It was added to the promise, (saith Dr. Reynolds f) by way of subserviency and attendance, the better to advance and make ef- fectual the covenant itself Mr. Strong, upon the two covenants, saith, the apostle's meaning is, that the law was added as an appen- dix to the promise ; but it may be you had rather hear Dr. C'risp's exposition j 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 H,requiring the promulgation thereof: it was published tobean appendix to the gospel, Gal. iii. 19. And this supposes, 1. The prior- ity of the gospel to the law. ^. The principality of the promise of life by Christ above the law. 3. The cimsistence 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
* YloodZTc^r, posita. pro apposita, hoc est, Promhsioni ndjecta. Beza.
f Vide Dr. Reynolo's Use of the law, p. 278. full up to mv sense, and p. 371,
t Dr. Crispj lib. 4. serm. 0-
506 VINDICIARUM VINDEX.
it before you ; and that the Jews did mistake its chief scope and use, from whence we denominate it a covenant of grace, the gene- rality of godly and learned divines constantly affirm. See Mr. Anth. Burg, 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. Poofs Annotations on 2 Cor. iii. 6, 7. it makes nothing at all to your purpose ; for it is manifest, the annotator there takes the moral law in itself, 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 au- thority of Dr. Owen ; but you manifestly abuse him in your cita- tion ; for in that very place you reler to, he speaks strictly of the covenant of works made with Adam in paradise, and plainly dis- tinguishes it from the Sinai covenant, which sufficiently shews his judgment in the point. For these are his own words which you suppressed in the citation, « * As to the Sinai covenant, and the ' New Testament, with their privileges thence emerging, they be- ' long not to our present argument.' This paragraph you wilfully omit, that you might include that which his Avords plainly ex- clude. In the same place he tells you, that David's and Abra- ham's covenant, was for essence the covenant of grace, notwith- standing the variations made in it : But you take and leave as best suits your design -f.
Once more, in p. 16, 17, &c. of my Vindicice leg-is, you find yourself pinched with another dilemma, from Lev. xxvi. 40, 41, 46. whence I plainly proved, that 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 un- deniable, from ver. 46. That it contained the relief of a gracious remission to penitent sinners, is as undeniable from ver. 40, 41. If you say, this promise belongs to Moses's dispensation, (as ver. 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
* Dr. Owen of Justification, p. 596 ^ 597, vindicated from Mr. C's gross misrepre- sentations.
■f But if you see the Doctor's judgment, in concurrence with all his brethren, you have it in these very words ; Although this covenant hath been variously administered in respect of oidinances 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 ail its spiritual and savin"- ends, it is one and the same ; upon account of which various dispensations, it is called the Old and New Testament. Fide Declaration (^'thej'aitii, and order of the con- ^re<<ational churches in England., p. 16, at the Saih^i/. Oct, 12, 1658.
VINDTCIARUM VINDEX. 50T
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. S26. as if you had never read the just and fair vindication I had before given you of them, p. 13i, 135* of my first reply to you. At this rate men may continue contro* versies to the world's 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 merits either of ccnigruity or condignity. This is a further discovery of your ignorance of the nature of con- ditions, as well as covenants ; but that point belonging to the last head of controversy between us, I shall refer it thither.
It were easy for me to instance in many more absurdities which Mr. C. cannot elucidate, 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 1. That proposition can never be true, which neces- sarily draws many horrid and gross absurdities after it, by just con- sequence. But so doth this: Er^o.
Arg. 2. My next argument, Vindicice, &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 to 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. x. 4. " Christ is the end of the " law for righteousness to every one that believeth."
Therefore they cannot be the same, but two different cove- nants :
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 sliall find that Mr. C. there allows that very interpreta- tion which he here calls corrupt ; and saith it comes all to one reck- oning with his own. If this will overthrow my second argument, it is gone.
Arg. 3. My third argument was drawn from Acts vii. 38. in this form :
508 VINDieiARUM VINDEX.