I have stood tlie longer upon the clearing of this first point ; be- cause 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's covenant (complexly taken, as Mr. Cary takes it) could possibly be, for this reason, an Adam's cove- nant 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, * That, as there were never but two ways of life to man- kind, 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 mankind, viz. the covenant of works, and the covenant of grace. The last of which hath indeed been more obscurely, administered, 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 covenat of works, for the undeniable reasons above given : and therefore Abraham's covenant, from whence we derive our children's title to Baptism, must of necessity be the very same co- venant for substance with this new covenant, which all Abraham's believing offspring 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, though 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 be the mes- sengers 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 promulgation of it, which was to add it as an appendix to the promise, Gal. iii. 19. And the carnal Jews mistaking and perverting the end of the law, and making it to themselves a covenant of works, by making it the
* Vide Bolton's Boundsyp. 148.
very rule and reason of their justification before God, JRom. ix. 31, 32, 33. and x. 3. I told him that the controversy depended ppon this double sense of the law ; for that it ought not to be de- nominated 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 rr^oSiruW, there imports ; and so must be published with evangelical purposes. Let us now hear Mr. C's sense of this matter.
In his Call, p. 131. he yields the distinction in these words :
" The Jews were right e- nough in reference to the true nature of the law, That it was a covenant of works, &c. though they were out in respect of its proper use and intention which was not that anv should attain imto life and righteousness there- by; but to shew them the na- ture of sin, and the holiness and righteousness of God, to con- vince them of their sin and mi- sery without Christ, and their necessity of a Saviour; which they being ignorant of, and still going about to establish their own righteousness, which was of the law, and refusing to submit themselves unto the righteous- ness of God, &c. they stumbled at that stumbling-stone, and were accordingly broken, snared, and taken, Rom. ix. 31, 32, 33. Rom. X. 3. And this (saith he) ■was the true ground of dispute betwen the apostle and them.'"' This was orthodoxly spoken, and would end the controversy would he stand to it. But,
In his repl3J, p. 43. proving the
law to be a covenant of works, from Rom. x. 15. he saith,
" This was the nature of it in the first sanction of it, as the fruit of God's special designa- tion and appointment; and that it is the greatest violation and perverting of scripture that can lightly be met with, to affirm that this is uttured and decla- red by Paul, &c. only because the Jews had perverted it, and reduced it (as they thought) to its primitive intention. And a- gain, p. 44. he saith, he hath proved that it was the same with Adam's covenant in both res- pects, that is intentionally as well as materially considered." And once more, p. 20. he expressly denies that the law was added as art appendix to the promise ; calls that a crude assertion of mine, and asks me, " Why it might not be added as an ap- pendix rather to the first cove- nant of works, to reinforce that.''" And after all, gushes out many slighting and opprobrious terms upon me, which I will not throw back again, but rather leave him to reconcile himself with himself
I shall only ask Mr. C. a sober question or two, instead of re- criminations, and rendering reviling for reviling.
Firsty How were the Jews right enough in reference to the na-
VINDICIAKL'M VINDEX. 505
lure of the law, as it was a covenant of works, and yet out in res- pect of its proper use and intention, which was not that any should attain unto hfe and righteousness by it, but to convince them of sin, and of the necessity of a Saviour ; and yet the law be a cove- nant 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 tli€m ; for it seems it was no mistake, being, by God's intention, as well as its own primitive na- ture, promulgated at Sinai, as a true Adam's covenant.
Secondlij^ You deny the law was added to the promise, and ask me why it might not be added to the first covenant to reinforce that, I answer. Because the soope 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 expounds ing the apostle, you make him say, either that the same thing was added to itself, (which must, in your own phrase, be hy 2l correspond dency oj'kkntity) or else that there are two distinct covenants of works (when indeed there is but one) and that the latter was ad- ded to the former. This is your way of expounding scripture when driven to a strait by dint of argument : nothing beside such a pure necessity could drive you upon such an absurdity.