Discourse of Mental Errors, Appendix 1 · Part · Section 3
Argument III.
In the Covenant of Circumcision, Gen. 17. God makes over himself to Abraham, and his Seed, to be their God, or gives them a special interest in himself.
But in the Covenant of Works, God doth not since the Fall, make over himself to any to be their God by way of special interest.
Therefore the Covenant of Circumcision cannot be the Covenant of Works.
The sum 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 Sinners to be their God by way of special interest: but it being upon such hard terms, that it's utterly impossible for Sinners that way to attain unto life, he hath therefore been pleased to abolish that, and make a new Covenant: and bring Exod. 20. 2. to prove it.
This is new and strange Divinity with me.Reply. (1.) That God should become a People's God by way of special interest, by vertue 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. 3. 21. unless you can suppose a Soul that's totally dead in Sin, to have a special interest in God, as his God. (2.) This Answer of yours yields the Controversy about the nature of the Sinai Law: for this very Concession of yours, is the Medium by which our Divines prove it to be a Covenant of Grace. (3.) This Concession of yours confounds the two Covenants, by communicating the essential property and prime privilege of the Covenant of Grace; to Adam's Covenant of Works. Either therefore expunge Ier. 31. 33. as a Covenant of Grace, I will be their God, and they shall be my people; or allow that in Gen. 17. 7. to be specifically the same; and that Exod. 20. though more obscurely delivered. (4.) You assert, That God may actually become a Peoples God by way of special interest, and yet the salvation of that People be suspended upon impossible terms. You sent them before to Purgatory, but by this you must send them directly to Hell: for if the salvation of God's peculiar People be upon impossible terms, 'tis certain they cannot be saved. And lastly, It is an horrid reflection upon the Wisdom 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 provision for their Salvation in the same Covenant, but leave their Salvation for many Ages upon hard and impossible terms, (i. e.) leave them under damnation.
(2.) I told you in my Vindiciae, &c. p. 49. that you were fain to cut Abraham's Covenant, Gen. 17. into two parts; and make the first to be the pure Covenant of Grace, which is the promisory part to the 9th verse; and the Restipulation (as you call it, p. 205.) to be as pure a Covenant of Works. Which I truly said was a bold Action; and in so calling it, I gave it a softer name than the nature of it deserved.
The sum of what you reply to this,Mr. C's Defence, p. 79. is, (1.) By denying the matter of fact, and charging me with misrepresentation; and in the next page confessing the whole Charge, saying, Though the Promise and the Restipulation, mentioned vers. 7, 8, 9. make but one and the same Covenant of Circumcision; yet there are two Covenants mentioned in that Context, the first between God and Abraham himself, vers. 2, 4. the other between God and Abraham, and his natural Posterity also, vers. 7, 8, 9, 10. The former you call a Covenant of Grace, the latter a Covenant of Works. And p. 81. you affirm, That after God had entred the Covenant of Grace with Abraham, v. 2, 4. that Abraham himself was required to be circumcised by the Command of God, as a Token of the Covenant of Works. And thenP. 81. (after some unbecoming Scoffs for misplacing vers. 7, 8. where vers. 9, 10. should be; as also of Gen. 12. for Gen. 17. (whether by the Scribe, my Self, or Press, I cannot say; but in each place sufficient light is given to set you right in the scope and Argument of my Discourse) you tell us, That how harsh and unlikely soever it may seem to man's carnal reason, that the latter, to wit, the Covenant of Works made with Abraham, vers. 9, 10. must needs make void the Covenant of Grace made with him, vers. 2, 4. yet the Apostle gives a quite contrary resolution of it, Gal. 3. 17. And after all, p. 79. in return to my Argument, That the Circumcision of Abraham, and his Seed, vers. 9, 10. could not possibly be a condition of Adam's Covenant of Works from the nature of the act:☞ because Paul himself circumcised Timothy, Act. 16. 1, 2, 3. and asserts it to be a part of his Liberty, Gal. 2. 3. 4. which could never be, if in the very nature of the act it had bound Timothy to keep the Law for justification; and had been contrary to the whole scope of the Apostle's Doctrine: but it became an obligation only from the intention of the Agent. All that you say to this, p. 95. is, That as for Paul's compliance with the Iews, however the case stood in that respect, this is certain, That the blessed Apostle would never have expressed himself with that vehemency he doth, Gal. 5. 2, 3. if this had been only the sense of the Iewish Teachers, or that Circumcision in its own nature did not oblige to the keeping of the whole Law; and that this is only my corrupt gloss upon the Text.
