and as accurate and legitimate diftinctions among the fchcol-men, as in Mr Tombes's Examen and Apology; or (which for the moft part is but a tranfcript of both) in Mr Cary's Solemn Call. But I fee I must not be my own chufer; I cannot now be both filent and innocent; for in this Solemn Call I find the great doctrines of God's covenants abufed by my neighbour; the books difperfed into many families related to me in this place, one of them delivered to me by the Author's own hands, with a preffing defire to give my judgment upon it: Several objections which I privately and feafonably fent him to prevent the fin and folly of his attempt, pretended to be answered from p. 164. ad p. 183. Thus am I neceffarily brought into the field of controversy: whither I come not a volunteer, but a preffed man; not out of choice, but neceffity. And now I am here, I refolve to be only Adverfarius litis, non perfona, an adverfary in the controverfy, not to the perfon, efpecially of my friendly neighbour. Neither would I have appeared thus publicly against him, it differences could have been accommodated, and the evil prevented, in a more private way; in order thereunto, I have punctually obferved and kept the rules and measures of friendship.

It is poffible fome may judge my ftile againft him to be too fharp; but if they pleafe to read the conclufion of his Call, and my Answer, I prefume they will find enough to make atonement for that fault, if it be a fault. It is from the nature of the matter before me, not from defect of charity to the perfon or party, that I am forced to be fo plain and pungent as I am.

To conclude, I fufpect this very preface may be also cenfured for its plainnefs and tedioufnefs. I confefs, when times are bufy we fhould be brief; and I am perfuaded a fufficient preface may be contracted into four words, a po mabwe, without preface or pallions. However, I have a little eafed my own heart, by difcharging my duty to my differing brethren, and pleased myself, if not them.

The God of peace create peace in all the borders of Sion, beat our fwords into plow-fhares, and our fpears into pruning-hooks; I mean, our polemicals into practicals; that Jerufalem may once more be a city compact, and no more terrible to herself, but only to her enemies, as an army with banners. This, brethren, is the prayer, and shall ever be the endeavour of,

Your Friend and Servant in Chrift,

JOHN FLAVEL.

B

Prolegomena.

EFORE we enter into the main controverfy, it will be neceffary to acquaint the reader, why I begin with the middle of the book; and it is because I there find these three principles or pofitions, on which the other parts of his difcourle are fuperftructed; and these being deftroyed, his other difcourfes are but arena, fine calfe. I properly therefore begin with the foundation.

Next I fhall fhew how far we are agreed in the matters here controverted, and where it is in each of thefe that the controverfy indeed lies betwixt us. And as to

I. Pofition, viz.

That the Sinai law is the fame with Adam's covenant of works, made in paradife.

The difference betwixt us here is not (1.) Whether both these be called covenants, in Scripture? Nor (2.) Whether there was no grace at all in both, or either of them; for we are agreed, it is grace in God to enter into covenant with man, whatever that covenant be.. Nor. (3.) Whether the Sinai law be not a covenant of works to fome men, by their own fault and occafion? Nor (4.) Whether the fcriptures do not many times fpeak of it in that very fenfe and notion wherein carnal jufticiaries apprehend and take it; and by rejecting Chrift, make it fo to themselves? Nor (5.) Whether the very matter of the lary of nature be not revived and reprefented in the Sinai law? These are not the points we contend about. But the queftion is, Whether the Sinai law do in its own nature, and according to God's purpofe and defign in the promulgation of it, revive the law of nature, to the fame ends and ufes it ferved to in Adam's covenant; and fo be properly and truly a covenant of works? Or whether God had not gracious and evangelical ends and purposes, víz. By fuch a dreadful reprefentation of the fevere and impracticable terms of the first covenant, instead of obliging them to the perfonal and punctual obfervance of them for righteousness and life, he did not rather defign to convince them of the impoffibility of legal righteoufnefs, humble proud nature, and fhew them the neceffity of betaking themselves to Chrift, now exhibited in the new covenant, as the only refuge to fällen finners. The latter I defend according to the Scriptures, the former Mr Cary feems to affert and vehemently argue for.

