Reply to Philip Cary, Prolegomena
PROLEGOMENA.
BEfore we enter into the main Controversie, it will be necessary to acquaint the Reader, why I begin with the middle of the Book; and it is because I there find these three Principles, or Positions, on which the other parts of his Discourse are superstructed; and these being destroyed, his other Discourses are but arenae, sine calce. I properly therefore begin with the Foundation.
Next, I shall shew how far we are greed in the matters here controvert…d, and where it is in each of these, that …he Controversie indeed lies betwixt us; …nd as to
I Position, viz.
That the Sinai-Law is the same with A…am's Covenant of Works, made in Para…ice.
The difference betwixt us here is not ….) Whether both these be called Co…enants in Scripture? nor (2.) Whether duplicate page duplicate page there were no Grace at all in both, or either of them: For we are agreed, it is Grace in God to enter into Covenant with Man, whatever that Covenant be; nor (3.) Whether the Sinai-law be not a Covenant of Works to some Men, by their own fault and occasion? nor (4.) Whether the Scriptures do not many times speak of it in that very sense and notion wherein Carnal Justiciaries apprehend and take it? and by rejecting Christ make it so to themselves? nor (5.) Whether the very matter of the Law of Nature be not reviv'd and represented in the Sinai Law? These are not the Points we contend about: But the Question is, Whether the Sinai Law do in its own nature, and according to Gods purpose and design in the promulgation of it, revive the Law of Nature, to the same ends and uses it served to in Adam's Covenant; and so be properly and truly a Covenant of Works? Or whether God had not gracious and evangelical ends and purposes, viz. by such a dreadful representation of the severe and impracticable terms of the first Covenant, instead of obliging them to the personal and punctual observance of them fo… righteousness and life; he did not rather design to convince them of the impossibility of legal righteousness, humble proud Nature, and shew them the necessity of betaking themselves to Christ, now exhibited in the New Covenant, as the only refuge to Fallen Sinners. The latter I defend according to the Scriptures, the former Mr. Cary seems to assert, and vehemently argue for.
2ly. In this Controversie about the Sinai Law, I do not find Mr. Cary distinguishing (as he ought) betwixt the Law considered more largely and complexly, as containing both the Moral and Ceremonial Law, for both which it is often taken in Scripture, and more strictly, for the Moral Law only, as it is sometimes used in Scripture. These two he makes one and the same Covenant of Works; though there be some that doubt whether the meer Moral Law may not be a Covenant of Works; yet I never met with any Man before, that durst affirm the Ceremonial Law, which is so full of Christ, to be so; and to this Law it is that Circumcision appertains.
3ly. The Moral Law strictly taken for the Ten Commandments, is not by him distinguished (as it ought to be, and as the Scripture frequently doth) according to Gods intention and design in the promulgation of it, which was to add it as an Appendix to the promise, Gal. 3. 19. and not to set it up as an opposite Covenant, Gal. 3. 21. and the carnal Jews mistaking and perverting the use and 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. these things ought carefully to have been distinguished, forasmuch as the whole Controversie depends on this double sense and intention of the Law; yea, the very denomination of that Law depends hereon: For I affirm it ought not to be denominated from the abused and mistaken end of it amongst carnal men; but from the true scope, design and end for which God published it after the Fall: And though we find such expressions as these in Scripture, The man that doth them, shall live in them. And cursed is every one that continueth not in all things, &c. yet these respecting the Law not according to Gods intention, but Mans corruption and abuse of it, the Law is not thereby to be denominated a Covenant of Works. Gods end was not to justifie them, but to try them by that terrible dispensation, Ezod. 20. 20. whether they would still hanker after that natural way of selfrighteousness; for this end God propounded the terms of the first Covenant to them on Sinai, not to open the way of self-justification to them, but to convince them, and shut them up to Christ; just as our Saviour, Matth. 19. 17. puts the young man upon keeping the Commandments, not to drive him from, but necessitate him to himself in the way of Faith.
The Law in both these Senses is excellently described, Gal. 4. in that Allegory of Hagar and Sarah, the figures of the two Covenants. Hagar in her first and proper Station, was but a serviceable Hand-maid to Sarah, as the Law is a Schoolmaster to Christ; but when Hagar the Hand-maid is taken into Sarah's Bed, and brings forth Children, that aspire to the Inheritance, then saith the Scripture, Cast out the bond-woman, with her son. So it is here; take the Law in its primary use, as God designed it, as a School-master, or Hand-maid to Christ and the promise; so it is consistent with them, and excellently subservient to them; but if we marry this Hand-maid, and espouse it as a Covenant of Works, then are we bound to it for life, Rom. 7. and must have nothing to do with Christ. The Believers of the Old Testament had true apprehensions of the right end and use of the Law, which directed them to Christ, and so they became Children of the Free-woman. The carnal Jews trusted to the works of the Law for righteousness, and so became Children of the Bond-woman; but neither could be Children of both at once, no more than the same Man can naturally be born of two Mothers. This is the difference betwixt us about the first Position; and as to the
II Position.
That Abraham's Covenant, Gen. 17. is an Adam's Covenant of Works also, because Circumcision was annexed to it, which obliged Men to keep the whole Law.
