Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

true nature of the law, That it was a covenant of works, c. though they were out in refpect of its proper ufe and intention, which was not, that any fhould attain unto life and righteoufnefs thereby; but to fhew them the nature of fin, and the holiness and righteouf nefs of God, to convince them of their fin and mifery without Christ, and their neceffity of a Saviour; which they being ignorant of, and ftill going about to establish their own righteousness which was of the law, and refufing to fubmit themselves unto the righ teoufnefs of God, &c. they ftumbled at that ftumblingftone, and were accordingly broken, fnared, and taken, Rom. ix. 31, 32, 33., Rom. x. 3. And this (faith he) was the true ground of difpute between the apoftle and them." This was orthodoxly fpoken, and would end the controverfy, would he stand to it. But,

in the first fanction of it, as the fruit of God's fpecial defignation and appointment; and that it is the greatest violation, and perverting of fcripture, that can lightly be met with, to affirm, that this is uttered and declared by Paul, &c. only becaufe the Jews had perverted it, and reduced it (as they thought) to its primitive intention. And again, p. 44. he faith, he hath proved that it was the fame with Adam's covenant in both refpects, that is intentionally, as well as materially confidered." And once more, p 20. he exprefly denies that the law was added as an appendix to the promise; calls that a crude affertion of mine, and afks me, "Why it might not be added as an appendix rather to the first covenant of

works, to reinforce that?" And after all, gushes out many flighting and opprobrious terms, upon me, which I will not throw back again, but ra ther leave him to reconcile himfelf with himself.

I fhall only afk Mr. C. a fober queftion or two, instead of recriminations, and rendering reviling for reviling.

1

First, How were the Jews right enough, in reference to the nature of the law, as it was a covenant of works, and yet out, in refpect of its proper ufe and intention, which was not, that any should attain unto life and righteoufnefs by it, but to convince them of fin, and of the neceffity of a Saviour; and yet the law be a covenant of works, intentionally, as well as materially confidered: and that in respect of God's fpecial defignation and appointment? If God defigned and appointed it in his Sinai difpenfation, to be to them an Adam's covenant of works, then certainly they were not out (as you fay they were)

when they fought righteousness by the works of it; nor could that mistake of theirs be the ground of the controversy betwixt the apostle and them: for it feems it was no mistake, being, by God's intention, as well as its own primitive nature, promulgated at Sinai, as a true Adam's covenant.

Secondly, You deny the law was added to the promise, and afk me, why it might not be added to the first covenant to reinforce that? I answer, Because the scope of the place will not bear it, nor any good expofitor countenance fuch a fancy *. You make the Sinai law to be the fame with that first covenant, and by fo expounding the apostle, you make him fay, either that the fame thing was added to itfelf, (which must, in your own phrase, be by a correspondency of identity) or elfe that there are two distinct covenants of works (when indeed there is but one) and that the latter was added to the former. This is your way of expounding fcripture, when driven to a ftrait by dint of argument: nothing befide fuch a pure neceffity could drive you upon fuch an abfurdity.

It was added to the promife, (faith Dr. Reynolds +) by way of fubferviency and attendance, the better to advance and make effectual the covenant itself. Mr. Strong, upon the two covepants, faith, the apoftle's meaning is, that the law was added as an appendix to the promife; but it may be, you had rather hear Dr. Crifpe's expofition ‡, than his for you fay, had it been added to the promife, it would have given life. The doctor will at once give you the true fenfe of the text, and with it a full answer to your objection. Though life (faith he) be not the end of the law, yet there are other fufficient uses of it, requiring the promulgation thereof: it was published to be an appendix to the gospel, Gal. iii. 19. And this fuppofes, 1. The priority of the gospel to the law. 2. The principality of the promise of life by Chrift above the law. 3. The confiftence of the law, and gospel. They may well ftand one by another, as an houfe, and the addition to it may. That it was with fuch an intention added to the promife, I have met with no man that had front enough to deny or fcruple it, before you; and that the Jews did mistake its chief scope and ufe, from whence we denominate it a covenant of grace, the generality of godly and learned divines con

[ocr errors]

Beza.

Пporeren pofita, pro appofita, hoc eft, Promiffioni adjecta,

+ Vide Dr, Reynold's Ufe of the law, p. 378. full up to my fenfe, and p. 371.

Dr. Crifp, lib. 4. serm 91

1

Bolton's

ftantly affirm. See Mr. Anth. Burg. de lege, p. 227. Bounds, p. 160, 161. Mr. Samuel Mather on the Types, p. 11. with multitudes more, whofe citations would even weary the reader. And what you urge from Mr. Pool's Annotations on 2 Cor. iii. 6, 7. It makes nothing at all to your purpose; for it is manifeft, the annotator there takes the moral law in itself, ftrictly taken, and as fet in oppofition to the gofpel, which it never was fince the fall, but by the ignorance, and infidelity of unregenerate men.

You alfo labour to fhelter your erroneous fancy under the authority of Dr. Owen; but you manifeftly abufe him in your citation; for in that very place you refer to, he speaks strictly of the covenant of works made with Adam in paradife, and plainly distinguishes it from the Sinai covenant, which fufficiently Thews his judgment in the point. For these are his own words which you fuppreffed in the citation,* As to the Sinai covenant, and the New teftament, with their privileges thence emerging, they belong not to our prefent argument.' This paragraph you wilfully omit, that you might include that which his words plainly exclude. In the fame place he tells you, that David's and Abraham's covenant, was for effence the covenant of grace, notwithstanding the variations made in it: But you take and leave as best fuits your defign †.