If there be but one Covenant made betwixt God and Abraham in that 17th of Genesis, Reply.and you make two, not only numerically, but specifically distinct, yea, opposite Covenants of it; then you boldly cut God's Covenant with Abraham in two, and are guilty of an insufferable abuse of the Covenant of God. But the former is true: therefore so is the latter. You say, p. 223, 224. of your Call, That at the second and fourth Verses God made a Covenant with Abraham himself alone; but at verse 7. he makes the Covenant of Circumcision betwixt himself and Abraham, and his natural Seed also; and saith, vers. 7. And, or (according to the old Translation) Moreover; as proceeding to speak of another Covenant than what he had been before insisting on.
Now I would soberly ask, (1.) What Vouchers you have amongst Expositors for this your rash and daring Assertion? I find not a man that hath trod this path before you, and I hope none will be hardy enough to follow. You certainly stand alone, and 'tis pity but you should. (2.) Where do you find the just parts of the New Covenant in the 2d and 4th verse? Is it not altogether promisory on God's part, without any restipulation on Abraham's? for you have excluded v. 1, 9, 10. from that which you call God's Covenant of Grace with him. And then for your Covenant of Works, vers. 7, 8, 9, 10. you make this to be the Promisory part of that Covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy Seed after thee; and again vers. 8. I will be their God. Was ever such a Promise as this, found in a Covenant of Works? Tell me what-ever God said more in the New Covenant, than he saith here? Oh blessed Covenant of Works, if this be such! (3.) Tell me whether you can satisfy your own Conscience with the Answers you have given to my first Argument against your paradoxical, yea heterodoxical Exposition? I told you, That if vers. 7, 8, 9, 10. contain another Covenant, viz. of Works, entred by God with Abraham and his Seed, it must needs make void the former Covenant, vers. 2, 4. for where-ever the Covenant of Works takes place, the Co-Covenant of Grace gives place; they cannot consist, as I have abundantly proved before. Do you verily think those words of the Apostle, Gal. 3. 17. which you bring as a foundation to support your singular and sinful Exposition, viz. And this I say, That the Covenant that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the Law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul that it should make the Promise of none effect; do you think (I say) that in that, or any other Text, the Apostle opposes the two Covenants made (as you fancy) with Abraham, Gen. 17? or doth he not there speak of God's Covenant with Abraham, as distinguished from the Law made 430. years afterward? (4.) Have you satisfied your own Judgment and Conscience in the Reply you make to that unanswerable Objection from Paul's circumcising of Timothy, Acts 16. 2, 3. where you have the plain matter of fact before you, that he was circumcised by Paul; and this Fact of his, justified as a part of the Liberty he had in Christ, Gal. 2. 3, 4. from whence it evidently appears,Teneter non simpli…itèr & absolutè ex genere operis, sed ex intentione operantis, & suppositâ tali opinione, &c. Poole in loc. That Circumcision in its own nature did not simply and absolutely oblige men to the keeping of Moses his Law for Righteousness, but only from the intention or opinion of the Person. And though you call this my corrupt gloss upon the Text, therein you grosly abuse me. The gloss is neither corrupt, nor my own; but the unanimous Judgment of all sound Expositors of the Text, as you might see, were you capable of seeing it, in a Collection of their Judgments upon that Text, Gal. 5. 2, 3. in Mr. Poole's Synopsis. And tho Estius thinks the Act of Circumcision might be obligatory to the Gentiles, to whom the Law was not given; yet it was not so to the Iews that believed, and such was Timothy. But why do I refer you to the Judgment of Commentators? the very reason of it may convince you: For,
If the very Act of Circumcision did in its own nature oblige all on whom it passed, to keep the whole Law for their Righteousness, then Paul so obliged Timothy, and all others on whom he passed it, to keep the Law for their Righteousness.
But Paul did not oblige Timothy, or any other on whom he passed it, by the very Act of Circumcision so to keep the Law.
Therefore the very Act of Circumcision in its own nature did not oblige all on whom it passed, to keep the whole Law for Righteousness.
You may ponder this Argument at your leisure, and not think to refute it at so cheap a rate, as by calling it a corrupt gloss of my own. And thus I hope I have sufficiently fortified and confirmed my Third Argument, to prove Abraham's Covenant to be a Covenant of Grace. My Fourth was this.