Discourse of Mental Errors, Appendix 1 · Part · Section 1 – Section 3

Discourse of Mental Errors · Appendix 1 · Part · Section 1 – Section 3

p. 180Absurdity I.

That Abraham, Moses, and all the Believers under the Old Testament, by standing absolutely under Adam's Covenant of Works, as a ministration of death and condemnation; and at the same time purely under the Covenant of Grace (as Mr. C. affirms they did) must necessarily, during their lives, hang midway betwixt Life and Death, Justification and Condemnation; and after death, midway betwixt Heaven and Hell. During life, they could neither be justified nor condemned. Justified they could not be, for Justification is the Soul's passing from death to life, 1 Iohn 3. 14. Iohn 5. 24. Upon a man's justification his Covenant and State are changed; but the Covenant and State of no man can be so changed as long as he remains absolutely under the severest Penalties and condemnation of the Law, as Mr. C. affirms they did.

Again, Condemned they could not be, seeing all that are under the pure Covenant of Grace (as he saith they were p. 181at the same time) are certainly in Christ; and to such there is no condemnation, Rom. 8. 1. nor ever shall be: Ioh. 5. 24. He that believeth, shall not come into condemnation, but is passed from death unto life. What remains then, but that during life, they could neither be perfectly justified, nor perfectly condemned; and yet being absolutely under the severest Penalties of Adam's Covenant, they were perfectly condemned; and again, being under the pure Covenant of Grace, they must be perfectly justified?

And then after death, they must neither go to Heaven, nor Hell; but either be annihilated, or stick mid-way in Limbo Patrum (as the Papists fancy) betwixt both. No condemned Person goes to Heaven, nor any justified Person to Hell. His Position therefore, which necessarily infers this gross Absurdity, is justly renounced and detested by Learned and Orthodox Divines.

The Learned and Acute Turrettine, Turret. pars 2^da, pag. 290.the late famous Professor of Divinity at Geneva, proving that the Sinai Law could not be a pure Covenant of Works, brings this very Medium to prove it, as a known truth, allowed by all men. The Israelites (saith he) with whom p. 182God covenanted, were already under Abraham's Covenant, which was a Covenant of Grace; and were saved in Christ by it; therefore they could not be under the Legal Covenant. Nemo enim simul potest duo…us foederibus totâ specie distinctis subesse; because no man can be under two Covenants specifically different at the same time, as these two are.

That Great and Renowned Divine Mr. William Strong, Mr. Strong on the Covenant, p. 66, 67.gives four irrefragable Arguments to prove, that no man can stand under both these Covenants at the same time, which in co-ordination actually destroy and make void each other. If the First Covenant stand, there is no place for the Second; and if the Second stand, the first is made void. And this (saith he) will fully appear, if we consider the direct contrariety in the terms of those two Covenants. For (1.) the Righteousness of the first Covenant is in our selves; but the Righteousness of the Second is the Righteousness of another, 1 Ioh. 5. 11. 12. (2.) In the Covenant of Works, acceptation is first of the Works, and afterwards of the Person; Gen. 4. 7. but in the Covenant of Grace, the acceptation p. 183is first of the Person, and then of the Work, Gen. 4. 4. (3.) The First Covenant was a Covenant without a Priest, but the Second is a Covenant with a Priest. (4.) In the First Covenant there is matter of glorying, but in the Second there is none, Rom. 3. 27. So that these two can never consist, except you can compound, or reconcile these four Opposites in the justification of the same Person.

