The Covenant Sealed, Section 8
SECT. VIII. The Covenant of Grace requires and accepts ſincerity.
I Have paſs'd through thoſe debates, in which our judgements ſtand at difference; for in the laſt you will differ, though I had thought there had been a full accord between us. Now I muſt come to that in which we do agree, which pag. 144. Sect. 82. you entitle, [Whether the Covenant of Grace require perfection, and accept ſincerity?] In which I take to the negative, conceiving that it requires the ſame that it accepts. And in your Aphoriſmes, if I underſtand any thing, you have clearly delivered your ſelf with me, pag. 157, 158. in theſe words: As when the old Covenant ſaid, Thou ſhalt obey perfectly, the Moral Law did partly (I think you mean perfectly) tell them wherein they ſhould obey: So when the new Covenant ſaith, Thou ſhalt obey ſincerely, the Moral Law doth perfectly tell us wherein, or what we muſt endeavour to do, &c. Whereupon Mr. Crandon is, herein againſt you, with as great vehemence as in any other of your doctrines. Neither do I perceive, by any thing that you have ſaid, that your mind is changed: And I had much rather anſwer Mr. Crandon in defence of truth, which he, in you, here oppoſeth, then to ſpend time in my own quarrel. Though my Tenent give you not diſtaſt, yet it ſeems, my arguments do not pleaſe. But if truth ſtand, it matters leſs though I fall. You anſwer all my arguments in order, as though you judged me to be in the fowleſt error; when I am yet perſwaded, that if not onelyonly ſome, but all of my arguments fail, which you make your buſineſs to impugn, the Poſition it ſelf, (which with you is truth, as well as with me) will fall with it. After a ſhort Apology, and conjecture made, who that Divine may be, whom with much reverence I mention, ſuppoſing him the firſt that manifeſted himſelf in the contrary way, that the Goſpel requires perfection, and accepts ſincerity, You tell me, that you conceive this difference is occaſioned by the ambiguity of the word [Covenant of Grace:] and tell me, that in your judgement, I ought to have removed it, by diſtinguiſhing, before I had argued againſt their opinion. And ſo you fall upon my work for me, and give in abundance of acceptations of the word [Covenant of Grace.] And if I may take the boldneſs to be as free with you, as you with me, I think you might have done well to have made it appear, where, and by whom, this word is taken in all of theſe different ſenſes, and ſignifications. If your Reader knew all this, before your Book fell into his hand, you have nothing benefited him, you have only told him what he knew before: If he he knew it not, he hath now alone your word for it. And I know not where elſe, any Reader may find a great part of it, but from your hand. I profeſs my ſelf to be much more amazed then edified in Reading all that you have ſpoke of it. When you have reckoned up very many ſenſes of the word, you ſay, Now if the queſtion be, whether in any of theſe ſenſes, the Covenant doth command perfect obedience? you anſwer,An explication of the Authors meaning. All the doubt is of the three latter, one of which is, Promiſes, Prophecies, and Types, before Chriſt's comming. And to ſpeak mine own meaning, (and I had thought, no man had doubted of it) I take Covenant of grace in this diſpute, for the whole tranſaction that paſſes, in a Covenant-way betwixt God and his people, in order to Salvation, as comprizing all that God requires, promiſes, or threats, and all that to which man engages himſelf, and which he expects. But when I ſpeak of that which the Covenant, thus taken, promiſeth; I mean that which it promiſeth in the promiſſory part of it: when I ſpeak of what it threatneth, I mean in the Minatory part of it: and when I ſpeak of what it requires, I mean in the preceptive part of it. Now this preceptive part muſt needs have ſome rule, at which men in Covenant muſt look, as diſtinguiſhed from threats or promiſes, and containing Agenda, things to be done, and not Credenda, Speranda, or Timenda, things to be Believed, Hoped, or Feared. The rule, or Standard here, in theſe things, which man in Covenant is called to do, is the Moral Law: God quits not man of his Subjection: He is a ſubject in this, as he was in the former Covenant. The Covenant of works called to the keeping of it in the higheſt, fulleſt, and moſt compleat perfection. The Covenant of G…ace cals us to eye it, and with ſincere endeavour