in Stones the Covenant of Works Sir I do not make it so nor do I say so I only say that it was a Covenant of Works and I do therefore so Express my self purposely respecting what follows in the same Page where I tell you that whereas the Apostle Heb. 9. speaking of the Ceremonial Covenant which was Dedicated by Blood and Sprinkling doth represent it to us under such Characters as he doth From all this said I it plainly appears that even the Ceremonial Covenant it self could be no other than a Covenant of Works as well as that Written in Stones And accordingly I tell you in the following Page That though it is plain that the Law Written in Stones and the Book wherein the Statutes and Judgments were contained were Two distinct Covenants and delivered at distinct Seasons and in a distinct Method yet it is as clear from the Premises that they were both of the same Nature that is no other than a Covenant of Works and accordingly both now Repealed and that under the Denomination of the First or Old Covenant Now let the Candid Reader Judg upon the whole of this Discourse the substance whereof I have here truly and faithfully recited not hiding the least Syllable that might make against me in this matter whether Mr. Flavell hath any just Reason to affirm as he doth That whatsoever is Dedicated by Blood is by me confessed not to be any part of the Covenant of Works Or let such as desire further satisfaction herein take the Book it self to which this refers and see if they can there find any the least Syllable that hath any such kind of signification Which yet Mr. Flavell is pleased to make the very Foundation of his forementioned Argument and by which he endeavours to render me Ridiculous and Repugnant to my self For if Circumcision saith he be a part of the Ceremonial Law and the Ceremonial Law was Dedicated by Blood and whatsoever is so Dedicated is by you confessed not to be any part of the Covenant of Works Then Circumcision is no part of the Covenant of Works even by your own confession But saith he it is so Ergo But Sir I must tell you that after this rate of Arguing you seem to have taken a Liberty to say what you please as if there were no future Judgment to be regarded Sir 't is plain matter of Fact that we are now contending about and I appeal unto all that shall Impartially read my Discourse whether I have not here given a Faithful Account thereof so far as it relates to this matter And if upon the whole there do not appear the least shadow of pretence for you to affirm as you do what Comfort can you expect another day without Repentance now when these things that have thus passed betwixt you and me shall be again Revised and set in order before you Indeed I am weary of noteing your Miscarriages of this kind your Reply abounds with Transgressions of this nature The Lord forgive you and lay it not to your charge But whereas in the close of your Discourse upon this Head you tell me that the Truth I oppose viz. That the Book of the Ceremonial Law was sprinkled by Typical Blood and therefore confirmed by the Blood of Christ for the time it was to continue shines like a bright Sun-beam in my Eyes from Heb. 9. 14 23. I must tell you for a Close That I do not oppose but acknowledge that the Ceremonial Law was sprinkled by Typical Blood But I utterly deny that it was therefore also confirmed by the Blood of Christ Typified thereby For if it had it would have made the Comers thereunto Perfect as pertaining to the Conscience which the Apostle expresly affirms it could not vers 9. and chap. 10. 1. I need say no more as to that and shall now therefore proceed to the Examination of your Second Argument Argum. 2. If Circumcision was a Seal of the Righteousness of Faith it did not pertain to the Covenant of Works for the Righteousness of Faith and Works are opposites and belong to two contrary Covenants But Cricumcision was the Seal of the Righteousness of Faith Rom. 4. 11. He that is Abraham received the sign of Circumcision a Seal of the Righteousness of Faith Therefore it pertains not the Covenant of Works but Grace Printed Reply p. 45. Reply Sir by way of Answer hereunto I must tell you That when the Apostle tells us of Abraham Rom. 4. 11. That he received the Sign of Circumcision a Seal of the Righteousness of the Faith which he had yet being uncircumcised from thence to infer That the Covenant of Circumcision was a Covenant of Faith and consequently that Circucision did not pertain to the Covenant of Works would be point blank to contradict the whole scope and design of the Apostle in the foregoing Passages of that Chapter Which as it was in the general to prove That Abraham was not justified by Works but by Faith onely vers 2 3. 4 5. So in particular to assure us That Faith was not reckoned to him for Righteousness when he was in Circumcision but in Uncircumcision Vers. 9 10. And what more convincing Testimony or Evidence can we desire that the Covenant of Circumcision was not a Covenant of Faith but of Works The Sign of Circumcision was indeed a Seal unto Abraham of the Righteousness of the Faith which he had in respect of the Promises made him yet being Uncircumcised But it doth not therefore follow that the Promises Gen. 17. 7 8. That God would be a God unto him and his Seed after him in their Generations c. upon Condition that He and His were Circumcised were any part of the Covenant of Faith For otherwise the Apostle would never have told us as he doth That Faith was not reckoned to him for Righteousness when he was in Circumcision but in Uncircumcision The Argument hence resulting therefore as I have already told you is Irresistible That Covenant in which Faith was not reckoned to Abraham for Righteousness could never be a Covenant of Faith and therefore must of necessity be a Covenant of Works But the Scripture is express That Faith was not reckoned to Abraham for Righteousness when he was in Circumcision but in Uncircumcision Therefore the Covenant of Circumcision must needs be a Covenant of Works Mr. Whiston's Cavils against which Argument I have answered in its proper place Besides it is evident that long before his Circumcision God had promised Abraham to Bless him to make his Name great that he should be a Blessing that in him should all the Families of the Earth be Blessed that he should be the Father of many Nations or as the Apostle explains it That he should be the Father of all them that believe according to that which was spoken so shall thy Seed be Gen 12. 2 3. Gen. 15. 5. And it is evident that these were the Promises upon the account of which we
Instances whereof as to your dealing thus and worse with me in sundry parts of your Reply are sufficiently apparent Let the following Particulars therefore serve as a Specimen whereby the Reader may judge of the rest You tell me p. 49. of your printed Reply That I boldly cut Abraham's Covenant Gen. 17. into two parts and make the first to be a pure Covenant of Grace which is the Promisory part to the ninth Verse and the Restipulation to be as pure a Covenant of Works And say you what a hard shift will some Men make to maintain their Opinion You further tell me that I say truly p. 205. that at the Seventh and Eighth Verses was their Restipulation Why then say you do you say p. 224. that vers the 7 th he proceeds to speak of another Covenant than what he had been speaking of before Does the Promise and the Restipulation make two Covenants or are they just and necessary Parts of one and the same Covenant Reply Sir I thought Conscience had more prevailed with you than so grossly to have prevaricated as you have in this matter I do indeed affirm p. 223 224. that Gen. 17 we have an account of a two fold Covenant which God there made with Abraham The one with Abraham himself alone not with his natural off spring For saith God vers 2 I will make my Covenant between me and thee And vers 4. As for me Behold my Covenant is with thee And thou shalt be called the Father of many Nations Or as the Apostle explains it Rom 4. 11. The Father of all them that Believe which was Abraham's prerogative alone and incommunicable to any else So that this Covenant could have relation to no other it being no way applicable to any other Person whatsoever whether Isaac or Jacob or any else of his natural off spring to be the Father of all them that Believe as Abraham was The other which was the Covenant of Circumcision was as plainly made between God and Abraham and his natural Seed also as Gen. 17. 7 8 9. declare But do I therefore boldly cut the Covenant of Circumcision into two parts as you intimate I do and make the first to be the pure Covenant of Grace which is the Promissory Part to the 9 th vers And the Restipulation to be as pure a Covenant of Works Sir I say no such thing And I appeal unto all that shall read my Book and examin those Passages you refer to whether I am not altogether innocent in this matter I tell you indeed in my p. 205. that Circumcision was appointed as a Sign or Token of the Covenant Gen. 17. 