2dly, In this controverfy about the Sinai law, I do not find Mr Cary diftinguish (as he ought) betwixt the law confidered more largely and complexly, as containing both the moral and ceremonial law, for both which it is often taken in Scripture, and more strictly for the moral law only, as it is fometimes ufed in Scripture. Thefe two he

makes one and the fame covenant of works; though there be fome that doubt whether the mere moral law may not be a covenant of works; yet I never met with any man before, that durft affirm the ceremonial law, which is fo full of Chrift, to be fo; and to this law it is that circumcifion appertains.

3dly, The moral law, ftrictly taken for the ten commandments, is not by him diftinguithed (as it ought to be, and as the fcripture frequently doth) according to God's intention and design in the promulgation of it, which was to add it as an appendix to the promise, Gal. iii. 19 and not to fet it up as an oppofite covenant, Gal. iii. 21. as the carnal Jews, miftaking and perverting the ufe and end of the law, and making it to themselves a covenant of works, by making it the very rule and reafon of their juftification before God, Rom. ix. 32, 33. Rom. x. 3. These things ought carefully to have been diftinguished, forafmuch as the whole controverfy depends on this double fenfe and intention of the law; yea, the very denomination of that law depends hereon: for I affirm, it ought not to be denominated from the abused and mistaken end of it amongst carnal men, but from the true scope, defign and end for which God published it after the fall; and though we find fuch expreffions as thefe in Scripture, "The man that doth "them shall live in them ;" and, "Curfed is every one that continu"eth not in all things," &c. yet these refpecting the law, not according to God's intention, but man's corruption and abuse of it, the law is not thereby to be denominated a covenant of works. God's end was not to justify them, but to try them by that terrible difpenfation, Exod. xx. 20. whether they would ftill hanker after that natural way of felf-righteoufnefs; for this end God propounded the terms of the first covenant to them on Sinai, not to open the way of felf-juftification to them, but to convince them, and thut them up to Chrift; just as our Saviour, Matth. xix. 17. puts the young man upon keeping the commandments, not to drive him from, but neceffitate him to himself in the way of faith.

The law in both these fenfes is excellently defcribed, Gal. iv. in that allegory of Hagar and Sarah, the figures of the two covenants. Hagar, in her first and proper ftation was but a ferviceable handmaid to Sarah, as the law is a schoolmafter to Chrift; but when Hagar the handmaid is taken in Sarah's bed, and brings forth children that af pire to the inheritance, then faith the Scripture, "Caft out the bond.

woman, with her fon." So it is here; take the law in its primary ufe, as God defigned it, as a schoolmaster or handmaid to Chrift and the promife, fo it is confiftent with them, and excellently fubfervient to them; but if we marry this handmaid, and efpoufe it as a covenant of works, then are we bound to it for life, Rom. vii. and must have nothing to do with Chrift. 1 he believers of the Old Teftament had true apprehenfions of the right end and ufe of the law, which directed them to Chrift, and fo they became children of the free-woman. The carnal Jews trufted to the works of the law for righteoufnefs, and fo

became the children of the bond-woman; but neither could be children of both at once, no more than the fame man can naturally be born of two mothers. This is the difference betwixt us about the firft pofition. And as to the

II. Pofition,

That Abraham's covenant, Gen. xvii. is an Adam's covenant of works alfo, becaufe circumcifion was annexed to it, which obliged men to keep the whole law.