to conform to it. When God ſpake to Abraham (the leading man in Covenant reſpective to all after-Covenanters, whether Jewes, or Gentiles,) he ſaith, I am the Almighty God, or God al-ſufficient, walk before me, and be thou perfect, Gen. 17.1. In which words, we have firſt the parties in Covenant, and the engagement of either party. Gods engagement is to be to Abraham, Almighty, and Al-ſufficient for protection, for proviſion, ſo that, he need not look elſe-where to compaſs good, or keep off evill. Abrahams Engagement is, to walk before God, and to be perfect, or, as it is in the Margent reading, upright, ſincere: which walking ſaith Ainſworth, comprehendeth both true faith, Heb. 11.5, 6. and carefull obedience to God's Commandments. That faith is called for in this perfection, ſee 2 Chron. 16.8, 9. To rely alone upon God in one verſe, is to be perfect in the other. That this perfection of ſervice, of obedience, is no other then ſincerity, all interpreters that I have ſeen, acknowledge. See Peter Martyr, Vaetablus, Paraeus, Calvin on the place. God Covenants for obedience, (ſaith Calvin) from his ſervant; and the integrity, which is here mentioned, is oppoſed to hypocriſie. Rivet cloſeth with Calvin, and in many words expreſſeth himſelf, that this perfection means nothing elſe, but integrity, or ſincerity, otherwiſe (ſaith he) they that walk, and are yet in the way, do not attain to a perfection properly ſo called. So that according to him, the Covenant requires the ſame, that through grace the Saints here attain, and that is a perfection not property ſo called. Dr. Preſton on the words is very large to this purpoſe. As for that which you produce as an opinion of an acquaintance, & friend of mine of extraordinary learning and judgement (leaving me to gueſs whom you mean, as indeed I do, but with poſſibility of miſtake) That the Morall Law is the matter of the new Covenant; I cannot well underſtand, at leaſt as you expreſs it. How far the word [matter] may reach, I know not. I believe, that it is their Rule in the New Covenant, but otherwiſe held out, then it was in the Covenant of works, as I have before expreſſed my ſelf. As a Law, it loſes nothing of it's ancient ſtrictneſs, for it is ever unchangeably the ſame; the rule of our duty, and not of our ſtrength; onelyonly the terms of the Covenant of Grace, are not for exact obſervation, but ſincere endeavour. So that the leaſt failing is a ſin againſt the Law, but not a breach of Covenant; which for ought I diſcern is the ſenſe that you give. As for that which in the ſecond place you urge from him, whom you ſtile, Learned, Judicious, and much Honoured Brother, and my friend and acquaintance; making theſe two, but one Law quo ad formam, I command thee fal'n man, perfect obedience; and oblige thee to puniſhment for every ſin: yet not remedileſly, but ſo, as that if thou Believe and Repent, this obligation ſhall be diſſolved, & thou ſaved, elſe not. I ſhould rather take them disjunctim then conjunctim, but I know not whether there be any conſiderable difference. I ſo far ſubſcribe, that all that periſh by the ſentence of the Law, to whom the Covenant was ever tendered, are by neglect of Covenant, left in a remedileſs condition. The Law damns the unbeliever and impenitent: unbelief holds him, that he is not by the Covenant of Grace delivered from the Law's ſentence. When you come to bring all home, by application to me, with your cenſure for laying an heavy charge upon them that I oppoſe, and apologizing on their part; I do not well know how to underſtand your words, that ſo I might ſee my own error. You ſay, It is moſt likely, that thoſe Divines that affirm, that the Covenant of Grace doth require perfect obedience, and accepts ſincere, do take that Covenant in this laſt and largeſt ſenſe, and as containing the Moral Law, as part of the matter. Before you ſpake of the Moral Law, as the matter of the Covenant, and now you ſpeak of it, as part of the matter, And ſo underſtood, (you ſay) No doubt it is true, if I underſtand it of perfection for the future. And then doubtleſs it is an error, for I underſtand perfection for the preſent; And what the Law of God, or Covenant do's require, it doth in preſent, as I think, require: And what gave you occaſion to ſuſpect otherwiſe, I cannot imagin. When you have taken upon you their defence, or at leaſt their excuſe, that hold againſt you, you come to anſwer my arguments, that hold with you.
