Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB
[ocr errors]

Argum. 1. If circumcifion be a part of the ceremonial law, and the ceremonial law was dedicated by blood; whatsoever is so dedicated, is by you confeffed to be no part of the Covenant of works; then circumcifion can be no part of the covenant of works, even by your own confeffion. But it is fo. Ergo.

Vindiciae legis, &c.p.42.

P. 98.

Reply. To this Mr. C. returns a tragical complaint, instead of a rational answer. Infinuates my falfe and grofs abufe of him. Appeals to his reader. Tells him, I have taken a liberty to fay what I pleafe, as if there were no future judgment to be regarded. And that I can expect no comfort another day, without repentance now. For those things that have thus paffed betwixt him and me, fhall again be revifed, and fet in order before me. That he is weary of noting my miscarriages of this kind. That there is hardly a page or paragraph in my whole reply, but abounds with tranfgreffions of this nature. begs the Lord to forgive me; and wishes he could fay, Father forgive him, for he knoweth not what he doth; as if my fin were greater than the fin of thofe that ftoned Stephen, or crucified Chrift.

He

Reply. Either I am guilty or innocent in the matter here charged upon me by Mr. C. If guilty, I promise him an ingenuous acknowledgment. If innocent (as both my confcience, and his own book will prove me to be) then I fhall only fay, He knoweth not what spirit he is of. The cafe must be tried by his own book, and it will quickly be decided. These are the very words in his Solemn call, p. 148, He (that is, Mr. Sedg'wick) makes no distinction betwixt the ceremonial covenant that was dedicated with blood, and the law written in ftones that was not fo dedicated. How ftrangely doth he confound ⚫ and obfcure the word and truth of God, which ought to have ⚫ been cleared and diftinctly declared to thofe he had preached or written to?' With much more, p. 149, 150, 151. where he faith, It is plain, that the law written in ftones, and the book wherein the ftatutes and judgments were contained, · were two diftin&t covenants, and delivered at diftinct feafons, and in a distinct method; the one with, the other without a Mediator; the one dedicated with blood and fprink ling, the other (that we read of ) not fo dedicated.'

Now let the reader judge whether I have deferved fuch tragical complaints and dreadful charges for inferring from these words, That the ceremonial law being by him pronounced a diftinct covenant from the moral law, which he makes all one with Adam's covenant; delivered at a distinct feafon, and in

a diflinct method; the ceremonial law with a Mediater, the moral law without a Mediator; the ceremonial law dedicated with blood and fprinkling, the moral law not fo dedicated: let him judge (I fay) whether I have wronged him in faying, that by his own confeffion, circumcifion being a part of this ceremonial law, it can therefore be no part of the covenant of works.

Exception. But Mr. Cary hath two things to fay for himself, (1.) That in the fame place he makes the ceremonial law no other than a covenant of works: And the wrong I have done him, is by not diftinguishing (as he did) betwixt a covenant of works, and the covenant of works. Here it seems lies my guilt, upon which this dreadful outcry against me is made.

Reply. But if I fhould chance to prove, that there never was, is, or can be any more than one covenant of works; and that any one covenant which is diftinguished from it (as he confeffes the ceremonial law was) by a Mediator, and the blood of fprinkling, can be no part of that covenant of works; what then will become of Mr. C's diftinction of a covenant of works, and the covenant of works? Now the matter is plain and evident, That as there never were, are, or can be more than two common heads appointed by God, namely, Adam and Chrift, 1 Cor. xv. 45, 45, 47, 48. Rom. v. 15. 17, 18, 19. fo it is impoffible there should be more than two covenants, under which mankind ftands, under these two common heads. And the first covenant once broken, it is utterly impoffible that fallen man should ever attain life that way, or that ever God should fet it up again with fuch an intention and fcope, unless (as • Mr. Charnock speaks *) he had reduced man's body to the dust and his foul to nothing, and framed another man to have go⚫verned him by a covenant of works; but that had not been the fame man that had revolted, and upon his revolt was ⚫ftained and difabled.' If Mr. C. therefore be not able to prove more covenants of works with mankind than one, let him rather blush at his filly diftinction betwixt a covenantof works, and the covenant of works. For indeed he makes at leaft four diftinct covenants of works, one with Adam, two with Mofes; one moral, the other ceremonial; and a fourth with Abraham at the inftitution of circumcifion, Gen, xvii.

[ocr errors]

(2.) If it appear (as it clearly doth) that as there never was, is, or can be any more than one covenant of works, fo whatfoever covenant is diftinguished from it by a Mediator, and dedication by the fprinkling of blood (as he faith the ceremonial

[merged small][ocr errors]

law was) cannot poffibly, for the reafons he gives, be any part. ór member of Adam's covenant of works; then, I hope, I have done Mr. C. no wrong in my affumption from his own words, for which he fo reviles and abufes me. But this will appear as plain as the noon-day light: For a covenant with a Mediator, and dedicated by fprinkling of blood, doth, and neceffarily muft, effentially difference fuch a covenant from that covenant that had no mediator, nor dedication by blood. To deny this, were to confound law and gofpel, Adam's and Chrift's covenant; but the diftinction betwixt them is his own, therefore my affumption was juft. That this blood was typically the blood of Chrift, and that the Holy Ghost fignified the one by the other, is plain from Heb. ix. 7, 8. And I never met with that man that fcrupled it before Mr. Cary. So then my first argument to prove Abraham's covenant of circumcifion to be the Covenant of grace, and not an Adam's covenant, or any part thereof, ftands firm after Mr. C's paffionate reply, which I hope the Lord will pardon to him, though he had scarce charity enough left to defire a pardon for his friend, who had neither wronged the truth, nor him.

