſuch a foundation as muſt inevitably ruin it, ifyour party, as well as yourſelf, have but refolution enough to venture it thereupon.
Andit appears tome very probable,thattheyintend to fight us upon the new ground you have here choſen and marked out for them,by the high encomiums they give your book in their epiſtles to it, wherein they tell us, your notions are offo rare anature, thatyou are not beholden to any otherfor them ; andit is awonder ifyou ſhould, for I think it never entered into any fober Chriſtian's head before you, that Abraham's covenant,
Gen. xvii.was the very fame with Adam's covenant made in paradise; orthat Mofes, Abraham, and all the elect ofGod in thoſe days were abſolutely underthe very rigour and tyranny of the covenant of works, and at the fame time under the covenant of grace, and all the bleſſings and privileges thereof; with many other ſuch rare notions, ofwhich it is pity but you ſhouldhave the fole propriety.
Iam particularly concerned to detect your dangerous miſtakes, both in love toyour own foul, and care of my people's amongst whom you have diſperſed them ; though I foreſeeby
M. E's epiftle to your book, what meaſure Iam like to have for myplain andfaithful dealing with you ; for ifthatgentleman, uponamere furmiſe and preſumption thatone or other would
L oppose your book, dare adventure to call your unknown anſwerer,before he ever putpen topaper, a man-pleaſer, a quarreller at reformation, and rank him withthe Papists, which oppoſed the faithful for their non-conformity to their inventions ; what muſt I expect from fuch rash cenfurers, for my ſober, plain, and rational confutation ofyour errors ?
As to the controversy betwixt us, you truly ſay in your title page, and many parts of your book, and your brethren comprobate it in their epiſtles, that the main arguments made uſe ofby the Pedo-baptifts, for the fupport oftheir practice,
AReply to Mr. Cary'sJolemn Call.
aretakenfromthe covenant ofGod with Abraham, Gen. xvii.
You call this the very hinge of the controversy ; and therefore ifyou can but prove this to be the very fame covenant ofworks with that made with Adam in paradise, we shall then fee what improvements you will quickly make of it.
Ay, fir, you are ſenſible of the advantage, no leſs than a complete victory you ſhall obtainby it ; and therefore being a more hardy andadventurous man than others, putdeſperately upon it, (whichnever any before you durſtattempt) to prove
Abraham's covenant, which ſtands ſo much in the way ofyour cauſe, to be a mere covenant of works, and therefore now aboliſhed.
Myproper province is to diſcoverhere, that part ofthefoundation (Imean Abraham's covenant) whenceour divines, with great ſtrength and evidence, deduce the right of believers infants tobaptiſm now. Next, to evince the abſurdity of your affertions and arguments you bring to deſtroy it : And, laſtly, to reflect brieflyupon the anſwers you give in the beginning ofyour book, to thoſe ſeveral texts of ſcripture pleaded by the learned and judicious divinesyou oppoſe, for the juſtification of infants baptifm.
(1.) Thoſe thatplead God's covenant with Abraham, Gen. xvii. as a ſcripture-foundation for baptizing believers infants under the goſpel, proceed generally upon theſe four grounds orprinciples.
(1.) ThatGod's covenant with Abraham, Gen. xvii. was the fame covenant for ſubſtance we Gentile believers are now under ; and they ſubſtantially prove itfrom Luke i. from the 54th tothe 74th verſe;which place evidently ſhewsthe fameneſs ofthe covenant of grace they were, and we are nowunder ; and from Matth. xxi. 41 , 43. the ſame vineyard and kingdom the Jews then had, is now let out to us Gentiles ; and from Rom. xi. that the Gentile Chriſtians are grafted into the ſame olive-tree, from which the Jews were broken off for their unbelief; and that the bleſſing of Abraham cometh now upon theGentiles, Gal. iii. 8 , 14, 16. And in a word, that the partition-wall betwixt them and us is now pulled down ; and thatwe, through faith, are let into the ſelf-fame covenant, andall theprivileges theythen enjoyed, Eph. ii. 13 .
(2.) They affert and prove, That in Abraham's covenant the infant-feed were taken in with their parents, and that in token thereof, they were to have the fign of the covenant applied tothem, Gen. xvii. 9.
Y 2
A. Reply to Mr. Cary's folemn Call.
(3.) They affirm andprove, Thatthe promise ofGod toA braham andhis feed, with the privileges thereoftohis chil dren, do, forthe ſubſtance ofthem, deſcend tobelievers now, andtheir feed, Acts ii. 38, 39. and thoughthe external fign, viz circumcifion, be changed, yetbaptifm takes its placeunderthe gofpel, Col. ii. 11, 12.
