« AnteriorContinuar »
verly, not to the person, especially of my friendly neighbour. Neither would I have appeared thus publicly againit him, if differences could have been accommodated, and the evil prevented, in a more private way; in order thereunto, I have punctually observed and kept the rules and measures of friend. : thip.
It is possible fome may judge my stile against him to be too sharp; but if they please to read the conclusion of his Gall, and my Answer, I presume 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 person or party, that I am forced to be so plain and pungent as I am. · • To conclude, I suspect this very preface may be also censur.. ed for its plainness and tediousness. I confess, when times are busy we should be brief; and I am persuaded a sufficient preface may be contracted into four words, armu a posuerwy xoa tabw,, ', without preface or pasions. However, I have a little eased my. own heart, by discharging 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 swords into plow.jbares, and our spears into pruninghooks ; I mean, our polemicals into practicals ; that Jerusa-, lem 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.
· P R O L E G O M E N A. . DEFORE we enter into the main controversy, it will be ne
D. cessary to acquaint the reader, why I begin with the middle of the book ; and it is because I there find these three principles or positions, on which the other parts of his discourse are superstructed ; and these being destroyed, his other dircourses are but arena, sine calce. I properly therefore begin with the foundation.
Next I shall fhew how far we are agreed in the matters here controverted, and where it is in each of these that the controversy indeed lies betwixt us. And as to
Nor ca. works to Yom (3.) Whcovenan
I. Position, viz. That the Sinaj law is the fame with Adam's covenant of works, made in paradise;" ! ...
The difference betwixt us here is not (1.) Whether both these becalled covenants in Scripture ? Nor (2.) Whether there was no grace at all in both, or either of them; for we are agieed, it is grace in God to enter into covenant with man, whatever that covenant bé. Nor (3.) Whether the Sinai law be not a covenant of works to some men, by their own fault and occah. on Nor (4.) Whether the fcriptures do not many times speak of it in that very fense and notion 'wherein carnal justiciaries apprehend, and take it; and by rejecting Chrift, make it fo to themselves ? : Nor (s:) Whether the very matter of the law of nature be not revived and reprefented in the Sinai law? These are not the points we contend about. But the question is," Whether the Sinai law do in its own nature, and according to 'God's purpofe and design in the promulgation of it, revive the law of nature, to the fame ends and uses it served 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, viz. By such a dreadful representation of the fevere and impracticable terms of the frit covenant; instead of 'obliging them to the personal and purctual obfervance of them for righteousness and life,' he did not rather design to convince them ofthe impossibility of legal righteousness, humble proud nature, and 'shew them the neceflity of becaking themfelves to Chrift, now exhibited in the new covenant, as the only refuge to fallen finners. The latter I defend according to the Scriptures, the former Mr. Cáry seems to aflert and vehemently, argue for. ..!! i !.;...inito colidii.ini in • 2dly, In this controversy about the Şiņai law, I do not find Mr. Cary distinguish (as he ought) betwixt the law considered more largely and complèxly, 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 sometimes used in Scripture, ''These two he makes one and the same Covenant of works ; though there be some that doubt whether the mere moral law may not be a covenant of works ; yet I never met with any iman before, that durit affirm the ceremonial law, which is so full of Christ, to be so ; and to this law it is that circumcifion appertains.'s Finn is !!!! :
3dly, The moral law, strictly taken for the ten command. ments, is not by him distinguished (as it ought to be, and as the Scripture frequently doth) according to God's intention
and deagn in the promulgation or it, which was to add it as an appendix to the promise, Gal. iii. 19. and not to set it up as an oppofite covenant, Gal. jii. 21. as the carnal Jews, mistak
ing and perverting the use and end of the law, and making ute it to themselves a covenant of works, by making it the very
rule and reason of their juftification before God, Rom. ix. 32, 33. Rom. 4. 3. These things ought carefully to have been
distinguished, 'forasmuch as the whole controversy depends on not this double fense and intention of the law ; yea, the very deis nomination of that law depends hereon : for I affirm, it ought
not to be denominated from the abused and mistaken end of it amongft carnal men, but from the true scope, dehign and end for which God published it after the falland though we find such expreffions as these in Scripture, “ The man that
that continueth rot in all things,” sc. yet thefe respecting the law, not according to God's intention, but man's corrup, tion 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 (ry them by that terrible dispepsation, Exod. xx. 20. whether they would still hanker after that natural way of self-righteouf, ness; for this end God propounded the terms of the firs coveAant to them on Sinai, not to open the way of self-justification to them, but to convince them, and shut 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 necefsitate him to himself in the way of faith.