7 8 9. and that both unto Abraham himself and the rest that were under it it being no other than the Restipulation of the Covenant on their part Gen. 17. 9 10. But as there is no such thing to be found in my p. 205. to which you refer nor any where else So I do in my p. 224. as well as in many other pages plainly tell you the quite contrary that at the 7 th vers was the Promissory part of that Covenant on God's part the Restipulation on their part as I there also plainly affirm being mentioned vers 9 10. And whereas you tell me that I say truely p. 205. that at the 7 th and 8 th vers was their Restipulation I must tell you that you are here mistaken in a double Respect For first can you indeed think that this was a true Speech if I had said it that at the 7 th and 8 th vers was their Restipulation Certainly this is not truely said whoever said it Secondly I must also tell you that I do neither there say so nor any where else nor should I have said truely if I had so said For the 7 th and 8 th vers are wholly taken up with the Promises of that Covenant on God's part And I do there on the contrary as plainly tell you as words could declare it that the Restipulation of the Covenant on their part is expressed vers 9 10. So that herein you do both wrong me and your self also The like Answer may be returned to what follows in your Discourse on this head where you say that I also tell you that the Covenant Gen. 17. 1 2 3 4. was a plain transcript of several free promises of the Gospel under the denomination of a Covenant But say you why then don 't you take the Restipulation vers 7 8 9 10. to be a part of it Oh no there is something required on Abraham's and his Posterities part they must be Circumcised and that spoils all But Sir do you think you speak sense in this Passage For can you imagine that the 7 th and 8 th vers do contain any thing of Restipulation on their part Are not these two verses wholly taken up with the promises on God's part And do I not throughout my whole Discourse joyn the Restipulation on their part vers 9 10. with the Promises on God's part vers 7 8. as making up one and the same Covenant of Circumcision Thus you say you care not what or how turning and twisting things as you please so you may render your Opponent ridiculous and laugh in your sleeve among those that will swallow down any thing you deliver without examination whether you say right or no. But Sir though you may laugh at me at your pleasure you must withall remember that God's truth will not be so mocked but will certainly prevail what ever devises of this nature Men may have to discredit the Assertors of it The like mistake are you guilty of when you tell me that I do worse than contradict my self p. 133. of my former discourse in saying that the Law even as it is a Covenant of Works hath a Blessed Subserviency toward the establishment of the Promise For in as much said I as it required perfect sinless obedience under the Penalty of the Curse it convinced Men that this was no way for Sinners to seek for Life and Salvation by And herewith it so urged the consciences of Men that they could have no Rest nor Peace in themselves but what the Promise would afford them whereunto therefore they saw a necessity of betaking themselves But then say you I unsay all again and worse than contradict my self when I tell you afterward p. 173. That if we Preach up the Law as a Covenant of Life or a Covenant of Faith and Grace which are equipollent terms let us distinguish as we please betwixt a Covenant of Grace absolutely and subserviently such and consequently are desirous in that respect to be under it then according to the Apostles plain Scope in the whole Epistles to the Romans and Galathians in stead of using it lawfully we make an unlawful use thereof by perverting it to such a Service as God never intended it for Now I Appeal to the candid intelligent Reader whether there be any real Repugnancy or
Sinners to be their God in a way of special Interest but it being upon such hard terms that it is utterly impossible that way to attain unto Life he hath therefore been pleased to abolish that and to make a New Covenant which is not like or not according to the former which was Conditional but that which is wholly Free and Absolute wherein he hath promised to put his Laws into our Minds and to write them in our Hearts and that he will be to us a God and we shall be to him a People Ezek. 36. Jer. 31. Heb. 8. And this is a Covenant of Grace indeed sure and certain a Covenant truly Evangelical and not of the same Building as the Apostle speaks with the Sinai Covenant Heb. 9. 11. The like may be as justly said in reference to the Covenant of Circumcision as hath been now spoken in Reference to the Sinai Covenant For though there were Promises in it that were full and glorious enough I will be a God to thee and to thy Seed after thee all the Land of Canaan for an everlasting possession and I will be their God yet all these Promises though good enough in themselves being Conditional they were therefore failable and still liable to forfeiture as they were contained in that Covenant It being evident that it obliged all that were under it to perfect and universal Obedience as the Condition of obtaining the Mercies therein contained Gal. 5. 3. From whence as it is manifest that it could be no other than a Covenant of Works so it is as evident that it is not the Greatness or Goodness of the Promises contained therein that can excuse it from being such if Works be the Condition of obtaining the Mercies therein promised For as I have already told you what else maketh or wherein else consisteth the true Form or Nature of a Covenant of Works but that Works be the Condition of it This was the whole entire Nature of the first Covenant which alone renders the it Essentially or Specifically Different from the Promise of Grace or the Gospel Covenant But all this notwithstanding you are pleased to tell me That it is so clear that none can doubt or deny what you have asserted that understands the Nature of the two Covenants And now Sir say you what course do you take to avoid this Argument Such a one sure as no Man that ever I met with took before you and that is this You boldly cut Abraham's Covenant Gen. 17. into two parts and make the first to be the pure Covenant of Grace which is the Promisory part to the 9 th verse And the Restipulation to be as pure a Covenant of Works What a hard shift will some Men make to maintain their Opinions You say truly say you p. 205. that at the 7 th and 8 th verses was their Restipulation why then do you say p. 224. that at the 7 th verse he proceeds to speak of another Covenant than what he had been speaking of before Does the Promise and the Restipulation make two Covenants Or are they just and necessary parts of one and the same Covenant Sir all this I have answered before and there have plainly shewed you how greatly you do here abuse me and your self too by a gross misrepresention of my plain words and sense The like you do in that which follows You also tell us say you that the Covenant Gen. 17. 1 2 3 4. was a plain Transcript of several Free Promises of the Gospel under the Denomination of a Covenant but why then don 't you take the Restipulation vers 7 8 9 10. to be a part of it The Nonsense of which Question I have already also shewen you But to this you make answer on my behalf Oh no say you there is something required on Abraham's and his Posterities Part and that spoiles all Well after you have laughed in your Sleeve at my Answer of your own forming you thus proceed Why but Sir If the requiring of Circumcision alters the Case so greatly as to make it a quite contrary Covenant how come it to pass that the Covenant to Abraham himself was a pure Gospel Covenant and yet Abraham himself was first required to be Circumcised Thus runs this Passage in your Manuscript Copy By way of Reply hereunto I must tell you Sir That whether the requiring of Circumcision alters the Case or no I am sure you have quite altered the Scope of my Discourse in reference hereunto For as I do no where boldly cut the Covenant of Circumcision Gen. 17. into two parts and make the first to be a pure Covenant of Grace which is the Promisory part to the 9 th verse and the Restipulation to be as pure a Covenant of Works as you would make the World believe I do So yet nevertheless I do plainly tell you that though the Promse and the Restipulation mentioned vers 7 8 9. make but one and the same Covenant of Circumcision yet there are two Covenants mentioned in that Context The first between God and Abraham himself as I have already proved vers 2 4. which could be made with no other The other between God and Abraham and his natural Posterity also vers 7 8 9 10. The former I call a Covenant of Grace or a Gospel Covenant wherein the Believing Gentiles are concerned For saith God ver 5. A Father of many Nations have I made thee Or as the Apostle explains it The Father of all them that believe that is both Jews and Gentiles