⚫der the legal covenant. Nemo enim fimul poteft duobus fede • ribus tota fpecie dytinctis fubeffe; because no man can be under two covenants, fpecifically different, at the fame time, as thefe two are.'

That great, and renowned divine, Mr. William Strong, gives four irrefragable arguments to prove that no man can Itand under both thefe covenants, at the fame time, which, in coordination, actually deftroy, and make void each other. If ⚫ the first covenant ftand, there is no place for the second; and if the second stand, the firft is made void. And this (iaith he) ⚫ will fully appear, if we confider the direct contrariety in the terms of thofe two covenants. For, (1.) The righteousness of the first covenant is in ourselves, but the righteoulness of the fecond is the righteoufnefs of another, 1 John v. 11, 12. (2.) In the covenant of works, acceptation is first of the work, and afterwards of the perfon, Gen. iv. 7. but in the covenant of grace, the acceptation is firft of the perfon, and then of the work, Gen. iv. 4. (3.) The first covenant was ⚫ a covenant without a priest, but the fecond is a covenant with a priest. (4.) In the first covenant there is matter of glorying, but in the fecond there is none, Rom. iii. 27. So that these two can never confift, except you can compound, * or reconcile thefe four oppofites in the juftification of the • fame perfon.'

To the fame purpose, faith the excellent Mr. Samuel Bolton t. If the law were a covenant of works, then were the Jews un⚫der a different covenant from us, and so none of them were faved, which the apoftle gainfays, Acts xv. 11. or else they were both under a covenant of works, and a covenant of grace; but that they could not be; they are utterly inconfiftent,' Ergo. And thus all found divines fpeak. I may there fore fay of Mr. Cary's pofition, as Ruveus before me did; emnem abfurditatem excedere videtur, it feemeth to exceed all abfurdities. A man may more rationally fuppofe two natures, and effential forms, in one body, and place the fame thing under divers fpecies, in the predicament of fubftance; yea, it were more tolerable to affirm, that ex duobus entibus per fe fit unum ens per fe, than to place any (as Mr. C. places all) of God's people under two oppofite covenants. If Mr. C. were

abfolutely under the condemnation of the law, would he not be purely juftified, think you? Yet he places Abraham, Moses,

* Mr. Strong on the Covenant, p. 66, 67.

+ Bolton's Bounds, p. 133.

and all believers with them, abfolutely under the feverest condemnation of the law, and the pure golpel-covenant at

once.

But, to cover the shame and nakedness of his affertion, which places believers abfolutely under Adam's covenant, he is fain to make use of two fig-leaves, as Adam did.

(1.) And the first attempt he now makes, p. 4, 5, 6; ̊7. of his reply, is by way of retortion, by telling us, That the fame 'pretended abfurdities do fall as heavily, and a great deal more, on our doctrine, who affirm the Sinai law (complexly taken) ⚫ to be a covenant of faith, or grace, than upon his, who makes 'them two effentially different covenants: because we are for⚫ced to comprize perfect doing, with the curfe for non-performance, under the fame covenant with believing; and that it 'cannot be denied, but that all the people of God were absolutely under the Sinai covenant, Gal. iii. 23. and Gal. iv. 4, 5. and confequently under the curfe,' Gal. iii. 10. This is the fum, and fubftance of his firft answer.

Reply. I will not be tempted to expose my neighbour to derifion for this his ftrange anfwer; but rather propound two fober queries to him, and the reader, viz. (1.) What orthodox divines he ever met with, and what are their names, who are forced to comprize perfect doing, with the curfe for non-performance, under the fame covenant with believing; and fo make the two opposite covenants to be fpecifically one and the fame? Name your men, with their books and pages; or retraft, with fhame and forrow, what you have here abufively affirmed of them. Cameron, indeed, makes it a fubfervient covenant; the moft a true, though obfcure covenant of grace; but none comprize Adam's covenant with its curfe in the new covenant. (2.) Whether it be imaginable, That the fame abfurdity can follow from their doctrine, that make the whole complex body of the Sinai law a covenant of grace, though more obfcure, and fo place all the people of God in thofe ages under it; as does neceffarily follow his doctrine, who makes it a pure Adam's covenant of works, and places the church of God abfolutely under the curfe of it, and alfo under the pure covenant of grace at the fame time? If grace and grace (how different foever in degrees of manifeftation) be as oppofite and repugnant, as grace and works, as juftification and condemnation are, it is time for me to lay down my pen, for I have cer tainly loft my understanding to guide it any further.

But Mr Cary will fay, If you do not, yet Mr. Roberts doth comprize both in one covenant. I fay, you abufe Mr. Roberts

*in fo affirming; for he faith, in that very place you refer to, that believing in Chrift was ultimately and chiefly intended in the Sinai covenant; and perfect doing was only urged upon Ifrael in fubordination, and tendency to that believing. And upon that ground it is, he affirms that covenant to be a covenant of faith, and fo denominates it from the chief fcope, and intent of it. He fets not doing and believing, in co-ordination, or places the church under two oppofite covenants, as you do; but places the law where it ought to be placed, in fubordination to faith and Chrift; and therefore you have abused that good man as well as me, and yourself most of all, in this your firft impertinent and filly answer.