To the same purpose, saith that Excellent Mr. Samuel Bolton. Bolton's Bounds, p. 133.If the Law were a Covenant of Works, then were the Iews under a different Covenant from us, and so none of them were saved, which the Apostle gainsays, Acts 15. 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 inconsistent▪ Ergo. And thus all sound Divines speak. I may therefore say of Mr. Cary's Position, as Ruveus before me did, omnem absurditatem excedere videtur, it seemeth to exceed all Absurdities. A man may more rationally suppose two Natures and essential Forms in one Body, and place the same thing under divers Species in the predicament of substance: yea, 'twere more p. 184tolerable to affirm, That ex duobus entibus per se fit unum ens per se, than to place any (as Mr. C. places all) of God's People under two opposite Covenants. If Mr. C. were absolutely under the condemnation of the Law, would he not be purely justified, think you? Yet he places Abraham, Moses, and all Believers with them, absolutely under the severest condemnation of the Law, and the pure Gospel…Covenant, at once.

But to cover the shame and nakedness of his Assertion, which places Believers absolutely under Adams 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 same pretended Absurdities 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 essentially different Covenants: because we are forced to comprize perfect doing, with the curse for non-performance, under the same Covenant with believing: and that it cannot be denied but that all the People of God were absolutely under p. 185the Sinai Covenant, Gal. 3. 23. and Gal. 4. 4, 5. and consequently under the curse, Gal. 3. 10. This is the sum and substance of his first Answer.

I will not be tempted to expose my Neighbour to derision for this his strange Answer;Reply. but rather propound two sober 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 curse for non-performance, under the same Covenant with believing: and so make the two opposite Covenants to be specifically one and the same? Name your Men, with their Books and Pages; or retract with shame and sorrow what you have here abusively affirmed of them. Cameron indeed makes it a subservient Covenant; the most a true, though obscure Covenant of Grace; but none comprize Adam's Covenant with its Curse, in the New Covenant. (2.) Whether it be imaginable, That the same Absurdity can follow from their Doctrine, that make the whole complex body of the Sinai Law a Covenant of Grace, though more obscure, and so place all the People of God in those Ages under it▪ as does necessarily follow his Doctrine, who makes it a p. 186pure Adam's Covenant of Works, and places the Church of God absolutely under the curse of it, and also under the pure Covenant of Grace at the same time? If Grace and Grace (how diffeferent soever in degrees of manifestation) be as opposite and repugnant, as Grace and Works, as Justification and Condemnation are, 'tis time for me to lay down my Pen; for I have certainly lost my Understanding to guide it any further.

But Mr. Cary will say, If you do not, yet Mr. Roberts doth comprize both in one Covenant. I say, you abuse Mr. Roberts in so affirming: for he saith in that very place you refer to**Roberts on the Covenant, pag. 775, 776, 777., That believing in Christ was ultimately and chiefly intended in the Sinai Covenant; and perfect doing was only urged upon Israel in subordination and tendency to that believing. And upon that ground it is he affirms that Covenant to be a Covenant of Faith, and so denominates it from the chief scope and intent of it. He sets not doing and believing in co-ordination, or places the Church under two opposite Covenants, as you do; but places the Law, where it ought to be placed, in subordination to Faith and Christ. And therefore you have abused that good Man, p. 187as well as me, and your self most of all in this your first impertinent and silly Answer.

(2.) But you have one Evasion more, p. 7. where you say, That how harsh and dreadful soever the Terms or Conditions of the Legal Covenant were to those that were under it, as Moses, and the whole body of the Israelites, then were; yet the grace of the Gospel-Covenant far superseded, and was by far more victorious, powerful, and efficacious, Rom. 5. 17, 20.

Worse and worse.Reply. Your Discourse mends like sower 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 Justification strugling 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, answer 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 so far prevalent and victorious as utterly to vanquish and disannul p. 188it, as a Covenant of Works to them? or was it not? Was the Victory you speak of, a compleat, or a partial one? If you say it was incompleat and partial, then you leave them (as I told you before you must) partly under the Promise, and partly under the Curse; justified in part, and condemned in part. But if you say, it was a compleat and perfect Victory, then it utterly dissolved 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 say, it did not totally free them from the Curse of the Covenant of Works, but however prevailed so far that they were not actually damned by vertue of the Curse; then be pleased to answer me one Question more, How it was possi…le for them to be absolutely under the Curse of the Law (as you affirmed they were) and yet that Curse to be so superseded by the Covenant of Grace, as here you speak?