(4.) They conftantly affirm, that none of thoſe grants or privileges madetotheinfant-feed of Abraham's family, were ever repealed or revoked by Chriſt orhis apoſtles ; andtherefore believers children are now in the rightful poffeffion of them ; and that therefore there needed no new command or promife: In Abraham's covenant we find our duty to fign our children with the ſignofthe covenant; and inAbraham's promifewe findGod's gracious grant to our children, aswell as his, eſpecially fince the apostle directs us, in this very reſpect, to the covenant ofGod with Abraham, Acts ii. 38,
39.
Theſe, fir, are the principles on whichwelay(as you ſay) great ſtreſs, andwhichto this dayyou have never beenable to ſhakedown ; here therefore you attempt anew method todo it, by proving this covenant is now abolished ; and this is your method, inwhich you promise yourſelf great ſucceeſs:
Three things you pretendtoprove; (1.) That the Sinai covenant, Exod. xx.
(2.) That Abraham's covenant, Gen. xvii. are no goſpelcovenants; and that becauſe,
(3.) Thegoſpel-covenant is abſolute and unconditional.
How you come to hook in the'Mofaic covenant into this controversy, is not very evident, unless you think it were eafyforyou toprove that tobe a covenant of works ; and then
Abraham's covenant,Gen. xvii. being an Old Testament co-
venant, werethe more eaſilyproved to be ofthe fame nature.
Iam obliged to examine your three poſitions above noted, and if I evidence to the world the falſity ofthem, the cauſe you manage is ſo far loft, and the right of belivers infants to baptifm ſtands firm upon its old and ſure foundation. Ibegin therefore withyour I. Position.
That the covenant made with Ifrael, on mount Sinai, is the very same covenant ofworks made with Adam in innocency, p. 122. and divers other places of your book, the very fame.
Now, ifI prove that this affertionof yours doth naturally and regularlydraw many falfe andabfurd conſequents upon
AReply to Mr. Cary'sfolemn Call.
you, which you are, and must be forced to own, then this yourposition cannotbe true ; for from truepremiſſes, nothing but truthcannaturally andregularly follow ; but I shall make itplain to you, that this your poſition regularly drawsmany falſe concluſions, and groſs abſurdities, uponyou ; fome of which you own expreſly, andothers you as goodas own, beingable toreturnnothing rationalor fatisfactoryinyour own defence againstthem .
(1.) From this affertion, that the Sinai covenant was apure covenant of works, the very fame with Adam's covenant, it regularlyand neceſſarily follows, that either Moſes and all Ifraelweredamned, therebeing no ſalvation poſſible to be attained by that first covenant ; or elſe, that there was a covenant ofgrace at the ſame time running parallelwith that covenant ofworks ; and ſo the elect people ofGod were atone andthe fame time under the firſt, as a covenant ofdeath and condemnation; and under the ſecond, as a covenant ofgrace andjuſtification.
This dilemma pinches you.
To affert, that Mofes, andall the elect ofGod, underthatdiſpenſation, weredamned, you dare not ; and ifyou had, you must have expunged the eleventh chapter to the Hebrews, and a great part of the New
Testament, together with all your hopes offitting downwith Abraham, Ifaac and Jacob, in thekingdom ofheaven.
The latter, therefore,(feeingyou cannotavoid) you are forcedupon, and inplainwords yield it, p. 174, 175.
That Mofes, and the whole body ofthe childrenof Ifrael,without exception ofany, were under, yea, abſolutely under the ſevereſt pe- ⚫nalties of a dreadful curſe; thatthecovenanttheywere under, could be nootherthan acovenant ofworks, a miniſtration ofdeathand condemnation; when yet it is alſo evident from the ſameholy ſcripturesoftruth, that atthe ſame time both Mofes and all the elect amongthat people, were under a pure covenant ofgoſpel-grace; and that theſe two covenants werejust the oppoſite the one to the other; but to ⚫this you havenothing'to ſay,but with the apostle in another cafe, Othe depth !'
Here, fir, you father apureandperfect contradiction upon theholy ſcriptures, that it ſpeaks things juſt oppofiteand contradictoryonetothe other, and ofneceſſity one part or memberofa contradiction mustbe falſe: thisall the rationalworld. knows; but ſoit is, ſay you, and fly to the infinite wisdom to reconcile them; foryou ſay, You know notwhattoſaytoit.
Juſt ſothepapists ſerveus inthe controversyabout tranfubflan-