Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

the law cannot be set up as a covenant of works. You answer, That the law and the promise having divers ends, it doth not thence follow, that there is an inconfiftence betwixt them, and that the law, even as it is a covenant of works, instead of being against the promise, tends to the establishment of it. And p. 133. that by convincing men of the impoffibility of obtaining rest and peace in themselves, and the neceffity of betaking themselves to the promife, &c. the law is not against the promise, having fo blessed a fubferviency towards the establishment thereof.' Here you own a fubferviencey, yea, a blef fed fubferviency of the law to the promife, which is that Mr. Sedgwick and myself have urged to prove it cannot be fo, as it is a pure Adam's covenant, but that therefore it must come under another confideration; only here we differ; you fay it hath a bleffed fubferviency to the promise, as it is the fame with Adam's covenant; we say it can never be fo as such, but as it is either a covenant of grace, tho' more obfcure, as he speaks; or though the matter of it fhould be the fame with Adam's covenant, yet it is fubferviently a covenant of grace, as others speak; and under no other confideration can it be reconciled to the promife.

But will you ftand to this, that the law hath no hoftile contradiction to the promife, but a blessed fubferviency to it, as you speak, p. 173. where you fay, 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 diftinguish as we please between a covenant of grace abfolutely and fubferviently fuch; then we make an ill ufe of the law, by perverting it to such a • fervice as God never intended it for, and are guilty of mingling law and goffel, life and death together."

Reply. Here, fir, my understanding is perfectly posed, and I know not how to make any tolerable orthodox fense out of this pofition: Is the law preached up as a pure covenant of works, (that is, preffing men to the perfonal and punctual obedience of it, in order to their juftification by works) no way repugnant to the promife, but altogether fo, when preached in fubferviency to Chrift and faith? This is new divinity with me, and I believe must be fo to every intelligent reader. Do not I oppose the promise, when I preach up the law as a pure covenant of works, which therefore as fuch nuft be exclufive of Chrift and the promise? And do I oppose either, when I tell finners the terrors of the law ferve only to drive them to Chrift, their only remedy, who is "the end of the law for righteoufnefs, to every one that believeth," Rom. x: 4

[ocr errors]

Are works and grace more confiftent than grace with grace? Explain your meaning in this paradoxical expreffion, and leave not yourself and others in fuch a maze. I read, Gal. iii. 19.

for what end God published the law 430 years after the promife was made to Abraham, and find it was added because of tranfgreffion, posts, it was put to, not set up by itself alone as a diftinct covenant, but added as an appendix to the covenant of grace; whence it is plain, that God added the Sinai law to the promife, with evangelical ends and purpofes. If then I preach the law to the very fame evangelical ufes and purposes for which God added it to the promise, do I therein make an ill ufe of the law, and mingle life and death together? But preaching it, as a pure covenant of works, as it holds forth juftification to finners by obedience to its precepts, do I then make it bleffedly fubfervient (as you speak) to the promife or cove nant of grace? The law was added because of tranfgreffion, that is, to restrain fin in the world, and to convince finners under guilt, of the neceffity of another righteousness than their own, even that of Chrift, and for the fame ends God added it to the promise. I always did, and still fhall preach it, and I am perfuaded, without the leaft danger of mingling law and gofpel, life and death together, in your sense.

It is plain to me, that in the publication of the law on Sinai, God did not in the least intend to give them so much as a direction how to obtain justification by their most punctual obedience to its precepts, that being to fallen man utterly impoffible; and befide, had he promulged the law to that end and purpose, he had not added it, but directly opposed it to the promife; which it is manifefted he did not; Gal. íî. 21. "Is the law then against the promise of God? God forbid.” And verse 18. makes it appear, that had it been fet up to that end and purpose, it had utterly difannulled the promise; for if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more by promife. What then can be clearer, than that the law at Sinai was published with gracious gofpel-ends and purposes, to lead men to Christ,. which Adam's covenant had no respect or reference to? And therefore it can never be a pure Adam's covenant, as you falsely call it; neither is it capable of becoming a pure covenant of works to any man, but by his own fault, in rejecting the righ teousness of Christ, and seeking juftification by the works of the law, as the mistaken carnal Jews did, Rom. x. 3. and other legal jufticiaries now do. And upon this account only it is that Paul, who fo highly praises the law in its fubferviency

to Chrift, thunders fo dreadfully against it, as it is thus fet by ignorant mistaken fouls in direct oppofition to Chrift.

(5thly,) And further, to clear this point, the apoftle tells us, Rom. x. 4. "For Chrift is the end of the law for righteousness "to every one that believeth." Whence I argue, That if Adam's covenant had an end, namely, the juftification of men by their own perfonal obedience; and the law at Sinai had a quite contrary end, namely, to bring finners to Chrift by faith for their righteousness; the one to keep him within himself, the other to take him quite out of himself, and bring him for his juftification to the righteousness of another, even that of Christ; then that Sinai law cannot poffibly be the fame thing with Adam's covenant of works. But the antecedent is true and plain in the forecited text, therefore fo is the confequent.

Chrift is the end of the law for righteoufnefs. Take the law here either more ftrictly, for the moral law, or more largely, as it comprehends the ceremonial law, ftill Chrift is the end of the law. The moral law fhuts up every man to Chrift for righte dufnefs, by convincing him (according to God's defign in the publication of it) of the impoffibility of obtaining juftification in the way of works.