To supersede the Curse (though it be a Phrase I never met with before) if it signify any thing, it must signify this; That p. 189the Covenant of Grace caused the Law to omit, forbear, or give over to curse that People any more. But did, or can the Law forbear or cease to curse those that are absolutely under it as a ministration of death and condemnation? Pray consult, Rom. 3. 19. and Gal. 3. 10. Are you aware what you say, when you place Believers absolutely under the Curse of the Law, and then talk of the New Covenant's victory over it; and after all this, leave them as you do, absolutely under the cursing power of the one; and still under the victorious grace of the other? For shame, my Friend, give up your absurd notion, and repent of this folly. I would not willingly shame you before the World; I did all that lay in me to prevent it. But however, Pudor est medicina pudoris, the only way you have left me to prevent your glorying in your shame, is this way, to make you ashamed of your vain-glory. As for that Scripture you alledge to countenance your fancy, Rom. 5. 17, 20. you might to as good purpose have opened your Bible, and have taken the first Scripture that came to hand, and it would have done your Position less harm. For the Apostle's scope there, is to demonstrate p. 190the perfection of the abounding Righteousness of Christ, for the full discharge of Believers from the guilt of sin, and curse of Adam's Covenant; and cuts the throat of your Position, which it is alledged to prove.

I have stood the longer upon the clearing of this first Point; because this being fully cleared, it runs through and clears the whole Controversy betwixt us. For now it will be evident to all, That neither Abraham's, nor Moses his Covenant (complexly taken, as Mr. Cary takes it) could possibly be for this reason, an Adam's Covenant of Works; and if not a Covenant of Works, then how dark or legal soever the Dispensations of them were, they must needs be the same Covenant of Grace, for substance, under which we are, and so the main Controversy 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 constantly affirm**Vid. Bolton's Bounds, p. 148., That as there never were but two ways of Life to mankind, the one before the Fall, by perfect doing▪ the other after the Fall, by sincere believing: So answerably there can be but two Covenants betwixt God and p. 191Mankind, viz. the Covenant of Works, and the Covenant of Grace. The last of which hath, indeed, been more obscurely Administred, and in that respect is called the Old Covenant; yet that and the New are essentially but one Covenant: And the Church of God, which for many Ages stood under that Old Covenant, did not stand under it as an Adam's Covenant, or the First Covenant of works, for the undeniable Reasons above given. And therefor Abraham's Covenant, from whence we derive our Childrens Title to Baptism, must of necessity be the very same Covenant for substance with this New Covenant, which all Abraham's believing off-spring, and their Infant-seed are now under. And in proving this one point, I have sufficiently confuted both Mr. C's Solemn Call, and this his feeble vindication of it, together.

But lest he should take this for the only Absurdity proved upon him, tho' it be tiresome 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 Controversy, and Mr. Cary both yields and denies it. If his own words p. 192be the Messengers of his meaning, either he, or I, must mistake their errand.

I had in my Prolegomena, distinguished of the Law, as strictly taken for the Ten Commandments; and more largely and complexly taken, as including the Ceremonial Law. The former I considered according to God's intention and design in the prom…lgation of it, which was to add it as an Appendix to the Promise, Gal. 3. 19. And the carnal Iews mistaking and perverting the end of the Law, and making it to themselves a Covenant of Works, by making it the very Rule and Reason of their justification before God, Rom. 9. 32, 33. Rom. 10. 3. I told him, That the Controversy depended upon this double sense of the Law, for that it ought not to be denominated from the abused and mistaken End of it; but from God's chief scope and design in the promulgation of it, which was to add it as an Appendix to the Promise, as the word foreign there imports; and so must be published with Evangelical purposes. Let us now hear Mr. C's sense of this matter.