Argum. 2. My fecond argument was this. If circumcifion was the feal of the righteouinefs of faith, it did not pertain to the covenant of works; for the righteousness of faith and works are oppofite.

But circumcifion was the feal of the righteoufaefs of faith, Rom. iv. 11. Ergo.

The fum of what he anfwers to this, p. 72, 73, &c. (as far as I can pick his true fenfe out of a multitude of needlefs words) is this, He confeffes this argument feems very plaufible; but, however, Abraham was a believer before circumcifion; and tho' indeed it fealed the righteoufnefs of faith to him, yet it fealed it to him only as the father of believers; and denies that ever Jacob, or Ifaac, or any others enrolled in that co Ivenant were fealed by it; but to all the reft, befide Abraham, it was rather a token of fervitude and bondage." This is the fum and fubftance of his reply.

Reply. But, Sir, let me afk you two or three plain questions. (1.) What is the reafon you filently flide over the question I afked you, p. 41. of my Vindicia, &c? Did you find it an hot iron which you durft not touch? It is like you did. My que, ftion was this, Had Adam's covenant a feal of the righteouf nefs of faith annexed to it, as this had, Rom. iv. 11. The righteousness of faith is evangelical righteoufiefs, and this cir cumcifion fealed. Say not it was to Abraham only that it fealed

it, for it is an injurious restriction put upon the feal of a covenant which extended to the fathers as well as to Abraham: however, you admit that it fealed evangelical righteousness to Abraham, but I hope you will not fay, that a feal of the covenant of works (for fo you made circumcifion to be) ever did, or could feal evange tical righteoufnefs to any individual person in the world.

[ocr errors]

I find you a man of great confidence, but certainly here it failed you; not one word in reply to this. (2.) · I told you ⚫ your distinction was invented by Bellarmine, and fhewed you 'where it was confuted by Dr. Ames: but not a word to that.' (3.) I fhewed, That the extending of that feal to all believers, as well as Abraham, is most agreeable to the drift and scope of the apostle's argument, which is to prove, that both Jews ' and Gentiles are juftified by faith, as Abraham was: and that 'the ground of juftification is common to both: and that how great foever Abraham was, yet in this case he hath found nothing whereof to glory. And is not your expofition a notable one, to prove the community of the priviledge of justification, because the feal of it was peculiar to Abraham alone?' p. 47, 48.

Sir, you have spent words enough upon this head to tire your reader. But why can I not meet with one word among them, that fairly advances to my argument? or answer the important questions before you, upon which the matter depends? If this be all you have to fay, I must tell you, you are but a weak manager of a bad caufe, which is the lefs hazard to truth.

Arg. 3. In the covenant of circumcifion, Gen. xvii. God makes over himself to Abraham, and his feed, to be their God, or gives them a special intereft in himself.

But, in the covenant of works, God doth not, fince the fall, make over himself to any to be their God, by way of speecial intereit.

Therefore the covenant of circumcifion cannot be the covenant of works.

[ocr errors]

The fum of your reply, in p. 76. is under two heads.

(1.) You boldly tell me, That God doth in the covenant of 'works, make over himself to finners, to be their God, by way ⚫ of special intereft; but it being upon fuch hard terms, that it is utterly impoffible for finners, that way, to attain unto life, ' he hath therefore been pleased to abolish that, and make a new covenant;' and bring Exod. xx. 1. to prove it.

Reply. This is new, and ftrange divinity, with me. (1.) That God fhould become a people's God, by way of special in

tereft, by virtue of the broken covenant of works; this wholly alters the nature of that covenant: for then it was a law that could give life, contrary to Gal. iii. 21. unless you can suppose a foul that is totally dead in fin, to have a special intereft in God, as his God. (2.) This anfwer of yours yields the controverfy about the nature of the Sinai law; for this very conceffion of yours is the medium by which our divines prove it to be a covenant of grace. (3.) This conceffion of yours confounds the two covenants, by communicating the effential property, and prime privilege of the covenant of grace, to Adam's covenant of works. Either, therefore, expunge Jer. xxxi. 33. as a covenant of grace, "I will be their God, and they fhall be my "people;" or allow that in Gen. xvii. 7. to be specifically the fame; and that Exod. xx. though more obfcurely delivered.. (4.) You affert, That God may actually become a people's • God by way of special intereft, and yet the falvation of that people be fufpended upon impoffible terms.' You fent them before into purgatory, but by this you must send them directly to hell for if the falvation of God's peculiar people be upon impoffible terms, it is certain they cannot be faved And, laftly, it is an horrid reflection upon the wifdom, and goodness of God, who never did, or will make any covenant, wherein he takes fallen men to be his peculiar people, and make over himself to be their God; and yet not make provifion for their falvation in the fame covenant, but leave their falvation for many ages, upon hard, and impoffible terms, i. e. leave them under damnation. *

(2.) I told you, in my Vindicia, &c. p. 49. that you were fain to cut Abraham's covenant, Gen. xvii. into two parts; and make the first to be the pure covenant of grace, which is the promiffory part, to the 9th verfe, and the reftipulation (as you call it, p. 205.) to be as pure a covenant of works: which I truly faid was a bold action; and in fo calling it, I gave it a fofter name than the nature of it deferved.

The fum of what you reply to this, is, 1. By denying the matter of fact, and charging me with mifreprefentation; * and in the next page confeffing the whole charge, faying, Though the promise and the reftipulation, mentioned verf. 7, 8, 9. make but one and the fame covenant of circumcifion; yet there are two covenants mentioned in that context, the first between God and Abraham himself, verf. 2, 4. the other between God and Abraham, and his natural pofterity alfo, verf. 7, 8, 9, 10. the * Mr. C's Defence, p. 79. PP

VOL. IV.

« AnteriorContinuar »