I ſaid, [This opinion,Arguments that the Covenant of grace requires onelyonly ſincerity vindicated. That the Covenant requires perfection, eſtabliſhes the former opinion oppoſed by Proteſtants, and but now refuted, as to the obedience, and the degree of it called for in-covenant.] You anſwer, If you interpret the Papiſts as meaning that the Law requires true perfection, but accepts of ſincere, then if it be ſpoken of the Law of works, or nature, it is falſe, and not the ſame with theirs whom you oppoſe. Anſw. I marvail that you will put the caſe [if I do] when I tell you expreſly that I do not. I limit the parallel to the obedience, and degree called for in Covenant, which theſe Reverend Divines make to be the ſame, as thoſe that I had ſpoken to, but differ reſpective to acceptation: and ſo their miſtake, if it be one, is infinitely below the Popiſh error in the Councill of Trent held forth, which I did oppoſe. You further ſay, If you take them, as no doubt you do, as meaning it of the Law of Chriſt, as the Trent Council expreſs themſelves; then no doubt but they take the Law of Chriſt, in the ſame extended ſenſe, as was before expreſſed: and then they differ from us but in the fore-mentioned notion. Anſw. I do not underſtand your diſtinction between the Law of nature, and the Law of Chriſt, as I have before largely told you, and given in my reaſons. You ſpeak ſomewhat in that which follows, that the Papiſts do not indeed take the Covenant or Law it ſelf to command true perfection, but that which they call perfection, which is no other then the grace of Sanctification, as I expreſſed out of ſome of the chief of the writers: But it is true perfection that thoſe mean whom I now write againſt. And ſo you conclude, that you ſee not the leaſt ground for my firſt charge. But you might obſerve what I further ſay in words more at large, then is here fit to he repeated, purpoſely to prevent this objection, that they look upon this, which we ſay is no more then Sanctification, as full Perfection; and ſuch that anſwers to the Law in the ſenſe in which it was given. Our character of grace inherent is their interpretation of the Law: and ſo they raiſe up men in a conceit that they anſwer the Law, when they live in a continual breach of it.
2. I ſaid, [If this opinion ſtand, then God accepts of Covenant-breakers, of thoſe that deal falſly in it, whereas Scripture chargeth it upon the wicked, upon thoſe of whom God complains, as rebellious, Deut. 29.25. Joſ. 7.15. Jer. 11.10. and 22.8, 9.] &c. You anſwer, This charge proceedeth meerely from the confounding of the duty as ſuch, and the condition as ſuch; And you proceed ex non conceſſis, to charge me with this confuſion; taking it for granted in the words that follow, that a Covenant, which is alſo a Law, as well as a Covenant, may by the preceptive part, conſtitute much more duty then ſhall be made the condition of the promiſes. In which I conceive there is a double miſtake. 1. That a Covenant properly ſo called (of which we ſpeak can be a Law in the proper acceptation. For a covenant is of 2. parties, either of both concurring to the conſtitutiō of it, & if it be a Law, both parties are as well Law-givers, as Covenant-makers. A Superiour may impoſe a condition as by a Law, but that is but one part of a Covenant. 2. That there is any duty in a Covenant, that is not alſo of the Condition of it. I am ſure in the Covenant of Grace there is nothing duty, which is not a condition. Faith and Repentance are conditions, and if you can tell me of any thing elſe which is matter of duty, taking Repentance in its due latitude, viz. to ceaſe to do evill, and learne to do well, it will be a piece of a new Catechiſme with me; Theſe you grant are conditions, and this the [all] of a Chriſtians duty. Whereas you ſay, If you will ſpeak ſo largely as to ſay, All who break the preceptive part of the Covenant, are Covenant-breakers, then no doubt God accepteth of many ſuch, and none but ſuch — for Whether we ſay, (ſay you) that the New Law commandeth perfect obedience, or not, yet except you take it exceeding reſtrainedly, it muſt be acknowledged, that the precept is of larger extent then the condition, having appointed ſome duties which it hath not made ſine qua non to ſalvation. Anſw. I think God accepts of none that break the preceptive part of the Covenant, in the ſenſe, as the preceptive part of it qua Covenant, is to b… underſtood; & as interpreters uſually give as the meaning of it. God accepts (that I know) none (to ſpeak de adultis) but thoſe that walk before him, and are ſincere. He neither accepts of profaneneſſe, nor men of hypocriticall diſſimulation. I know ſincerity hath its latitude, as perfection ſtrictly taken hath not: An upright heart in temptations hath many a great ſhock; but if you can ſay, that the duty of the Covenant is ſo laid aſide, that the heart is not right in the ſight of God, as Peter of Simon Magus, (which muſt be ſaid if the precept of ſincerity and uprighthneſſe be broke) then I do not know that there is any acceptance. Simon Magus muſt be in another frame, before the thoughts of his heart be forgiven him. And this I am confident is the thoughts of my learned friend whom you mention, if I do not (as I think I do not) miſtake the man: And I have my reaſon for this confident opinion. And as I wonder at your diſtinction betwixt the duty and condition of a Covenant, ſo I no leſſe marvail at your Simile. You tell me, If I ſend my Child a mile of an errand, and ſay, I charge you, play not by the way, but make haſt, and do not go in the dirt, &c. and if you come back by ſuch an houre, I will give you ſuch a reward; if not, you ſhall be whipt; He that plaies by the way & dirties himſelf; & yet comes back by the houre appointed, doth break the preceptive part, but not the condition. Your diſtinction is between the preceptive part, and the condition in a Covenant, and here you talke of a precept that is no part of the Covenant; but if I put all within the Covenant, and ſay, Come again within an houre, not playing, or dirtying your ſelf; if he either out ſtay his houre, or play, or run in the dirt, he forfeites his reward, and is at mercy for a whipping, according to Covenant. You ſpeak afterward of a mans breach of ſome particular Covenant, which a man may do in a temptation; and yet as to the Covenant of grace, be ſincere.