I shall only ask Mr. Cary a sober Question or two, instead of Recriminations, and rendring reviling for reviling.

First, How the Iews were right enough in reference to the true nature of the Law, as it was a Covenant of Works, and yet out in respect of its proper use and intention, which was not, that any should attain unto Life and Righteousness p. 195by it, but to convince them of Sin, and of the necessity of a Saviour; and yet the Law be a Covenant of Works, intentionally, as well as materially considered; and that in respect of God's special designation and appointment? If God designed and appointed it in his Sinai dispensation, to be to them an Adam's Covenant of Works, then certainly they were not out (as you say they were) when they sought 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 seems it was no mistake, being by God's intention, as well as its own primitive nature, promulged at Sinai, as a true Adam's Covenant.

Secondly, You deny the Law was added to the Promise,foreign posita, pro apposita, hoc est, Promissioni adjecta. Beza. and ask me why it might not be added to the first Covenant to re-inforce that? I answer, Because the scope of the place will not bear it, nor any good Expositor countenance such a fancy. You make the Sinai Law to be the same with that first Covenant, and by so expounding the Apostle, you make him say, either that the same thing was added to it self, (which must in your own Phrase, be by a Correspondency p. 196of Identity) or else 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 Scripture, when driven to a streight by dint of Argument. Nothing beside such a pure necessity, could drive you upon such an Absurdity.

It was added to the promise (saith Dr. Reynolds) by way of subserviency and attendance,Vid. Dr. Reynolds, Use of the Law, p. 378. full up to my sense, and p. 371. the better to advance and make effectual the Covenant it self. Mr. Strong upon the two Covenants, saith, the Apostle's meaning is, that the Law was added as an Appendix to the Promise. But it may be you had rather hear Dr. Crisp's Exposition**Dr. Crisp, Lib. 4. Serm. 9. than his; for you say, had it been added to the Promise, it would have given life. The Doctor will at once give you the true sense of the Text, and with it a full answer to your Objection. Though Life (saith he) be not the end of the Law, yet there are other sufficient uses of it requiring the promulgation thereof: It was published to be an Appendix to the Gospel▪ Gal. 3. 19. And this supposes, (1.) The priority of the Gospel to the Law. (2.) The principality of p. 197the Promise of Life by Christ, above the Law. (3.) The Consistence of the Law and Gospel. They may well stand one by another, as an House, and the addition to it may. That it was with such an intention added to the Promise, I have met with no Man that had front enough to deny or scruple it before you. And that the Iews did mistake its chief scope and use, from whence we denominate it a Covenant of Grace, the generality of Godly and Learned Divines constantly affirm. See Mr. Anth. Burgess de Lege, p. 227. Bolton's Bounds, p. 160, 161. Mr. Samuel Mather on the Types, p. 11. with multitudes more, whose citations would even weary the Reader. And what you urge from Mr. Poole's Annotations, on 2 Cor. 3. 6, 7. it makes nothing at all to your purpose: For it is manifest the Annotator there, takes the Moral Law in it self, strictly taken, and as set in opposition to the Gospel, which it never was since the Fall, but by the ignorance and infidelity of unregenerate Men.

You also labour to shelter your erroneous fancy under the authority of Dr. Owen; but you manifestly abuse him in your Citation; for in that very place you refer p. 198to, he speaks strictly of the Covenant of Works made with Adam in Paradise; and plainly distinguishes it from the Sinai Covenant, which sufficiently shews his judgment in this point. For these are his own words, which you suppressed in the Citation,Dr. Owen of Iustification, p. 396, 397. Vindicated from Mr. C's gross Misrepresentations As to the Sinai Covenant and the New Testament, with their privileges thence emerging, they belong not to our present Argument. This Paragraph you wilfully omit, that you might include that which his words plainly exclude. In the same place he tells you, that David and Abraham's Covenant, was for essence the Covenant of Grace, notwithstanding the variations made in it: But you take and leave, as best suits your design††…ut if you will see the Doctor's judgment, in concurrence with all his Brethren, you have it in these very words: Although this Covenant hath been variously administred in respect of Ordinances and Institutions in the time of the Law, and since the coming of Christ in the flesh; yet for the substance and efficacy of it, to all its spiritual and saving ends, it is one and the same; upon the account of which various dispensations it is called the Old and New-Testament. Vide Declaration of the Faith and Order of the Congregational Churches in England, p. 15. at the Savoy, Octob. 12. 1658..