The latter I call a Covenant of Works which was made betwixt God and Abraham and his natural Posterity onely who were all of them by Vertue thereof to be Circumcised as a token of their Obedience to the whole Law which Ordinance of Circumcision doth not concern the Gentiles at all So that when you ask me How comes it to pass that the Covenant to Abraham himself was a pure Gospel Covenant and yet Abraham himself was first required to be Circumcised I must tell you That your Question confounds the true state of the Question between us For you know well enough that I had made a Distinction of a twofold Covenant there mentioned the one a Gospel the other a Legal Covenant And therefore this is no other than to turn things upside down your general practice throughout your whole Reply How comes it to pass say you that the Covenant to Abraham himself was a pure Gospel Covenant I will tell you Sir how it came to pass if you rightly understand what you should Question me about If by the pure Gospel Covenant you mean the Covenant mentioned vers 2 4. I Answer It came to pass as the fruit of Gods own Free Grace and Mercy and that both unto Abraham himself and to the Believing Gentiles also that are concerned therein But then say you How comes it to pass that Abraham himself was first required to be Circumcised if the Covenant to Abraham himself was a
Seed after him in their Generations upon Condition that He and His were Circumcised and fulfilled the whole Law was a more compleat Covenant Transaction than the forementioned and fore-established Covenant wherein God freely Promised to Bless him and all Nations in him wherein not only the Elect of his own Posterity were so deeply and dearly concerned but those among all the Nations of the Earth besides Or will you say that a Covenant that might be broken as the Covenant of Circumcision and that at Sinai was and the Mercies therein contained forfeited as they were did add any thing of Perfection to that fore-established Covenant which could never be broken The Law saith the Apostle made nothing Perfect but the bringing in of a better hope did by the which we draw nigh unto God Heb. 7. 19. You are utterly Mistaken therefore Sir if you imagine that the Covenant of Circumcision or the Sinai Covenant which followed after did add any Compleatment unto the forementioned Gospel Covenant Indeed these were so far from adding any Compleatment thereunto that the Apostle expressly affirms in the forementioned Gal. 3. 18. that if the Inheritance be of the Law it is no more of Promise but saith he God gave it to Abraham by Promise The fear on the other side was lest the Law wherein the Covenant of Circumcision was comprehended should Peradventure have had so much Power and Efficacy as to disannul the forementioned Gospel Covenant which the Apostle carefully guards against Vers. 17. rather than that there was any shadow of pretence to affirm that it added ought unto the Compleatment or Security thereof Wherefore then serveth the Law saith the Apostle in the next following words It was added saith he because of Transgressions till the Seed should come to whom the Promise was made Mr. Flavell indeed tells me that the Law was Published with Evangelical Purposes as being of the same Piece and Complexion with the Promise The Vanity of which Notion I have already detected in my foregoing Discourse where I have proved that the Law was so far from adding any Compleatment thereunto that it was added as an Appendix rather to the First Covenant of Works to reinforce that the more effectually thereby to Convince Men of their need of a Saviour and force them to the Promise for relief Besides If God in those Covenant Transactions with Abraham Recorded Gen. 12. did not as you say make or establish the Covenant of Grace with him that is he did not then Compleat it till the Covenant of Circumcision was added then the Apostle would not have spoken as he doth Gal. 3. 8. but rather thus That the Scripture fore-seeing that God would Justifie the Heathen through Faith Preached before the Gospel unto Abraham saying I will be a God to thee and to thy Seed after thee in their Generations provided that thou and they be Circumcised and keep the whole Law But as there is not a word of this Nature in all the New-Testament besides so this would have been Contradictory to the whole of what he had said before as well as also of what follows after For saith he Vers. 2. this only would I learn of you Received ye the Spirit by the Works of the Law or by the Hearing of Faith Are ye so foolish having begun in the Spirit are you now made Perfect by the Flesh He therefore that Ministreth to you the Spirit and worketh Miracles among you doth he it by the Works of the Law or by the hearing of Faith Even as Abraham believed God and it was counted to him for Righteousness Know ye therefore that they which are of Faith the same are the Children of Abraham From whence he proceeds Vers. 8. to inform us That the Scripture foreseeing that God would Justifie the Heathen through Faith Preached before the Gospel unto Abraham saying In thee shall all Nations be Blessed So then saith he they which be of Faith are Blessed with Faithful Abraham For as many as are of the Works of the Law are under the Curse c. From all which it is Evident that the forementioned Gospel Covenant which God made with Abraham Gen. 12. 2 3. was so far from being Compleated by the Law or by the Covenant of Circumcision which was Annexed thereunto that those Covenants rather brought them under the Curse through their Weakness or Disobedience thereunto which Christ by his Blood and Sufferings hath delivered us from 'T is true the Gospel Covenant mentioned Gen. 12. 2 3. was afterwards further Explained and Re-inforced Gen. 22. 18. where the Lord tells Abraham That in his Seed should all the Nations of the Earth be Blessed And thy Seed shall Possess the Gate of his Enemies Plainly speaking of Christ the Promised Seed through whom these Gospel Blessings were to be derived unto all that were the Proper Subjects of them Before it was only In thee shall all Nations be Blessed Now God plainly tells him what he then meant In thee that is in thy Seed So that the Gospel Covenant was Compleat enough before for the Substance of it it only needed Explanation as to the manner how those Gospel Blessings were to be derived The like may be Observed in reference to what God tells Abraham Gen. 15. 5. So shall thy Seed be And Gen. 17. 4 5. As for me behold my Covenant is with thee and thou shalt be a Father of many Nations neither shall thy Name any more be called Abram but thy Name shall be called Abraham For a Father of many Nationy have I made thee All which were but further Explanations of the Gospel Covenant which for the substance thereof he had before Established with him when God told him in the forementioned Gen. 12. 3. I will make of thee a great Nation and I will Bless thee and make thy Name Great and thou shalt be a Blessing And I will Bless them that Bless thee and Curse him that Curseth thee And in thee shall all the Families of the Earth be Blessed But that God in this Covenant Transaction with Abraham Recorded Gen. 12. did solemnly Confirm or Establish his Covenant with him Mr. Whiston absolutely denies P. 95. of his Answer to Mr. Cox And on the contrary affirms that in those Transactions of God with Abraham he did not then make any Covenant at all with him and consequently not the Covenant of Grace And he offers a Three-fold Argument to prove the Negative Argum. 1. Where we have neither the Name of a Covenant nor the thing it self there no Covenant consequently not the Covenant of Grace was made But in these Transactions of God with Araham we have neither the Name of a Covenant nor the thing it self Therefore c. Reply First That it hath the Name of a Covenant I have already proved from Gal. 3. where the same that the Apostle calls the Gospel Preached unto Abraham Vers. 8. he calls the Covenant Confirmed before of God in Christ Vers. 17. Besides that