3. I ſaid, [Then it will follow, that as none can ſay, They have ſo anſwered the command of the Law that they have never failed; So neither can they with the Church make appeale to God that they have not dealt faſly in the Covenant, Pſal. 44 17. Every ſin (according to this opinion) being a breach of it, and a dealing faſly in it.] You reply, This charge is as unjuſt as the former. I confeſſe it, and you giving no further reaſon, I ſhall ſit down with the former anſwer.
4. I ſaid, [Then the great promiſe of mercy from everlaſting to everlaſting upon them that fear him, and his righteouſneſſe unto Childrens Children to ſuch as keep his Covenant, and to thoſe that remember his Commands to do them, Pſal. 103.17, 18. only appertaines to thoſe that keep the Law, that they ſin not at all againſt it.] You anſwer, It follows not: If they ſincerely keep the Law, they fulfill the conditions of the Covenant, though not the precept. And I ſay, the precept of the Covenant goes no higher then ſincerity: And I had thought you had fully concurred with me. That Chriſt (ſay you) as the Mediator of the new Covenant ſhould command us not only ſincere but perfect obedience to the moral law; & ſo hath made it a proper part of his Goſpel, not only as a directory and inſtruction, but alſo as a command, I am not yet convinced: Adding, My reaſon is, becauſe I know not to what end Chriſt ſhould command us that obedience which he never doth enable any man in this life to performe. Aphor. 157, 158. How theſe can be reconciled, I know not. I think none is inabled through grace to be more then ſincere: and then the precept of the Covenant according to you requires no more. You further ſay, They keep the precept in an improper, but uſuall ſenſe, as keeping is taken for ſuch a leſſe degree of breaking as on Goſpel grounds is accepted. Anſw. They keep it, if they be ſincere, in the ſenſe as Chriſt the Mediator of the Covenant gave it, & in as proper a ſenſe as they keep the conditions.
5. I ſaid, [Then our Baptiſm-vow is never to ſin againſt God, and as often as we renew our Covenant, we do not only humble our ſelves that we have ſinned, but we afreſh bind our ſelves never more to commit the leaſt infirmity.] To this you anſwer, We do not promiſe in Baptiſm to do all that the precept of the Covenant requireth, but all that is made the condition of life, and to endeavour the reſt. I deſire to know where you find this diſtinction as applied to our Baptiſm-vow. You ſay pag. 79. of this Apology, that Baptized ones are to renounce the Fleſh, the World, and the Devill, and that this abrenunciation hath been in the Church ever ſince the Apoſtles daies, q…oting Tertullian, Cyprian, and all antiquity for it. I would know whether Tertullian, Cyprian, or any other eminent in ancient times, help'd it out with your diſtinction, that we engage to renounce them, not as duty, but as a condition to obtaine Salvation. This privative part of duty holding out the terminus à quo, in our Chriſtian motion, implyes a poſitive work, which alſo was expreſſed in our Engliſh Leiturgie, conſtantly to believe Gods holy word, and obediently keep his commands; and confirmed by the Apoſtle to be our duty, Ro. 6.4. Buried with him by Baptiſm into death, that like as Chriſt was raiſed up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even ſo we alſo ſhould walk in newneſſe of li…e. This we vow, and I deſire to know what more in any Goſpel-precept is required?