Once more in p. 16, 17, &c. of my Vindiciae Legis, you find your self pinched with another Dilemma, from Lev. 26. 40, 41, 46. whence I plainly proved, p. 199That there is a Promise of Pardon found in the Sinai dispensation, to penitent sinners. That this Promise was given at Mount Sinai by the hand of Moses, is undeniable from vers. 46. That it contained the Relief of a gracious remission to penitent sinners, is as undeniable from vers. 40, 41. If you say, this Promise belongs to Moses his dispensation (as verse 46. tells you it did) then there is remission of Sins found in the Sinai Laws. If you say, 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 just 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 Controversies to the Worlds end. Sir, there are many Witnesses, that you are very well acquainted with my Method of Grace. (2.) You say, p. 31. of your Reply, That that Covenant could not be conditional, because a Condition implies merit either of congruity or condignity. This is a further discovery of your ignorance of p. 200the nature of Conditions, as well▪ as Covenants: But that Point belonging to the last Head of Controversy between us, I shall refer it thither.

It were easie for me to instance in many more Absurdities which Mr. C. cannot eluctate, and to prove them upon him as easily as to name them. But I will not press 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 strength against him, viz.

Argument I.

That Proposition can never be true, which necessarily draws many and horrid gross absurdities after it by just consequence. But so doth this: Ergo.

Argument II.

My next Argument, Vindiciae, &c. p. 27. is as secure as the first. It was this. If Adam's Covenant had one end, namely, the Happiness and Justification of Men by their own Obedience, and the Law at Sinai had quite another end, namely to bring Sinners to Christ by Faith for their Righteousness; the one p. 201to keep him within himself, the other to take him quite out of himself; then the Sinai Law cannot possibly be the same with Adam's Covenant of Works in Paradise.

But so stands the Case, Rom. 10. 4. Christ is the end of the Law for righteousness to every one that believeth.

Therefore they cannot be the same, but two different Covenants.

All that touches this Argument, is but three Lines in the 49th page of your Reply; where you say you have sufficiently answered and cleared this in p. 169, 172. of your former Discourse, from the corrupt interpretation by me fastened thereon.

Now, if the Reader will give himself the trouble to examine those Pages, he shall find that Mr. C. there allows that very interpretation which he here calls corrupt; and saith it comes all to one reckoning with his own. If this will overthrow my second Argument, it is gone.

Argument III.

My third Argument was drawn from Acts 7. 38. in this Form:

p. 202If Christ himself were the Angel by whom the Laws were delivered to Moses, 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 Moses such a Covenant directly opposite to all the ends of his future Incarnation.

But it is more than probable from that Text, that it was Christ which delivered the Law to Moses on the Mount. Ergo.

To this Argument he saith not one word in p. 49. of his Reply, where he cites a part of it, nibling a little at that expression [The lively Oracles of God], thinking it unimaginable the Sinai Law should be such; when as the Apostle Paul, Rom. 7. 10. found the Commandment to be unto death; and the Apostle 2 Cor. 3. 6, 7. calls it a Ministration of death. I must therefore leave Mr. C. to reconcile those two Scriptures. And withal,Fr. Spanhem. Elench. Controvers. p. 552. I must tell him, that Spanhemius gives the same sense I do of Acts 7. 38. as the current judgment of Christians against the Iews, That it was not a created Angel, but Christ himself.