The controverfy betwixt us in this point, is not whether circumcifion were an ordinance of God, annexed by him to his covenant with Abraham? Nor (2.) Whether Abraham's ordinary and extraordinary feed ought to be, and actually were figned by it? Nor, (3.) Whether it were a feal of the righteoufnefs of faith to any individual perfon, for he allows it to be fo to Abraham? Nor (4.) Whether it pertained to the ceremonial law, and fo must ceafe at the death of Chrift? But the difference betwixt us is, Whether (1.) It was a feal of the covenant to none but Abraham? And (2.) Whether in the very nature of the act, or only from the intention of the agent, it did oblige men to keep the whole law, as Adam was obliged to keep it in inno cency? (3) Whether it were utterly abolished at the death of Chrift, as a condition of the covenant of works? or being a fign of the fame covenant of grace we are now under, it be not fucceeded by the new gofpel-fign, which is baptifm? Mr Cary affirms, that it was in itself a condition of the covenant of works, and being annexed to God's covenant with Abraham, Gen. xvii. it made that a true Adam's covenant works alfo. This I utterly deny, and fay, Abraham's covenant was a true covenant of grace. (2.) That circumcifion was a feal of righteousness of faith, and therefore could not poffibly belong to the covenant of works. (3.) That as it was applied both to the ordinary and extraordinary infant-feed of Abraham, during that adminiftration of the covenant, fo it is the will of Chrift that baptifm should take its place under the gospel, and be applied now to the infant-feed of all Abraham's fpiritual children. Thefe are the things wherein we differ about the fecond pofition. And lastly, as to the

III. Pofition.

That neither Mofer' law, Exod. xx. nor God's covenant with Abraham, Gen. xvii. can be any other than an Adam's covenant of works, becaufe they have each of them conditions in them on man's part; but the gofpel-covenant hath none at all, but is altogether free and abfolute.

The controverfy here betwixt us is not (1.) Whether the gofpelCovenant requires no duties at all of them that are under it? Nor (2.) Whether it requires any fuch conditions as were in Adam's covenant, namely, perfect, perfonal, and perpetual obedience, under the fevereft penalty of a curfe, and admitting no place of repentance? Nor. (3.) Whether any condition required by it on our part, have any thing in its own nature meritorious of the benefits promifed? Nor (4.) Whether we be able in our own ftrength, and by the power of

our free-will, without the preventing as well as the affifting grace of God, to perform any fuch work or duty as we call a condition? In thefe things we have no controverfy; but the only question betwixt us is,

Whether in the new covenant fome act of ours (though it have no merit in it, nor can be done in our own fingle ftrength) be not required to be performed by us, antecedently to a bleffing or privilege confequent by virtue of a promife? And whether fuch an act of duty, being of a fufpending nature to the bleffing promifed, it have not the true and proper nature of a gospel-condition? This I affirm, and he pofitively denies.

Thefe three pofitions being confuted, and the contrary well confirmed, viz, that the law at Sinai was not fet up by God as an Adam's covenant, to open the old way of righteoufnefs and life by works; but was added to the promife, as fubfervient to Chrift in its defign and ufe, and confequently can never be a pure Adam's covenant of works. And, fecondly,

That Abraham's covenant, Gen. xvii. is the very fame covenant of grace we are now under; and, (2dly,) That circumcifion in the nature of the act did not oblige all men to keep the whole law for righteoufnefs. And (3dly,)

That the new covenant is not abfolutely and wholly unconditional, though notwithstanding a moft free and gracious covenant; the pillars on which Mr Cary sets his new ftructure fink under it, and the building falls into ruins.

I have not here taken Mr Cary's two Syllogifms, proving Abraham's covenant to be a covenant of works, because I find myself therein prevented by that ingenious and learned man, Mr Whifton, in his late anfwer to Mr Grantham. Neither have I particularly spoken to his twenty-three arguments to prove the Sinai law to be a pure Adam's covenant, becaufe fruftra fit per plura, quod fieri poteft per pauciora: I have overthrown them all together at one blow, by evincing every argument to have four terms in it, and fo proves nothing. But I have fpoken to all thofe fcriptures which concern our four pofitions, and fully vindicated them from the injurious fenfes to which Mr Cary (following Mr Tombes) had wrefted them.

Thefe things premifed, I fhall only further add, that if Mr Cary fhall attempt a reply to my anfwer, and free his own thefes from the grofs abfurdities with which I have loaded them, he must plainly and fubftantially prove against me,

(1.) That the Sinai law, according to its true fcope and end, was promulgated by God for man's juftification and happinefs in the way of perfonal obedience; and that the Jews, that did accordingly endeavour after righteoufnefs by the works of the law, did not miftake its true end and meaning; or if they did, and thereby made it what God never intended it to be, a covenant of works to themselves, that the Sinai law ought rather to be denominated from their mistake