it hath the Name of a Covenant is Evident from Peter's Words Acts 3. 25. Ye are the Children of the Prophets and of the Covenant which God made with our Fathers saying unto Abraham And in thy Seed shall all the Nations of the Earth be Blessed And if this Gospel Promise Recorded Gen. 22. 17. was a Covenant in Peter's account though Moses calls it not so Why not that Recorded Gen. 12. also since the latter is a plain repetition of the former the Word Seed only being added for the further Explanation thereof Answer to Mr. Cox P. 95. But if it have the Name where is the thing Here are 't is true saith Mr. Whiston some Absolute Promises made to Abraham Personally considered but not any to his Seed whether Natural or Spiritual conveying unto them any particular good Neither is there here any Restipulation required as there is in the Covenant of Grace as in all other Covenants where that Term is used in a proper sense Reply Some Absolute Promises Why will Mr. Whiston deny that the Scripture any where gives the Denomination of a Covenant to some Absolute Promises where no Restipulation is required What will he then say to those before mentioned Gen. 22. 16 17. which nevertheless Peter expressly calls a Covenant Nay what will he then say to God's Covenant with the Day and Night mentioned Jer. 33. 20 25. where that Term is used for such a free Purpose of God with respect unto such things which in their own Nature are uncapable of being obliged by any Moral Condition or Restipulation And so he says that he made his Covenant not to destroy the World by Water any more with every Living Creature Gen. 9. 10 11. It cannot therefore be justly infered that because there is no Restipulation required Gen. 12. it may not therefore be duly called a Covenant But for Mr. Whiston's further Conviction herein I shall refer him to Gen. 15. 18. where this Term of a Covenant is by God himself applied unto a meer Gratuitous Promise In that Day did God make a Covenant with Abraham saying unto thy Seed will I give this Land By the way I desire Mr. Flavell to take notice that what he denies his Friend Mr. Whiston here plainly grants and positively asserts viz. That the Promises mentioned Gen. 12. 2 3. are Absolute Promises without any Restipulation But saith Mr. Whiston Here are 't is true some Absolute Promises made to Abraham Personally considered but not any made to his Seed whether Natural or Spiritual conveying to them any particular good No! say I what is the meaning then of that Promise I will make of thee a great Nation How could God make of Abraham a great Nation but with reference to his Seed whether Natural or Spiritual or both And when God Promiseth to Bless him and to make him a Blessing and that in him should all the Families of the Earth be Blessed Are there not here many particular Blessings and those great enough and good enough Promised to him and them Are they not sufficiently Blessed whom God thus Promiseth to Bless Yea are they not Spiritually Blessed since we are expressly told That the Scripture foreseeing that God would Justifie the Heathen through Faith Preached before the Gospel unto Abraham saying in thee shall all Nations be Blessed Was not Justification by Faith a Spiritual as well as a Particular Blessing to those that should be the Proper Subjects thereof Argum. 2. If the Covenant of Grace were at this time entred with Abraham and this be a distinct Covenant from that mentioned Gen. 17. 7. then there were Two distinct Covenants of Grace entred with Abraham But there were not Two distinct Covenants of Grace entred with Abraham Therefore at this time the Covenant of Grace was not entred with him Reply Though the Covenant mentioned Gen. 12. 2 3. was indeed a distinct Covenant from that mentioned Gen. 17. 7. It doth not therefore follow that these were Two distinct Covenants of Grace For I have already proved that they were Essentially or Specifically different the one being a Covenant of Grace the other of Works Argum. 3. The Covenant of Grace was made with Abraham as Actually Constituted the Father of the Faithful But at the time of this Transaction of God with him he was not Actually Constituted in that Relation Therefore at that time the Covenant of Grace was not entred with him Reply Will Mr. Whiston say that because in the Renovation of the Promise Gen. 3. 15. wherein the Essence of the Covenant of Grace was contained God did oft times make other Additions to it as unto Abraham and David that therefore at that time the Covenant of Grace was not entred with our first Parent Yea was it not that which both he and all the Faithful lived upon and were saved by till Abraham's time as dark and seemingly Imperfect as it was Besides I have before proved that though the Gospel Covenant mentioned Gen. 12. 2 3. was afterward further Explained and Re-inforced yet it was then as compleat as compleat could be for the substance thereof it only needed Explanation as to the manner how the Gospel Blessings therein contained should be derived which the after Repetitions of the same Gospel Covenant do more particularly and plainly declare And in particular as to Abraham's being the Father of the Faithful Mr. Whiston himself cannot but confess P. 97. that God did indeed intimate unto Abraham Gen. 12. that he should be for the future Constituted in that Relation But saith he he did not then Actually Constitute him in it If so say I that is enough God's Intimations are sufficient Constitutions we need desire no more to Constitute a Covenant of Grace And so much for Mr. Whiston's first Proposition Proceed we then to the Examination of his Second Prop. 2. That that Covenant established with Abraham and his Seed in their Generations Gen. 17. 7. is the Covenant of Grace or that Gracious Covenant confirmed in Christ according unto which all the elect always have been still are and yet shall be saved This he saith he shall speak to both Negatively and Positively First Negatively That this Covenant was not the Old Covenant or the same with that entred with the People of Israel at Mount Sinai Argum. 1. If the Scripture continually declares that the Covenant made at Mount Sinai was the Old Covenant and no where declares that this Covenant made with Abraham was so Then that Covenant made at Sinai and not this made with Abraham was the Old Covenant But the antecedent is true therefore the consequent Reply Mr. Whiston knows well enough that the Covenant of Works made with our first Parent is generally acknowledged to be the First or Old Covenant And why is it called the First or Old Covenant but because it was the first Covenant Transaction that ever passed between God and Man Though the Scripture no where declares this in express terms or
are told That he believed in the Lord and he counted it to him for Righteousness Gen. 15. 6. Circumcision therefore was a Seal onely to Abraham and that of the Righteousness of the Faith which he had in respect of those peculiar Promises made him long before his Circumcision and that for this very purpose that he might be the Father of all them that Believe which was his Prerogative alone For none besides him had ever before their Circumcision such a Faith which entituled them to such singular Promises So that though it must be acknowledged that the forementioned Argument seems at first very plausible How can it be but that the Covenant of Circumcision must needs be a Covenant of Faith since Abraham is said to have received the Sign of Circumcision a Seal of the Righteousness of Faith Yet we see when it comes to be duly examined there appears no such matter For as this now mentioned Argument could be no way plausible unless the following words Which he had yet being Uncircumcised were cut off from those that go before So the onely Argument fairly resulting from Rom. 4. 11. can be no other than this That Covenant or those Promises in respect of which Abraham is said to have received the Sign of Circumcision a Seal of the Righteousness of Faith must needs be a Covenant of Faith But the Scripture is express That Abraham received the Sign of Circumcision a Seal of the Righteousness of the Faith which he had yet being Uncircumcised which must of necessity be understood in respect of the forementioned Promises that had been made him long before his Circumcision and upon the account of which we are expresly told That he believed in the Lord and he counted to him for Righteousness Gen. 15. 6. Therefore that Covenant or those Promises must needs be a Covenant of Faith But then as hath been already observed it follows not that the Promises made unto him and his Seed after him in their Generations upon Condition of his and their Circumcision mentioned Gen. 17. 