6. I ſaid, [then the diſtinction between thoſe that enter Covenant, and break it, as Jer. 31.32, 33. and thoſe that have the Law written in their hearts, and put into their inward parts to obſerve it, fall…: all ſtanding equally guilty of the breach of it; no help of grace being of power to enable to keep Covenant.] To this you anſwer: When ſincere obedience, The precept, and the condition, in the Covenant of Grace, are one.and perfect obedience, are all one, and when the precept, and the condition of the Covenant are proved to be of equall extent, then there will be ground for the charging of this conſequence. I marvail how the firſt part of the anſwer came into your thoughts. That Text of Jeremiah ſpeaks to ſincerity, and not to perfection. For the ſecond, ſincerity is the precept, and ſince…ity is the condition: ſincerity is one and the ſame, and therefore precept and condision are one and the ſame. That which we are to renounce, and that to which we engage, is our condition. But that which we renounce, and that to which we engage is th… Goſpel, or Covenant-precept: The precept and condition are therefore the ſame. Faith and new obedience are the precept, Faith and new obedience are the condition; The precept and condition are therefore one and the ſame. So that your diſtinction falling, as I doubt not but it do's, all my arguments after the firſt to the laſt, eo nomine ſtand. You go about to evade them all with this one diſtinction, which I leave to the judicious Reader to determine, whether it be not without a difference.
But before I undertake your next, I have to thank you for that which you have tranſcribed out of Robert Baronius, pag. 401. of your Confeſſion. Treating in an Appendix of the poſſibility of fulfilling the Law of God, conſidered according to Goſpel lenity, you tell us what his ſecond aſſertion is, pag. 122. which I deſire the Reader to peruſe, either in your book, or in the Author himſelf: Where he may ſee, 1. That the Goſpel is below the Law, as to the degree that it requireth. As to the one there is a poſſibility of fulfilling, (according to him) and not ſo to the other. 2. That the obligation of the Law yet remains, ſo that all failings are tranſgreſſions. 3. That it ſtands as a Rule for us to affect, and with our beſt ſtrength to endeavour after. 4. That the Goſpel requires a certain meaſure of obedience, on pain of eternal damnation. This doubtleſs is that which is the condition of it. 5. That this obedience thus required, is neceſſarily to be, as high as grace enables to reach. In which we ſee in the firſt place, their diſtinction oppoſed, that ſay, That the Goſpel requires perfection, and accepts ſincerity. The Goſpel according to him requires no more then it accepts, and for which grace enables. And in the next place, your diſtinction of duty and condition, is by him utterly overthrown, according to him, all comes within the condition, which is matter of duty.
My laſt argument was, [Then it follows, that ſincerity is never called for as a duty, or required as a grace, but only diſpens'd with, as a failing, and indulged, as a want. It is not ſo much a Chriſtian's honour, or Character, as his blemiſh; rather his defect, then praiſe. But we find the contrary in Noah, Job, &c.] To this you reply, I will not ſay, it is paſt the wit of man to find the ground of this charge, i. e. to ſee how this ſhould follow; but I dare ſay, it is paſt my wit. If it had been ſaid, The Covenant commandeth perfection, and not ſincerity, or the Covenant accepteth ſincerity, but not commandeth it, there would have been ſome reaſon for this charge. But do you think that ſincerity is no part of perfection, &c? Anſw. My wit is ſo low, that I know not where the cloud lies. I do not take ſincerity to be properly a part of perfection, but a degree towards it; as Calor ad unum, is a degree towards, rather then a part of Calor ad octo, So the lower deg…ee of heat would remain, when a higher is introduc'd, and not be ſwallowed up in it. And if the command looks no lower then perfection in degree, the imperfect degree is not directly commanded, though (according to theſe) it is in dulged. It is ſaid Matth. 12.20. that Chriſt will not break the bruiſed Reed, nor quench the ſmoaking Flax. Is that feeble ſtrength, and remiſs heat, there look'd upon as a duty; or rather is it not look'd upon as a defect, or want? Is it not Chriſt's indulgence, rather then the obedience of his command, that is there noted or pointed out?