And the ceremonial law many ways prefigured Chrift, his death and fatisfaction, by blood, in our room, and fo led men to Chrift, their true propitiation; and all its types were fulfilled and ended in Chrift. Was there any fuch thing in Adam's covenant? You must prove there was, elfe you will never be able to make them one and the fame covenant.

(6thly,) It seems exceeding probable from Acts vii. 37, 38. that the Sinai covenant was delivered to Mofes by Jefus Chrift, there called the angel. "This is he that was in the church in the "wilderness, with the Angel that fpake to him in the mount "Sinai, and with our fathers, who received the lively oracles

:

to give unto us." Now, if Chrift himself were the Angel, and the precepts of the law delivered by him to Mofes were the lively oracles of God, as they are exprefly affirmed to be; then the law delivered on mount Sinai cannot be a pure Adam's covenant of works for it is never to be imagined, that Jefus Chrift himself fhould deliver to Mofes fuch a covenant, directly oppofite to all the ends of his future incarnation; and that thofe precepts (which, if they were of the fame nature, and revived to the fame end, at which Adam's covenant directly aimed) fhould be called the lively oracles of God; when contrariwife, upon your fuppofition, they could be no other than a miniftration of condemnation and death: but that they were lively

[ocr errors]

racles, viz. in their defign and intention, is plain in the text; and that they were delivered to Mofes by Jesus Christ, the angel of the covenant, seems more than probable, by comparing it with the former verses.

(7thly,) Neither is it easy to imagine how such a covenant, which by the fall of Adam had utterly loft all its promises, privileges, and bleffings, and could retain nothing but the curfes and punishments annexed to it, in cafe of the least failure, could poffibly be numbred among the chief privileges in which God's Ifrael gloried; as it apparently was, Rom. ix. 4. "Who ❝are Ifraelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and "the fervice of God, and the promises,"

[ocr errors]

These things confidered, with many more (which the intended brevity of this difcourfe will not now admit) I am fully fatisfied of the falfity of your pofition, and fo may you too, when you shall review the many grofs and palpable abfurdities with which I have clogged and loaded it, with many more, regularly and fairly deducible from it; which I could easily produce, did I not fufpect thefe I have produced, have already preft your patience a little too far: but if ever I fhall see (which I never expect) a fair and fcriptural folution of these weighty objections, you may expect from me more arguments against your unfound pofition, which, at the present, I judge needless

to add.

To conclude: Thefe premifes (as before I noted) can never be true, from whence fuch, and fo many grofs and notorious abfurdities are regularly and unavoidably deducible. For ex veris nil nifi verum, from true premises nothing but truth can regularly follow.

Had you minded thofe things which I feasonably fent you, you had avoided all those bogs into which you are now funk, and been able fairly to reconcile all those seeming contradictions in Paul's epiftles, with refpect to the law at Sinai: But, however, by what hath been faid, your first position, That the Sinai covenant is the fame covenant of works with Adam's in paradife, vanishes before the evidence of fcripture, truth, and found reason.

But yet, tho' what I have faid deftroys your falfe pofition, I am not willing to leave you, or the reader ignorant, wherein the truth lies in this controverted point betwixt us; and that will appear, by a due confideration of the following particulars.

(1.) It is plain and uncontroverted, that Adam's covenant in paradife, contained in it a perfect law and rule of natural righ

teoufnefs, founded both in God's nature, and in man's; which, in its perfect state of innocency, was every way enabled per fectly to comply therewith: For the fcripture tells us, Eccl. vii. 29. That God made man upright; and his punctual com plying therewith, was the righteoufnefs by which he stood.

(2.) This covenant of works being once broken, can never more be available to the juftification and falvation of any fallen man. There was not now a law found that could give righteoufiefs: The broken covenant of works loft immediately all the bleffings and privileges which before it contained, and retained only the curfe and punishment; in token whereof, cherubims, with flaming fwords, turning every way, were fet to keep the way of the tree of life, Gen. iii. 24.

(3.) Soon after the violation of the covenant of works, God was graciously pleased to publish for the relief of mankind, now miferable and hopeless, the fecond covenant, which we call the covenant of grace, Gen. iii. 15. which is the first opening of the grace of God in Chrift to fallen man. And tho this first promise of Christ was but short and obfcure, yet it was in every age to be opened clearer and clearer, until the promised feed fhould come. After the first opening of this new covenant, in the first promise of Chrift, the first covenant is thut up for ever, as a covenant of life and falvation; and all the world are shut up to the only way of falvation by Christ, Gal. iii. 23. It being contrary to the will of God, that two ways of falvation fhould ftand open to man at once, and they fo oppofite one to another, as the way of works, and the way of faith are, Acts iv. 12. John xiv. 6. Gal. ii. 21.

(4.) It is evident, however, that after the first opening of the promise of Christ, Gen. iii. 15. God foreseeing the pride of fallen man, who naturally inclines to a righteousness of his own in the way of doing, was pleased to revive the law of nature, as to its matter, in the Sinai difpenfation; which was 430 years after the firft promife had been renewed, and further opened unto Abraham, of whofe feed Chrift fhould come: And this he did, not in opposition to the promise, but in fubferviency thereto, Gal. iii. 21. And though the matter and fubftance of the law of nature be found in the Sinai covenant, ftrictly taken for the ten commandments; yet the ends and intentions of God in that terrible Sinai difpenfation were twofold (1.) To convince fallen man of the finfulness and impotency of his nature, and the impoffibility of obtaining righte oufness by the law, and fo by a bleffed neceffity, to fhut him up to Chrift, his only remedy. And, (2.) To be a standing

:

« AnteriorContinuar »