7 8 9 10. were any part of the Covenant of Faith since the Apostle is express That Faith was not reckaned to him for Righteousness when he was in Circumcision but in Uncircumcision Circumcision therefore was a Seal onely to Abraham and that in respect of the Promises made him yet being Uncircumcised whereby he was confirmed in the assurance of that peculiar Prerogative that had been before conferred on him and which the Apostle here expresly mentioneth He received saith he the Sign of Circumcision a Seal of the Righteousness of the Faith which he had yet being Uncircumcised that he might be the Father of all them that believe In which respect it is evident that Circumcision was that to the Father of the Faithful in its extraordinary Institution and in his extraordinary Circumstances that it could not be to any of his natural Progeny in its ordinary use You tell me indeed that this was Bellarmine's Invention and that Dr. Ames hath fully confuted it Unto which you add That for me to restrain the publick Seal of a Covenant that comprehended and equally concerned the whole Church and People of God to one single Person so that neither Isaac the Type of Christ nor Jacob a Prince with God who were by name enrolled in that great Charter should have any right to the Seal of it is such a Conceit as amazes an Intelligent Reader But Sir I pray consider can you justly or truly say that Isaac or Jaâ—…ob either are ever in Scripture called the Fathers of all them that Believe as Abraham was Or was it possible for them so to be since this was Abraham's peculiar Prerogative to be so entituled And doth the Apostle expresly tell you of Abraham That he received the Sign of Circumcision a Seal of the Righteousness of the Faith which he had while Uncircumcised that he might be the Father of all them that believe which therefore could be the Priviledge of none else Indeed there is nothing that can be more evident than this For as it is absurd to say that Circumcision was a Seal to all its Subjects of the Righteousness of the Faith which they had while Uncircumcised as 't is here said of Abraham since many of them were never partakers of that Saving Grace whether before or after So it is equally absurd to affirm that it was the Seal of a Paternal Relation to all Believers unto any that received it as it was to Abraham since neither Isaac nor Jacob nor any besides were ever or could ever be so dignified as Abraham was And indeed Circumcision was so far from being a Seal of the Righteousness of Faith to the rest that were under it that it was rather unto them a token of Servitude and Bondage and such a Yoke that as the Apostles tell the Jews in their time Neither they nor their Fathers were able to bear it Acts 15. 10 24. Gal. 5. 2 3. which yet it had not been had it been to them a Seal of the Righteousness of Faith or of the Gospel Covenant For that brings with it true Christian Liberty and Freedom And so much by way of Answer to your second Argument Your third follows Argum. 3. In the Covenant of Circumcision Gen. 17. God makes over himself to Abraham and his Seed to be their God and to give them a special Interest in himself But in the Covenant of Works God doth not since the Fall make over himself to any to be their God by way of special Interest Therefore the Covenant of Circumcision cannot be the Covenant of Works Reply Sir you are pleased to tell me that this is so plain and so clear that none can doubt or deny it that understands the nature of the two Covenants But can you indeed upon second thoughts justly affirm that God doth not in the Covenant of Works since the Fall make over himself to any to be their God by way of special Interest How comes it then to pass that in the Sinai Covenant which I have already proved could be no other than a Covenant of Works and which you your self have acknowledged to be materially such the Lord doth expresly tell that People in the Wilderness Exod. 20. 2. I am the Lord thy God which have brought thee out of the Land of Egypt out of the House of Bondage This was the very Introduction to that part of the Law which was written in Stones which the Apostle doth yet nevertheless expresly call A ministration of Death and Condemnation 2 Cor. 3. 7 8 9. And why but because it required perfect Obedience as the Condition of obtaining the Mercy how Glorious or Comfortable soever in it self considered therein promised which was impossible to be performed by Man in his lapsed state Gal. 3. 10 11 12. Rom. 3. 20. So that it is too apparent to be justly denied but that God doth indeed in the Covenant of Works make over himself to
pure Covenant By way of Answer I must tell you that Abraham was required to be Circumcised by the Command of God as a token of the Covenant of Works he was pleased to make with him vers 7 8 9 10. And that even after the establishment of the formentioned Gospel Covenant ver 2 4. which how harsh or unlikely soever it may seem unto Mens Carnal Reason as if the latter must needs make void the former as you after tell me the Apostle will give a quite contrary Resolution of the present point Gal. 3. 17. And this I say that the Covenant which was confirmed before of God in Christ the Law which was 430 years after cannot disannul that it should make the Promise of none effect The like whereunto may be as justly said in reference to the Covenant of Circumcision which God made with Abraham after the Confirmation and Establishment of the forementioned Gospel Covenant The latter doth not cannot disannul the former that it should make the Promise oâ—… none effect since the Grace of the one prevailed and did by far supersede the Force and Power of the other For so the Apostle himself resolves the Point in reference to the Law Rom. 5. 20. The Law entered saith he that Sin might abound But where Sin hath abounded Grace did much more abound Well but if there is something required as a Condition in the Covenant of Circumcision which quite alters the nature of that Covenant from the Gospel Covenant before spoken of so you should have stated the case but that I can meet with nothing but crookedness throughout the whole of your present Reasonings Tell me then say you why you say p. 223 that the Covenant made with Abraham Gen. 12. was a Gospel Covenant and yet there Abraham is obliged to walk before God and be Perfect Does not that also there alter the nature of the Covenant as well as here in the 17 th chapt Reply Something you would say though you know not what For the whole of your Reply is full of Mistakes and Mis-representations Sometimes nay twenty and twenty times over you Mis-represent my plain Words and Sense Here you mistake and Mis-represent the Scripture it self for in Genesis the Twelfth there is no such word there at all mentioned as an Obligation upon Abraham to walk before God and to be Perfect as you affirm there is nor any thing of that Nature And there being no such thing there expressed how can that alter the Nature of that Covenant from being a Gospel Covenant Which Proof failing you are so far to seek of a Material Advantage you thought you had against me Well but somewhere 't is if it be not in the 12 th of Gen. 't is in the 17 th And you also grant say you that the Covenant made with Abraham Gen. 22. was a pure Gospel Govenant Or if you deny it the Apostles proves it Heb. 6. 13. And yet there is more appearance of Respect to Abraham's Obedience in that Covenant tham is in submitting to Circumcision See Gen. 22. 16 17. By my self have I Sworn saith the Lord For because thou hast done this thing c. that in Blessing I will Bless thee and in Maltiplying I will Multiply thee Printed Reply P. 50. Reply It is Observable that the Apostle Heb. 6. 13. designing to give an Account and Commendation of the Faith and Obedience of Abraham sutable to his then present Discourse to the Hebrews calls not out that Grant of the Gospel Promise which was Preventing and Calling Antecedent unto all his Faith and Obedience and Communicative of all the Grace whereby he was enabled thereunto as it is Expressed Gen. 12. 1 2 3. But he takes it from that place where it was Renewed and Established unto him after he had given the last and greatest Evidence of his Faith Love and Obedience Gen. 22. 16 17 18. By my self have I Sworn saith the Lord For because thou hast done this thing and hast not with-held thy Son thine only Son that in Blessing I will Bless thee and in Multiplying I will Multiply thee and in thy Seed shall all the Nations of the Earth be Blessed which is a plain Rehearsal of those Absolute Gospel Promises of the same Nature that had been before made unto him Gen. 12. 2 3. In which respect it is also further Observable that even Abraham himself at the very time of his Call mentioned Gen. 12. seems to have been tainted with the common Idolatry which was then in the World This Account we have Josh. 24. 2 3. Your Fathers dwelt on the other side of the Flood in old time even Terah the Father of Abraham and the Father of Nachor and they Served other Gods And I took your Father Abraham from the other side of the Flood It is true the charge is Express against Terah only but it lying against their Fathers in general on the other side of the Flood Abraham seems to be Involved in the guilt of the same Sin whilst he was in his Fathers House and before his Call Nor is there any Account given of the least Preparation or Disposition in him unto the State and Duties which he was afterward brought into In this Condition God of his Sovereign Grace first calls him to the saving Knowledg himself and by degrees Accumulates him with all the Favours and Priviledges afterward Conferred on him From hence in the close of his whole Course he had no Cause to glory in himself neither before God nor Men Rom. 4. 2. For he had nothing but what he Gratiously Received Indeed there were distances of time in the Collation of several distinct Mercies and Blessings on him and he still through the supplies of Grace which he received under every Mercy so deported himself as that he might not be unmeet to receive succeeding Mercies Which is the constant Method of God's Communicating his Grace to Sinners His first Call and Conversion of them is Absolutely Gratious He hath no no Consideration of any thing in them that should induce him thereunto Neither is there any thing required unto a Condecency herein God takes Men as he pleaseth some in Condition and Posture of Mind some in another some in an open course of Sin and some in the execution of a particular Sin as Paul and he indeed at the Instant of his Call was under the Active Power of Two of the greatest hinderances unto Conversion that the Heart of Man is Obnoxious unto For first he was Zealous above measure of the Righteousness of the Law seeking earnestly for Life and Salvation by it and then he was Actually Engaged in the Prosecution of the Saints of God Those Two Qualifications Constant Resting in Legal Righteousness with Rage and Madness in Persecution than which there are not out of Hell more Adverse Principles unto it were all the Preparations of that Apostle unto Converting Grace But after that this Grace which in the First Discovery thereof is