My anſwer to the ſingle argument, (ſo far as I have read, or heard, againſt that which I here delivered) follows. But, ſeeing that your reply, ſo far as I can judge, is rather with me, then againſt me, as to the Poſition it ſelf; and your endeavour, rather to excuſe, then defend thoſe of the contrary opinion, (which very well pleaſeth me, for I wiſh that more were ſaid for their honour, ſo that the truth do not ſuffer) I am well content to paſs it by, having a greater deſire to defend you, where you ſpeak for truth, then my ſelf, where not truth, but my reputation is impugned: And ſhall make it my buſineſs to look into that, which Mr. Crandon hath againſt you in it. Concerning the ſecond, that the Goſpel doth require but ſincere,Mr. Crandons arguments anſwered. not perfect obedience, which is both your aſſertion and mine, he ſaith, What ſhall we think of thoſe Texts in the new Teſtament, which require us to be perfect? 2 Cor. 13.11 Jam. 1.4. Yea perfect as God is perfect, Matt. 5.48. reproving weakneſs and infirmity, and commanding a going on to perfection. Anſw. We are to think of them as Proteſtant Divines ordinarily do in their commenting upon them; We deny, ſaith Rivet, that the perfection of which Scripture ſpeaks, either when it commands us to be perfect, or gives teſtimony of perfection, or integrity to ſome, conſiſts in a freedome from ſin, Exercit. 52. in Geneſ. pag. 267. The Text quoted out of James, ſerves well to explain the reſt, Let patience have her perfect work, that ye may be perfect and entire, wanting, nothing, whence we may argue, 1. That perfection which Chriſtians may attain, is the perfection that the Apoſtle calls unto, This is plain in the Text, he calls for perfection, that we may perfect: But Chriſtians can reach no further a degree in perfection then ſincerity; Therefore the Apoſtle calls onelyonly to ſincerity. 2. That is the Apoſtles meaning, where he ſpeaks of perfection, that himſelf gives in as his meaning; This is cleer, he is the beſt interpreter of himſelf. But he expreſſes himſelf by perfect there to mean entire, or lacking nothing. A perfection of entireneſs, or integrality then he means, a perfection of parts, and not of degrees. For that Text of Paul, 2 Cor. 13.11. Finally brethren, farewell, be perfect, &c. let us compare with it, that which he teſtifies of ſome in Corinth. 1 Cor. 2.6. Howbeit we ſpeak wiſdome among them that are perfect, that is, thoſe that have a right and more full underſtanding of Goſpel myſteries, put in oppoſition to the weakneſs of novices, which perfection is, (according to the Apoſtle) the way to unity of judgment. As for the Text, Matth. 5.48. Be ye therefore perfect, as your Father which is in heaven is perfect, If it be ſtreined to the higheſt, it calls for a divine, increated perfection, Mr. Crandon then muſt yield, that there is a ſicut ſimilitudinis, non aequalitatis, in that place. And if the context be conſulted, we ſhall find, that it is oppoſed to that half-hypocriticall righteouſneſs, which was found in Scribes and Phariſees; which all muſt exceed that enter into the Kingdome of heaven. In Heb. 6.1. a novice-like imperfection in knowledge, is reproved; and a further growth towards perfection is called for.
Mr. Crandon goes on, If perfection were not the duty of a Chriſtian, and unperfectneſs, and infirmity his ſin, why doth the Apoſtle groan, and grieve under the remainder of his natural infirmities, and preſs on to perfection, Rom. 7.14. to the 24. Phil. 3.12, 14? The concluſion here is granted; the one is a duty, the other is a ſin, and becauſe of failing in the one, and the burden of the other, the Apoſtle groans. Foreſeeing that this would be yeelded him, he addes by way of objection, Or is ſuch unperfectneſs a ſin onelyonly in reference to the rule of the Law, and not the Rule of the Goſpel, or that the Law doth, but the Goſpel doth not call for perfection? Anſw. There is not one rule of the Law, as I have demonſtrated at large, and another of the Goſpel, ſeeing the Goſpel eſtabliſhes the Law; onelyonly the Goſpel-Covenant calls for thoſe ſincere deſires, which grace works to conform in its meaſure to the Rule of the Law. He addes. This is both contrary to the Scriptures alleaged, and doth withall make the Goſpel to allow imperfections. But both of theſe have been already anſwer'd. What he further addes, anſwers it ſelf, ſave onelyonly his great pains to pump out your meaning. But I ſhall leave you to be your own interpreter, and forbear in this to interpoſe between you.
Thus I have paſſed through (Grace aſſiſting) thoſe things, wherein our judgements differ, as alſo thoſe in which we agree in one. Some other things there are, which both of us problematically enquire into; which Sect. 56, 57, 58. You treat of, under this title [Of the life promiſed, and death threatned to Adam, in the firſt Law.] In which neither you, nor I, (as I think) ſee any important difference; and in them I muſt confeſs, that you deal with much candour; though there be ſome things in them, to which I might ſpeak my differing thoughts, yet I ſhall forbear further to be the Readers trouble, and leave all to enjoy their own judgement.