The law in both thefe fenses is excellently described, Gal. iv. in that allegory of Hagar and Sarah, the figures of the wo 'covenants. Hagar in her brst and proper station was Kut a ferviceable handmaid to Sarah, as the law is a school. mafter to' Christ; but when Hagar the handmaid is taken into Sarah's bed, and brings forth children that aspire to the inheritance, then faith the Scripture, “ Cast out the bond. © woman, with her fon.”. So it is here ; take the law in its primary use, as God designed it, as a schoolmaster or handmaid to Christ and the promise, so it is consistent with them, and excellently subservient to them, but if we marry this hand. maid, and espouse it as a covenant of works, then are we bound to it for life, kom. vii. and must have nothing to do with Christ. The believers of the Old Testament had true apprehen. fions of the right end and use of the law, which directed them to Christ, and so they became children of the free-woman. The carnal Jews trusted to the works of the law for righteoul
ness, and so became the children of the bond-wonan ; but nei.
That Abraham's covenant, Gen. xvii. is an Adam's covenant of works also, because circumcison was annexed to it, which on bliged men to keep the whole law. ! · The controversy betwixt us in this point, is not whether cir..] cumcision were an ordinance of God, annexed by him to his covenant with Abraham ? Nor (2.) Whether Abraham's ordinary and extraordinary seed ought to be, and actually were figned by it? Nor (3.) Whether it were a seal of the righteousness of faith to any individual person, for he allows it to be fo. to Abraham ? Nor (4.) Whether it pertained to the ceremonial law, and so must cease at the death of Christ? But the difference betwixt us is, Whether (1.) It was a seal 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 innocency? (3.) Whether it were utterly, abolished at the death of Christ, as a condition of the covenant of works? or being a sign of the same covenant of grace we are now under, it be 'not fucceeded by the new gospel-sign, which is baptism? 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 of works also. This l'utterly deny, and say, Abraham's covenant was a true covenant of grace. (2.) That circumcision was a seal of righteousness of faith, and therefore could not possibly belong to the covenant of works. (3.) That as it was applied both to the ordinary and extraordinary infant-seed of Abraham, during that administration of the covenant, so it is the will of Christ that baptism should take its place under the gospel, and be applied now to theinfant-feed of all Abraham's spiritual children. These are the things wherein we differ about the second position. And lastly, as to the .. .
III. Pofition. ... That neither Mofes's law, Exod. xx. nor God's covenant with · Abraham, Gen. xvii. can be any other than an Adam's covenant
of works, because they have each of them conditions in them on man's part; but the gospel-covenant hath, none at all, but is altogether free and absolute.
The controversy here betwixt us is not (1.) Whether the
gospel-covenant requires no duties at all of them that are un der it? Nor (2.) Whether it requires any such conditions as · were in Adam's covenant, namely, perfect, personal, and perpetual obedience, under the severelt penalty of a curse, 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 promised ? Nor (4.) Whether we be able in our own strength, and by the power of our freewill, without the preventing as well as the alising grace of Ged, to perform any such work or duty as we call a condition? In these things we have no controversy ; but the only question betwixt us is,
Whether in the new covenant some act of ours (tho’it have no merit in it, nor can be done in our own single strength) be not required to be performed by us, antecedently to a blessing or privilege conséquent by virtue of a promise ? And whether such an act or duty, being of a suspending nature to the blessing promised, it have not the true and proper nature of a goSpel-condition? This I affirm, and he positively denies. .
These three positions being confuted, and the contrary well confirmed, viz. that the law at Sinai was not set up by God as an Adam's covenant, to open the old way of righteousness and life by works ; but was added to the promise, as subservient to Christ in its design and use, and consequently can never be a pure Adam's covenant of works. And, secondly,
That Abraham's covenant, Gen. xvii. is the very fame covenant of grace we are now under ; and, (2dly,) That circumcision in the nature of the act did not oblige all men to keep the whole law for righteousness. And (3dly,) - That the new covenant is not absolutely and wholly unconditional, though notwithstanding a most free and gracious covenant; the pillars on which Mr. Cary fets his new structure, sink under it, and the building falls into ruins.
I have not here taken Mr. Cary's two Syllogisms, proving Abraham's covenant to be a covenant of works, because I find myself therein prevented by that ingenious and learned man, Mr. Whilton, in his late answer 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, because fruf tra fit per plura, quod fieri potest per pauciora : I have overthrown them all together at one blow, by evincing every argument to have four terms in it, and so proves nothing. But I have spoken to all those scriptures which concern out four po. fitions, and fully vindicated thein from the injurjous senses