absolutely Free and Sovereign is received there is an Order 't is true which for the most part God Observeth in the Communication of ensuing Graces and Priviledges namely that Faith and Obedience shall Precede the Increase and Inlargement of them Thus it was with Abraham in the Instance before us who received this last great signal Promise and Priviledg Gen. 22. upon that signal Act of his Faith and Obedience in Offering up his Son upon God's Command But yet nevertheless In the first place 't is Evident that the Gospel Covenant in the First Discovery thereof is wholly Free and Absolute So it was to Abraham Gen. 12. 2 3. where there is no such Obligation laid upon Abraham to walk before God and to be Perfect as you Affirm there was which nevertheless you Insinuate was the Condition or Qualification then required of him in order to his Participation of the Gospel Mercies there Promised him If God had indeed there told Abraham as you suggest he did That he would Bless him and make him a Blessing c. provided he walked before God and was Perfect Then it had been a Covenant of Works as much as the Covenant of Circumcision was which obliged both Him and His to do the whole Law But as I have already told you there is nothing of that Nature there to be found God only tells him Vers. 1. Get thee out of thy Country and from thy Kindred and from thy Father's House unto a Land that I will shew thee and I will make of thee a great Nation and I will Bless thee c. which is far from that Perfection which you say God there Obliged him to 'T is true afterward this charge was laid upon him Gen. 17. 1. I am the Almighty God walk before me and be thou Perfect For God requireth many things of them whom he Actually takes into Covenant and makes Partakers of the Promises and Benefits of it Of this Nature is that whole Obedience which is prescribed unto us in the Gospel in our walking before God in Uprightness There being an Order in the things that belong hereunto Some Acts Duties and Parts of our Gracious Obedience being appointed to be Means of the further Additional Supplies of the Grace and Mercies of the Covenant Of this Nature is that General Obligation here laid upon Abraham Gen. 17. 1. Walk before me and be thou Perfect and hereunto also appertaineth that famous Act of his Obedience mentioned Gen. 22. 16 17. But then it follows not that the Gospel Covenant is a Conditional Covenant For as it is wholly Free and Absolute in the First Discovery thereof so it is as Free and Absolute still From the Foundation to the Topstone thereof 't is all of the same Piece And the Reason is because whatever Duties God requireth of us in order to the Enjoyment of the full end of the Covenant in Glory yet even those Duties or Acts of Obedience which God thus requireth of us must be Performed by us if they be Performed aright in and by vertue of the First Grace of the Covenant already received Col. 2. 6 7. As ye have therefore received Christ Jesus the Lord so walk ye in him Rooted and Built up in him and stablished in the Faith as ye have been Taught So likewise Gal. 3. 2 3. This only would I Learn of you Received ye the Spirit by the Works of the Law or by the Hearing of Faith Are ye so Foolish having begun in the Spirit are ye now made Perfect by the Flesh which First Grace of the Covenant must therefore also be continued and Renewed upon us Day by Day Else we shall certainly Faint and Perish in our own Corruption at last 2 Cor. 4. 16. Psal. 36. 10. In this respect it is Evident that the Gospel Covenant is so far from being at all Conditional that it is expressed in the Nature and Form of a Promise throughout the Scripture Thus it was to our First Parents soon after the Fall a Promise that the Seed of the Woman should overcome the Devil and his Seed No Terms no Conditions added but a bare Declaration of a Way of Mercy to their Dejected Self-condemned Consciences Next when the Covenant was Revealed to Abraham Gen. 12. 2 3. It is a Formal Absolute Promise that God would Bless him and all Nations in his Seed And ever after it is called the Promise made to Abraham which Israel waited to see accomplished And so the Apostle stiles it in the forementioned Heb. 6. 13. when God made Promise to Abraham saying Surely in Blessing I will Bless thee c. And accordingly the Apostle Gal. 3. 18. affirms that the Inheritance was given to Abraham by Promise and not by Law For saith he If the Inheritance be of the Law it is no more of Promise but God gave it to Abraham by Promise which clearly Argues the Absoluteness of this Gospel Covenant For wherein differs the Law from a Free Promise but that the one is Conditional the other Absolute the one Promiseth Life upon Condition of Obedience the other without Money and without Price The like doth the same Apostle tell us Rom. 4. 13 14 15 16. For the Promise that he should be the Heir of the World was not to Abraham or to his Seed through the Law but through the Righteousness of Faith For if they which are of the Law be Heirs Faith is made void and the Promise made of none Effect And why Because the Law worketh Wrath. And how doth the Law work Wrath Why as it is a Conditional Covenant wherein alone it is opposed unto the Promise which is Free and Absolute For as the Apostle rightly adds Where no Law is there is no Transgression that is where no Conditions are added there can be no Violation or Breach of Covenant And consequently It is therefore of Faith that it might be by Grace to the end the Promise might be sure to all the Seed which else it could not be For if any Conditions be added though never so mild and gentle we are still in hazard Nay had it been so it would have rendred the Gospel Covenant worse then that made with Adam himself Since we have now no strength to Obey nor Power to fulfil these Conditions though in the least or lowest degree no not so much as to a thought So Paul acknowledgeth of himself and that even after his acquaintance with New Covenant Mercy 2 Cor. 3. 5. Not saith he that we are sufficient of our selves to think any thing as of our selves whereas Adam was furnished with a Capacity sufficient for the discharge of the most Perfect Obedience And if you say that God requireth nothing of us but what he giveth Strength and Grace to Perform having Promised to put his Laws in our Hearts c. This doth but so much the more clearly Evince the Absoluteness of the Gospel Covenant Since the Gospel Promise can depend on no Condition on our part For as I
the next following Words vers 11. He received the Sign of Circumcision a Seal of the Righteousness of the Faith which he had yet being uncircumcised And indeed as I have already proved at large in my former Discourse the whole foregoing and following passages of this 4 th to the Romans do strongly confirm this Interpretation Where it is plain that the Apostles whole drift is to prove that Abrahaâ—… was not justified by Works no not by hiâ—… Circumcision which was a main part thereof but by Faith onely And therefore as he letâ—… us know that Faith was not reckoned to him for Righteousness when he was in Circumcision but in uncircumcision vers 9 10. Sâ—… he doth upon the same account further assure us vers 13. That the Promise that he should bâ—… the heir of the World the same in effect with his being the Father of all them that believe was not to him or to his Seed through the Laâ—… which I have already proved must of necessity be understood of the Law of Circumcision but through the Righteousness of Faith From whence I drew another Argument to the same purpose with the former Which being not in Mood and Figure as the otherâ—… were you seem scornfully to pass by as not worth regarding And therefore since nothing else will please you I will now present it you in the following dress That which is contradistinguished or opposed unto the Righteousness of Faith could never be a Covenant of Faith But the Law or Covenant of Circumcision is by the Apostle plainly opposed or contradistinguished unto the Righteousness of Faith Therefore the Covenant of Circumcision could never be a Covenant of Faith The Minor I prove from the words before us Rom. 4. 