Once more, in p. 16, 17. &c. of my Vindiciae legis, you find yourself pinched with another dilemma, from Lev. xxvi. 40. 41, 46. whence I plainly proved, that there is a promise of pardon found in the Sinai dispensation, to penitent fioners. That this promife was given at Mount Sinai, by the hand of Mofes, is undeniable, from ver. 46. That it contained the relief of a gracious remission to penitent finners, is as undeniable from ver. 40, 41. If you fay, this promife belongs to Mofes his difpenfation, (as ver. 46. tells you it did) then, there is remiffion of fins

* Dr. Owen of Justification, p. 396, 397, vindicated from Mr. C.'s grofs mifrepesentations.

+ But if you see the Doctor's judgment, in concurrence with all his brethren, you have it in these very words: Although this covenant hath been variously adminiftred, in respect of ordinances and inftitutions, in the time of the law, and fince the coming of Chrift in the flesh; yet, for the substance and efficacy of it, to all its spiritual and faving ends, it is one and the fame; upon account of which various difpenfations, it is called the Old and New Teftament. Vide Declaration of the faith, and order of the congregati qual churches in Englans, p. 16, at the Savoy, Oct. 12, 1658.

[ocr errors]

found in the Sinai laws. If you fay it only refers to Abraham's covenant of grace; then that covenant of grace appears to be conditional, which you utterly deny.

Now what is your reply to this? (1.) You object my own words in the Method of Grace, p. 326. as if you had never read the juft, and fair vindication I had before given you of them, p. 134, 135 of my first reply to you. At this rate men may continue controverfies to the world's end. Sir, there are maDy witnesses, that you are very well acquainted with my Method of Grace. (2.) You fay, p. 31. of your reply, that that covenant could not be conditional, becaufe a condition implies merit, either of congruity, or condignity. This is a further discovery of your ignorance of the nature of conditions, as well as covepants; but that point belonging to the last head of controverfy between us, I fhall refer it thither.

It were cafy for me to inftance in many more abfurdities which Mr. C. cannot eluctate, and to prove them upon him as easily as to name them; but I will not prefs him too far; what hath been named, and proved already, is more than enough to convince the reader that my first argument is left standing in its full force and ftrength against him, viz.

Argum. 1. That propofition can never be true, which neceffarily draws many horrid, and grofs absurdities after it, by just confequence. But fo doth this: Ergo,

Argum. 2. My next argument, Vindiciae, &c. p. 27. is as fecure as the firft. It was this; If Adam's covenant had one end, namely, the happinefs, and juftification of men by their own obedience; and the law at Sinai had quite another end, namely, to bring finners to Chrift, by faith, for their righteoufnefs; the one to keep him within himself, the other to take him quite out of himself; then the Sinai law cannot possibly be the fame with Adam's covenant of works in paradife.

But fo ftands the cafe, Rom. x. 4. "Chrift is the end of "the law for righteousness to every one that believeth."

Therefore they cannot be the fame, but two different cove

nants.

All that touches this argument, is but three lines in the 49th page of your reply; where you fay, you have fufficiently anfwered, and cleared this, in p. 169, 172. of your former difcourfe, from the corrupt interpretation by me fastened thereon.

Now if the reader will give himself the trouble to examine thofe pages, he shall find that Mr. C. there allows that very interpretation which he here calls corrupt; and faith it comes all

to one reckoning with his own. If this will overthrow my fecond argument, it is gone.

Argum. 3. My third argument was drawn from Acts vii. 38. in this form:

If Chrift himself were the angel by whom the laws were delivered to Mofes, which are there called the lively oracles of God; then the law cannot be a pure Adam's covenant of works: for it is never to be imagined that ever Jesus Christ himself should deliver to Mofes fuch a covenant, directly oppofite to all the ends of his future incarnation.

But it is more than probable, from that text, that it was Chrift which delivered the law to Mofes on the mount. Ergo.

To this argument he faith not one word, in p. 49. of his reply, where he cites a part of it, nibbling a little at that expreffion [The lively oracles of God,] thinking it unimaginable the Sinai law fhould be fuch; when as the apoftle Paul, Rom. vii. 10. found the commandment to be unto death; and the apostle, 2 Cor. iii. 6, 7. calls it a miniftration of death. I must therefore leave Mr. C. to reconcile those two fcriptures. And withal, I must tell him, that Spanhemius gives the fame fense I do of Acts vii. 38. as the current judgment of Chriftians against the Jews, that it was not a created angel, but Chrift himself.

*

Argum. 4. The laft argument I urged, was from Rom. ix. 4. and thus it may run.

No fuch covenant as by the fall had utterly loft all its promifes, privileges, and bleffings, and could retain nothing but curfes and punishments, could poffibly be numbered among the chief privileges in which God's Ifrael gloried.

But the law given at Sinai was numbered among their chief privileges, Rom. ix. 4. Ergo

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

To this he only faith, p. 57. of his reply, That the law, even as it was a covenant of works, was à privilege ineftimable, beyond what all others enjoyed; because the very curfes ' and punishments annexed thereunto, in cafe of the leaft failure, were of excellent ufe to convince them of their fin and mifery without Chrift, and their neceffity therefore of a Saviour; which was the proper work of the law, as a covenant ⚫ of works; which advantage all other nations wanting, it might well be numbered among the chief privileges they were invest⚫ed with.'

But (1.) If the law were intended by God, to be an Adam's covenant to them (as Mr. C. faith it was) where then is the

*Fran, Spanhem, Elench. Controv. p. 552.

« AnteriorContinuar »