Reply. If I had a mind to learn the art of proving quidlibet a quolihet^ and make myself ridiculous to others, by such foolish at- tempts, I know no book in the world fitter to instruct me therein than yours. Certainly you have the knack of it, and give us an instance of it but now, in confuting the sequel of my major, by an allegation out of Dr. Owen, which expressly confirms and establishes it. But to the point ; I would willingly know how it is possible for sanctification to be a true and certain mark and sign of justification, when (according to the Antinomian principle, which you here too much comprobate and espouse) a man may be justified before he believe, yea, before he is a man, even from the time of Christ's death, and (as others of them speak) from eternity. A true mark and sign must be proper to, and inseparable from that which it signifies. Now, if that be true which you said before. That q/'ter Ckrisfsjulfillingqf'the law in 1m own person, S^c. nothing can re-^ main, hut to declare this to men to incline them to believe and accept it, and to pi-escribe in what way they shall come to inherit eternal li/l\ If this be all that can remain to us, then nothing but the declarationg ^md prescriptions of the gospel, which are things without us, can re- main to be marks and signs of justification to us: and consequently all those to whom those declarations and prescriptions are made and given, have therein the marks and evidences of their justifica- tion. But I am truly weary of such stuff, I am sure the apostle places vocation before justification. Rom. viii. 80. " Whom he call- " ed, them he justified." And without an immediate testimony from heaven, I know not how to evidence and prove my justifica- tion, but from, and by my faith, and other parts of sanctification ; whereby I apprehend and apply the righteousness of Christ: if you can prove it from the declarations and prescriptions of the gospel, I cannot.
Arg. 5. My fifth and last argument, ran thus : If the covenant of grace be altogether absolute and unconditional, requiring no- thing to be done on our part to entitle us to its benefits, then it cannot be man's duty, in entering covenant with God, to deliberate the terms, count the cost, or give his consent by word or writing, to the terms of this covenant : for where there are no terms at all, (as in absolute promises there are none) there can be none to deli- berate. But I shewed you, this is man's duty, from clear and un* deniable scriptures, &c.
53S VlXDlCIAIiUM V INDEX.
You say, by way of answer hereunto, that * You must tell me, ' that the scriptures do make a plain distinction be- Jinsicer, p. '- twixt the new and everlasting covenant, which God 122, 123. ' hath been pleased to make with sinners in Jesus Christ; ' and the return of that sincere and dutiful obedience ' which he requires of us, by w^av of answer thereunto. (2.) You ' say, there are many things, which though promised in the cove- ' naut, and wrought in us by the grace of God ; are yet duties
* indlspensibly required of us in order to the participation of tlie ' full end of the covenant in glory : and in respect hereof, we are
* indeed to deliberate the terms, count the cost, and give up our-
* selves solemnly to him, with sincere resolutions, &c. But then ' you thought I had understood there had been a vast difference ' betwixt God's covenant with us, and our covenant with God, ' citing Ezek. xvi. 59, (30, 61. w here God promiseth to " give
* them their sisters for daughters, but not by their covenant.''
* And w4th this you compare Psal. Ixxxix. " My covenant w ill I ' not break f' where (you say) w^e find a plain distinction betw^ixt ' God's covenant with them, and their duty to God. And lastly,
* you say, p. 105. that the want of a due observation of this plain
* scripture-distinction, betwixt God's free and absolute covenant ' made with sinners in Christ, and our covenants with God by way •■ of return thereunto, is the true reason of all our mistakes about ' the true nature of the gospel covenant, whilst we jumble and
* confound together that which the scriptures do so plainly disti*- ' guish.'
Reply. To your first answer, I say ; it is true^ the scriptures do distinguish betwixt covenant and covenant ; that of works, and that of grace. It also distinguishes the same covenant of grace for sub- stance, according to its various administrations into the old and new covenant. It also distinguishes betwixt the promissory part of the same covenant of grace, and the restipulatory part ; not as two Op- posite covenants, (as you distinguish them. Gen. xvii.) but as the just and necessary parts of one and the same covenant. It also dis- tinguishes betwixt vows made by men to God in some particular cases, and the covenant of grace betwixt God and them. But what is all this to your purpose 1: Or in what point doth it touch my ar- gument ? You desire me to cast mine eye upon Ezek. xvi. and Psal. Ixxxix. I have done so, and that impartially ; and do assure you, I admire why you produce them against my argument. That in Ezek. speaks of the enlargement of the church by the accession of the Gentiles to it ; and the sense of those words seems to me to be this : That this enlargement of the church is a gracious addition, or something beyond what God had ever done in his former dis- pensations of the covenant to that people. And for Psal. Ixxxix,
VINDICIARUM VINDEX. 5S9
1 know not what you mean to produce it for, unless it be to prove what I never denied. That notwithstanding our failures in duty to- wards God, God will still keep his covenant wath us; though he M^ll visit the iniquities of his covenant-people with a rod.