13. compared with the foregoing passages of that chapter If it be objected that the Apostle onely speaks vers 13. of the Law in general to which the Righteousness of Faith is there opposed and doth not speak of the Covenant of Circumcision let them but consider that the Law he there speaks of and which he doth so manifestly contradistinguish or oppose unto the Righteousness of Faith cannot be cheifly understood concerning the Law given by Moses 400 Years after Abraham's time though it was of the same nature with the Law of Circumcision and was indeed built thereon but it must of necessity be understood concerning the Covenant of Circumcision which God made with Abraham himself which was extant in his own time And that this is the Law which the Apostle here intends will evidently appear if we duely attend unto the Scope of the Apostle in the foregoing part of this 4 th to the Romans Which was to shew that Abraham himself was not justified by Works no not by his Circumcision but by Faith which he had long before he was Circumcised For thus he begins vers 1 2. What shall we say then that Abraham our Father as pertaining to the flesh hath found For if Abraham were justified by Works he hath whereof to glory but not before God For what saith the Scripture Abraham believed God and it was Counted to him for Righteousness So then Abraham was not justified by Works before God but by Faith alone But how doth that appear Why thus it appears vers 9 10. Because Faith was not reckoned to him for Righteousness when he was in Circumcision but in uncircumcision the like he tells us vers 11 12 For saith he vers 13. the Promise that he should be the Heir of thâ—… World was not to Abraham or to his Seeâ—… through the Law which must needs therefore be understood of the Law of Circumcision but through the Righteousness of Faith From whence it is manifest that the Covenant oâ—… Circumcision was not a Covenant of Faith since it is here so plainly contradistinguished or opposed thereunto If you say that those words of the Apostle are to be understood concerning Moses his Law it still comes to the same reckoning at last For then it will follow that Moses his Law was not a Covenant of Faith And if Moses his Law was not then neither could the Covenant of Circumcision be such For as it is evident that the one was built on the other So it is as manifest that they were both of the same nature But before we part as to this you have one Question to ask me And that is Whether Faith was reckoned to Abraham for Righteousness by a meer Act of Soveraign Grace without respect had to any Covenant he was then under Or was it reckoned to him by vertue of some Promise or any Covenant he was then under If he say the latter say you then you shall affirm that was the the Covenant of Grace And who doubts of that say I For my own part I do not question it But yet this I must tell you by the way that what you here affirm you do as positively deny in the 95 pag. of your Answer to Mr. Cox For there you say that in those Transactions of God with Abraham mentioned Gen. 12. 2 3. He did not make or establish the Covenant of Grace with him The truth is say you there He did not then make any Covenant at all with him and consequently not the Covenant of Grace On the contrary here you affirm that it was the Covenant of Grace the same for substance with this now entred with him onely before less compleat but now fully compleated That is when the Covenant of Circumcision was made with him But who told you so say I that it was the same Covenant for Substance with this now entred with him When 't is evident that the former was absolute as your self cannot but grant in your Answer to Mr. Cox this conditional And is an absolute and a conditional Covenant the same for Substance I trow not Or was the former Covenant wherein God promised to Bless Abraham and that in him should all the Nations of the Earth be Blessed less compleat than the latter wherein God promiseth to be a God unto him and his natural Posterity onely But say you How the Institution of Circumcision could either cast Abraham out of it that is out of the Covenant of Grace that had been before made with him or alter the tenure of the Covenant so as that before he had Faith reckoned to him for Righteousness by virtue of the same Promises contained in it but after neither had nor could have Faith alike reckoned to him for Righteousness by virtue of the same Promises is say you as much above the under standing of Man as the former But Sir have you never read what the Apostle tells you Gal. 3. 17. That the Covenant that was Confirmed before of God in Christ the Law which was 430 Years after cannot disannul that it should make the Promise of none effect The like may as justly be said of the Covenant of Circumcision It could not disannul that it should make the fore established Covenant of Grace to
gives the appellation of a Covenant much less of the First or Old Covenant to that Covenant Transaction So that the Silence of the Scripture as to this express term of the Old Covenant in reference to the Covenant of Circumcision is no just Argument that therefore it is not So. And if no other reason can be assigned why the Sinai Covenant is called in Scripture the Frst or Old Covenant but because of its Affinity with that made with our first Parent Since it was not the first Covenant that God ever made with Men in respect of time an express Covenant having been made with Abraham and with Noah also long before why may not the Covenant of Circumcision also pass under the Denomination of the First or Old Covenant because of its Affinity with that at Sinai the same mercies being promised and the same duties commanded in the one that were in the other which hath expresly the title of the First or Old Covenant given to it in the Scripture Argum. 2. The Law or the Old Covenant was ordained by Angels in the hand of a humane Mediatour a Mediatour that was a meer Man But this Covenant established with Abraham was not ordained by Angels in the hand of a Humane Mediatour Therefore this Covenant was not the Law or the Old Covenant Reply By the same Rule and for the same Reason you may as well deny that the Covenant of Works made with our first Parent was the Old or the first Covenant because it was not ordained by Angels in the hand of a Humane Mediatour as the Sinai Covenant was Argum. 3. The Law or Old Covenant was given 430 Years after the Covenant of Grace was entred with Abraham But this Covenant entred with Abraham was not entred 430 Years after the Covenant of Grace was entred with him Therefore this Covenant cannot be the Law or Old Covenant The Major say you is evident from Gal. 3. 17. The Minor from the History of God's Covenant transactions with Abraham Reply Though the Covenant of Works which was given by Moses at Mount Sinai was 430 Years after the Covenant of Grace was entred with Abraham Gen. 12. Yet it follows not that there was therefore no other Edition thereof ever extant in the World you your self cannot but acknowledg that it was first made with Adam in innocency And if so why there might not be another Edition thereof besides that given at Sinai Neither the Scripture by you now mentioned nor any other says any thing to the contrary Argum. 4. God himself expresly denies â—…hat this Covenant established with Abraham was the Old Covenant Therefore c. That God expresly denies the Covenant established with Abraham to be the Old Covenant is evident Deut. â—… 2 3. Where saith Moses speaking by the Spirit of God The Lord our God made a Covenant with us in Horeb. The Lord made not this Covenant with our Fathers Now that under â—…his term Fathers we must necessarily include Abraham cannot be denied whence it is evident that the Covenant made in Horeb that is at Mount Sinai was not made with Abraham Reply Either the Covenant which Moses here speaks of which God made with Israel in Horeb that is at Mount Sinai was a Covenant of Grace that is a Gospel Covenant as Mr. Flavell Mr. Roberts Mr. Sedgwick and many others affirm it was or a Covenant of Works If it was a Gospel Covenant How will you resolve the Point when Moses tells you here expressly That the Lord made not this Covenant with our Fathers Will you say or can it be immagined that God never made any Gospel Covenant with Abraham Isaac or Jacob or the rest of the Fathers How then were they Saved If it was a Covenant of Works as you seem to grant it was the same difficulty occures on the other hand For can you say that God never made any Covenant of Works with Abraham and the rest of the Fathers Was there not a Covenant of Works made with our first Father and in him with all his Posterity Were not Abraham Isaac and Jacob children of wrath by nature as well as others and consequently then under the First or Old Covenant Wherefore when Moses says That the Lord made not this Covenant with our Fathers speaking of the Sinai Covenant it cannot be understood Absolutely as if therefore they had never been under the Old Covenant for it is plain that they had