(2.) But you have one evasion more, p. 7. where you say, • That how harfb, and dreadful foever the terms, or conditions, of the legal covenant were to those that were under it, as Mofes, and the whole body of the Ifraelites, then were; yet the grace of the gofpel covenant far fuperfeded, and was by far more victorious, powerful, and efficacious,' Rom. v. 17, 20. Reply. Worle, and worfe; your difcourfe mends like fowre ale in Summer. Here you fancy the two covenants (under which you place the whole church of God) to be in a conflict one with the other; condemnation and juftification, ftruggling one with another, as I told you before they would: but, however, the grace of the new covenant prevails, at last, and gets the victory over the covenant of works. Very good; but then pray, Sir, if you please, anfwer me a plain question, or two, at your leisure.

First, How far did the covenant of grace prevail against the covenant of works? Was it fo far prevalent, and victorious, as utterly to vanquish and dfannul it, as a covenant of works to them? Or was it not? Was the victory, you speak of, a complete or a partial one? If you fay it was incomplete and partial, then you leave them (as I told you before you muft) partly under the promise, and partly under the curfe; juttified in part, and condemned in part. But if you fay it was a complete and perfect victory, then it utterly diffolved its obligation as a covenant of works; then they did not remain under two opposite covenants, as you affirmed they did; but, on their believing, changed their state with their covenant, as we affirm they did.

Secondly, If you fay it did not totally free them from the curfe of the covenant of works, but, however, prevailed fo far, that they were not actually damned by virtue of the curfe; then

Roberts on the Covenant, p. 775, 776, 777

be pleased to answer me one queftion more, How was it poffible for them to be abfolutely under the curfe of the law, (as you af firmed they were) and yet that curfe to be fuperfeded by the cove nant of grace, as here you fpeak?

To fuperfede the curfe (though it be a phrase I never met with before) if it fignify any thing, it must fignify this; that the covenant of grace caufed the law to omit, forbear, or give over to curfe that people any more. But did, or can the law forbear, or cease to curfe thofe that are abfolutely under it, as a ministration of death and condemnation? Pray confult Rom. iii. 19. and Gal. iii. 10. Are you aware what you fay, when you place believers abfolutely under the curfe of the law, and then talk of the new covenant's victory over it; and, after all this, leave them as you do, abfolutely under the curling power of the one, and ftill under the victorious grace of the o• ther? For fhame, my friend, give up your abfurd notion, and repent of this folly; I would not willlingly shame you before the world; I did all that in me lay to prevent it: but, however, Pudor eft medicina pudoris, the only way you have left me to prevent your glorying in your fhame, is this way, to make you afhamed of your vain-glory. As for that scripture you alledge to countenance your fancy, Rom, v. 17, 20. you might, to as good purpose, have opened your Bible, and have taken the firft fcripture that came to hand, and it would have done your pofition lets harm; for the apostle's fcope there, is to demonftrate the perfection of the abounding righteousness of Chrift, for the full discharge of believers from the guilt of fin, and curfe of Adam's covenant; and cuts the throat of your pe fition, which it is alledged to prove.

I have ftood the longer upon the clearing of this first point; because this being fully cleared, it runs through and clears the whole controverfy betwixt us. For now it will be evident to all, that neither Abraham's, nor Mofes his covenant (complexly taken, as Mr. Cary takes it) could poffibly be, for this reafon, an Adam's covenant of works; and if not a covenant of works, then, how dark or legal foever the difpenfations of them were, they must needs be the fame covenant of grace for substance, under which we are, and fo the main controverfy betwixt us is hereby at an end.

I know not how many covenants of works, or how many of grace Mr. C. fancies there are; but orthodox divines conftantly affirm, That, as there were never but two ways of life to * Vide Bolton's Bounds, p. 148. NA

*

VOL. IV.

mankind, the one before the fall, by perfect doing; the other after the fall, by fincere believing: fo aniwerably, there can be but two covenants betwixt God and mankind, viz. the covenant of works, and the covenant of grace. The last of which hath indeed been more obfcurely adminiftred, and in that refpect is called the old covenant; yet that and the new are effentially but one covenant; and the church of God, which for many ages flood under that old covenant, did not fand under it as an Adam's covenant, or the first covenant of works, for the undeniable reafons above given and therefore Abraham's covenant, from whence we derive our childrens title to Baptism, muft of neceffity be the very fame covenant for fubstance with this new covenant, which all Abraham's believing offspring, and their infant-feed, are now under. And in proving this one point, I have fufficiently confuted both Mr. C's. folemn call, and this his feeble vindication of it together.

But, left he should take this for the only abfurdity proved upon him, though it be tirefome to me, and must be ungrateful to him, give me leave to touch one more, among many; and that the rather, because I make great use of it in this controverfy, and Mr. Cary both yields and denies it. If his own words be the meffengers of his meaning, either he or I muft mistake their errand.

I had in my Prolegomena, diftinguished of the law, as ftrictly taken for the ten commandments; and more largely and complexly taken, as including the ceremonial law: The former I confidered according to God's intention and defign in the promulgation of it, which was to add it as an appendix to the promife, Gal. iii. 9. And the carnal Jews mistaking, and perverting the 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. 31, 32, 33. and x. 3. I told him, that the controversy depended upon this double fenfe of the law; for that it ought not to be denominated from the abused and mistaken end of it, but from God's chief fcope and defign, in the promulgation of it; which was to add it as an appendix to the promife, as the word porr there imports; and fo muft be published with evangelical purpofes. Let us now hear Mr. C's fenfe of this matter.

In his Call. p. 131. he yields the diftinction in thefe words.

66

The Jews were right enough, in reference to the

In his Reply, p. 43. proving the law to be a covenant of works, from Rom. x. 15. he faith,

"This was the nature of it