The Controversie betwixt us in this point, is not whether Circumcision were an Ordinance of God, annexed by him to his Covenant with Abraham? nor (2.) Whether Abraham's ordinary and extraordinary Seed ought to be, and actually were signed by it? nor (3.) Whether it were a Seal of the righteousness of Faith to any individual Person; for he allows …t to be so to Abraham? nor (4.) Whe…he it pertain'd to the Ceremonial Law, and so must cease at the death of Christ? But the difference betwixt us is, Whether …1.) it was a Seal of the Covenant to …one but Abraham? and (2.) Whether …n the very nature of the Act, or only from the intention of the Agent it did oblige men to keep the whole Law, as Adam was obliged to keep it in inno…ency? (3.) Whether it were utterly …bolished at the death of Christ, as a condition of the Covenant of works; or being a sign of the same Covenant of Grace we are now under, it be not suc…eeded by the new Gospel-sign, which is Baptism? Mr. Cary affirms that it was … it self a condition of the Covenant of Works, and being annexed to Gods Covenant with Abraham, Gen. 17. it made …hat a true Adam's Covenant of works …lso. This I utterly deny, and say, A…raham's Covenant was a true Covenant …f Grace. (2.) That Circumcision was Seal of the righteousness of Faith, and therefore could not possibly belong to the Covenant of Works. (3.) That as it was applied both to the ordinary and extraordinary Infant-seed of Abraham, during that administration of the Covenant; so it is the will of Christ that Baptism should take its place under the Gospel, and be applyed now to the Infant-seed of all Abraham's Spiritual Children. These are the things wherein we differ about the second Position. And lastly, as to the
III Position.
That neither Moses's Law, Exod. 2… nor God's Covenant with Abraham, Ge… 17. can be any other than an Adam's Cov… nant of Works, because they have each … them conditions in them on Man's part; … the Gospel-Covenant hath none at all, but … altogether free and absolute.
The Controversie here betwixt us … not (1.) Whether the Gospel-Covenan… requires no duties at all of them tha… are under it? nor (2.) Whether it requires any such conditions as were … Adam's Covenant, namely, perfect, personal, and perpetual obedience unde… the severest Penalty of a Curse; and admitting no place of Repentance? Nor (3.) Whether any condition required by it, on our part, have any thing in its own nature Meritorious of the Benefits promised? Nor (4.) Whether we be able in our own Strength, and by the Power of our Free Will, without the preventing, as well as the assisting Grace of God, to perform any such Work or Duty as we call a Condition? In these things we have no Controversie, but the only Question betwixt us, is,
Whether in the New Covenant, some act of ours, (though it have no Merit in it, nor can be done in our own single Strength) be not required to be performed by us, antecedently to a Blessing or Priviledge consequent by vertue of a Promise? And whether such an Act or Duty, being of a Suspending Nature to the Blessing promised, it have not the true and proper Nature of a Gospel Condition? This I affirm, and he positively denies.
These three Positions being confuted, and the contrary well confirmed, viz. That the Law at Sinai was not set up by God as an Adam's Covenant, to open the old way of Righteousness and Life by works: but was added to the promise, as subservient to Christ in its design and use; and consequently can never be a pure Adam's Covenant of Works. And secondly,
That Abraham's Covenant, Gen. 17. is the very same Covenant of Grace we are now under; and (2ly.) that Circumcision in the nature of the act, did not oblige all men to keep the whole Law for Righteousness. And (3ly.)
That the New Covenant is not absolute and wholly unconditional; though notwithstanding a most free and gracious Covenant: the Pillars on which Mr. Cary sets his new Structure sink under it, and the building falls into ruins.
I have not here taken Mr. Cary's two Syllogisms, proving Abraham's Covenant to be a Covenant of Works; because I find my self therein prevented by that ingenuous and learned man Mr. Whiston, in his late Answer to Mr. Grantham. Neither have I particularly spoken to his 23 Arguments to prove the Sinai Law to be a pure Adam's Covenant, because frustra sit per plura, quod sieri potest per pauciora, I have overthrown them all together at one blow; by evincing every Argument to have four terms in it, and so proves nothing. But I have spoken to all those Scriptures which concern our four Positions, and fully vindicated them from the injurious senses to which Mr. Cary (following Mr. Tombes) had wrested them.
These things premised, I shall only further add, that if Mr. Cary shall attempt a Reply to my Answer, and free his own Theses from the gross absurdities with which I have loaded them; he must plainly and substantially prove against me,
(1.) That the Sinai Law, according to its true scope and end, was promulged by God for man's Justification and Happiness in the way of personal Obedience; and that the Jews that did accordingly endeavour after Righteousness by the works of the Law, did not mistake its true end and meaning; or if they did, and thereby made it what God never intended it to be, a Covenant of works to themselves; that the Sinai Law ought rather to be denominated from their mistake and abuse of it, than from its primary and proper use, and God's design in its promulgation.
(2.) He must prove against me with like evidence of truth, that Circumcision discovered no more of Man's Native Corruption, nor any more of his remedy by Christ; nor sealed to any Person whatsoever the Righteousness of Faith, than Adam's Covenant in Paradise did; and that it did in its own nature oblige all upon whom it passed, to the same terms of Obedience that Adam's Covenant obliged him: And,
(3.) That there is not to be found, in the new Covenant, any such Act or Duty of ours, as hath been described and limited above; which is of a suspending Nature to the Benefits therein granted: And,
(4.) That the respective Expositions he gives of the several Texts by me explained and vindicated, are more congruous to the Scope and Grammar than mine are, and more agreeable to the current Sense of Orthodox Expositors, and then he shall be sure to receive an answerable return from me, else 'tis but labour lost to write again.