as being of Adam's Posterity And it is as plain that the first lines even of the Covenant at Mount Sinai were first drawn in the establishment of the Covenant of Circumcision There was the first draught thereof and then God first began to deal with even Abraham himself in order to the establishment of that Covenant he intended afterward in a more formal express manner to accomplish though it was not as yet Compleated So that Moses might justly enough say speaking of the Sinai Covenant The Lord made not this Covenant with our Fathers that is in the same manner and Circumstances as it is now made with us The Lord never appeared till now with such dreadful Majesty with such Thundrings Blackness Darkness and Tempect God never discovered himself till now with the Sound of a Trumpet and the Voice of Words which voice they that heard entreated that the Word should not be spoken to them any more It cannot be denied but that God had before made the same Covenant of Works with them in Adam for the Substance thereof And it is as plain that the first lines even of the Sinai Covenant it self had been drawn in the Covenant of Circumcision But it was not then Compleated there were many Ceremonies Statutes and Judgments to be added thereunto which the Fathers knew nothing of The same Covenant for the Substance thereof had been before made with them though not in the same manner and with such circumstances as it had been now Performed So that this Scripture makes nothing to your purpose at all No more doth that which follows when you tell us That that which may yet further confirm us is this That the Lord himself expresly distinguisheth that Covenant made with Abraham from that Covenant made at Sinai Deut. 29. 1. These are the Words of the Covenant which the Lord Commanded Moses to make with the Children of Israel in the Land of Moab beside the Covenant which he made with them in Horeb. But how doth it appear by this that the Lord himself distinguisheth the Covenant made with Abraham from that made with Abraham from that made at Mount Sinai Why yes saith Mr. Whiston because the Covenant here spoken of wich God made with Israel in the Land of Moab is Abraham's Covenant So saith he it is expresly declared vers 13. Now this Covenant is expresly declared to be another Covenant besides that made in Horeb vers 1. And therefore they could not be one and the same Covenant But then Mr. Whiston should have
in Arabia the other answering to Jerusalem that is Above And why doth the Apostle tell us of this Allegory concerning the two Covenants in Abraham's Family but with reference to Abraham himself as well as his Off-spring Or why doth the same Apostle elsewhere inform us That the Promise that Abraham should be the Heir of the World was not to him or to his Seed through the Law but through the Righteousness of Faith And that if the Inheritance be of the Law it is no more of Promise but God gave it to Abraham by Promise But with respect to the two fold Covenant made with Abraham himself shewing that the latter was that alone through which the Inheritance was to be derived unto him as well as unto all his Spiritual Off-spring though during the season thereunto appointed of the Father both he and they were to be held under the Bondage of a Legal Covenant Gal. 4. 1 2 3 4 5. Sir these Considerations are no cunning Shifts or subtile Evasions but plain downright Scripture Truths that carry their own Evidence with them in reference to the matter before us And thus much shall suffice by way of Answer to the first Branch of your Second Proposition I shall now therefore proceed to the Second Branch which in your Right Method you call your Third Proposition Prop. 3. That the Covenant mentioned Gen. 17. 7. is the Covenant of Grace that very Covenant according unto which all the Elect always have been still are and shall be saved This you say hath been afore proved in some other Discourses where the Reader will find these two Positions laid down and proved First That this was a Covenant of Grace Secondly That it is the Covenant of Grace under which Believers now are The former of these Positions say you was proved by Four Arguments the latter by Two The Second of the former was taken from the Subject Matter of the main Promise of the Covenant and that is that God would be a God to Abrabam and to his Seed after him in their Generations Now say you this Good the Subject Matter of this Promise being a Spiritual Good can only be conveyed by the Covenant of Grace and consequently this Covenant must needs be the Covenant of Grace For the clearing up and Evincing of which you offer Two things First That when this Promise is an Essential or Constitutive part of any Covenant it doth Constitute a Mutual Relation between God and the Parties with whom the Covenant is made And therefore it cannot possibly be made an Essential or Constitutive part of the Covenant of Works Secondly That it is Impossible that God should lay in his Attributes or Divine Perfections as Pledges that the Promises of this Covenant should not fail on his Part were it a Covenant of Works By way of Reply unto all which I must refer you to my Answer to Mr. Flavell's Third Argument about the Covenant of Circumcision before mentioned in the First Part of this Discourse P. 75. which being to the same purpose and effect with what you here offer and having there given I hope a sufficient and satisfactory Answer thereunto it needs not here to be Repeated But saith Mr. Whiston upon supposition of the truth of this former Position the Second will be more easily granted Hence saith he I used only Two Arguments to prove it both which were drawn from the Discourse of the Apostle Gal. 3. 16 17 29. And they are both grounded upon this supposition that the Covenant the Apostle there speaks of and hath reference unto is this Covenant Recorded Gen. 17. 7. which I proved by the Tenour of the Promise Constituting the Covenant said by the Apostle to be Confirmed in Christ. The Promise was to Abraham and his Seed So that the Covenant made with Abraham the Promises of which are to his Seed or run in this Tenour To thee and to thy Seed that must needs be the Covenant the Apostle hath reference unto and consequently must necessarily be the Covenant of Grace under which Believers now are And that this Covenant Recorded Gen. 17. 7. must necessarily be this Covenant I prove because there is no other Covenant made with Abraham that the Apostle can possibly intend the Promises of which are exprest in those Terms or run in that Tenour And unless any other Promise made to Abraham with reference to his Seed exprest in those Terms To thy Seed can be produced we may and necessarily must conclude that it is the Promise of this Covenant that the Apostle hath a Reference unto and intends Which things saith he being so exceeding plain and carrying such convincing Evidence along with them it may seem exceeding strange how they can be gain-said by any Reply By way of Answer hereunto I shall first prove that the Apostle Gal. 3. 16. when he tells us That to Abraham and his Seed were the Promises made he saith not unto Seeds as of many but as of one and to thy Seed which is Christ could not possibly refer to Gen. 17. 7. Secondly That there are several other Promises made to Abraham and his Seed besides those mentioned Gen. 17. 7. which are Express'd in those Terms and run in that Tenour To thee and to thy Seed First That the Apostle Gal. 3. 16. could not possibly refer to Gen. 17 7. is Evident because the Promises there mentioned were Expressly made unto Seeds as of many in direct opposition to what the Apostle Asserts concerning the Promises of the Gospel Covenant He saith not unto Seeds as of many Gen. 17. 7 8. I will Establish my Covenant between me and thee and thy Seed after thee in their Generations plainly and expressly Plural And I will give to thee and to thy Seed after thee the Land wherein thou art a stranger and I will be their God still expressly in the Plural and not in the Singular Number And so runs the Obligation also Vers. 9. Thou shall keep my Covenant therefore thou and thy Seed after thee in their Generations Those words of the Apostle therefore Gal. 3. 16. cannot possibly refer to the Promises contained in the Covenant of Circumcision as it hath been generally though mistakingly imagined they do but must of necessity refer to that Evangelical Covenant first Recorded Gen. 12 2 3. I will make of thee a great Nation and I will Bless thee and make thy Name great and thou shalt be a Blessing And I will Bless them that Bless thee and Curse him that Curseth thee And in thee shall all the Families of the Earth be Blessed Which latter Promise is afterward more fully Explained Gen. 22. 18. And in thy Seed shall all the Nations of the Earth be Blessed In which respect well might the Apostle say That to Abraham and his Seed were the Promises made He saith not unto Seeds as of many but as of one and to thy Seed which is Christ. For as it is manifest that those Promises were