Moreover, in making this the promise which must relieve and com- fort the distressed Israelites in the purest gospel-times, towards the end of the world, you as palpably contradict yourself in another res- pect ; for we shall find you by and by stoutly denying, that the gos- pel promises have any conditions or qualifications annexed to them ; but so hath this, which you say relates to them that shall live at the end of the world, " If their uncircumcised hearts be humbled, and if they accept the punishment of their iniquities, then will I remem- ber my covenant," S^c. But be this promise conditional or abso- lute, two things are undeniably clear : (1) That it is a promise full of grace, for the relief of law- transgressors, ver. 40. (2.) That it was a mount Sinai promise^ ver. 46. And such a promise as you can never shew in Adam's covenant.
Besides, it is to me an unaccountable thing, that a promise which hath a double comfortable aspect 430 years back, and some thousands of years forward, should not cast one comfortable glance upon the penitents of the present age, when it was made, nor upon any till near the end of the world. What think you, sir, of the 3000 Jews pricked at the heart. Acts ii. had they no relief from it, because their lot fell not late enough in time ? Were the penitent Jews in Closes and Peter's days all born out of due time for this promise to relieve ? O what shifting and shuffling is here ? Who can think a man that twists and winds every way, to avoid the dint of an argument, can possibly have a moral assurance of the truth of his own opinion.^
(3.) You say, page 134. ' That through Christ's satisfaction there ' is no repugnanc}", or hostile contrariety, betwixt the law and pro- ' mise, but an agreement betwixt them, and that they differ only in ' respect of strength and weakness ; the gospel is able to go througli- * stitch with it, which the law cannot do.'
Reply. Well then, the law considered as a covenant of works, whose terms or condition is, " Do this and live ;" and the promise or gospel, whose condition is, " Believe and thou shalt be saved ;" are not specifically different, but only gradually, in point of strength and weakness : and the reason you give is as strange, that this comes to jmss through the satisfaction of Christ. Good sir, enlighten us in this rare notion. Did Christ die to purchase a reconciliation betwixt the covenant of works as such and the covenant of grace, as if both were now by the death of Christ agreed, and to be justified by works and by faith, should after Christ's death, make no odds or difierence between
A REPLY TO MR. CARy''s SOLEMN CALL. S35
lliem ? If it be so, why liave you kept such a coil to prove Moscs^ and Adam's covenant, yea, Abraham's too, being a covenant ofivorks^ can never consist or mingle with the gospel-covenant f And then I say, you contradict the apostle^ who so directly opposes the covenant of works as such, to the covenant of grace ^ Gal. iii. 18. and tells us tliey are utterly inconsistent and exclusive of each other; and this he spake after Christ's death and actual satisfaction. But,
(4.) That which more amazes me, is the strange answer you give to Mr. Sedgwick,;?. 132, 153. In your return to his argument, ' That ' if the law and the promise can consist, then the law cannot be set
* up as a covenant of works. You answer^ That the law and the pro- ' mise having divers ends, it doth not thence follow, that there is an ' inconsistence betwixt them, and that the law, even as it is a cove-.
* nant of works, instead of being against the promise, tends to the
* estabhshment of it. And j9. 13S. that by convincing men of the ' impossibility of obtaining rest and peace in themselves, and the ne-
* cessity of betaking themselves to the promise, &c. the law is not ' against the promise, having so 5/f?5^<?f/«^i«te?'i'i£^7ic?/ towards the esta-
* blishment thereof.' Here you own a subserviency^ yea, a hlcssed suh- serviencyo^the\siv/ to the promise, which is that Mr. Sedgwick and my- self have urged to prove it cannot be so, as it is a pure Adam's cove- nant, but that thereof it must come under another consideration ; only here we differ ; you say it hath a blessed subserviency to the pro- mise, as it is the same with Adam's covenant ; we say it can never be so as such, but as it is either a covenant of grace, though more obscure, as he speaks ; or though the matter of it should be the same with x\danf s covenant, yet it is subserviently a covenant of grace, as others speak; and under no other consideration can it be reconciled to the promise.
But will you stand to this, that the law hath no hostile contradic- tion to the promise, but a blessed subserviency to it, as you speak, ^7. 173. where you say, * That if we preach up the law as a covenant of life, or a covenant of faith and grace (which are equipollent terms) let us distinguish as we please between a covenant of grace absolutely and subserviently such ; then we make an ill use of the law, by per- verting it to such a service as God never intended it for, and are guilty of mingling lavv^ and gospel, life and death together.'
Reply. Here, sir, my understanding is perfectly posed, and I know not how to make any tolerable orthodox sense out of this }X)sition : Is the law preached upas a Y^^ve, covenant of works, (that is, pressing men to the personal and punctual obedience of it, in order to their justifi- cation by works) no way repugnant to the promise, but altogether so, when preached in subserviency toChrist and faith ? This is new divinity with me, and I believe must be so to every intelligent reader. Do not I oppose the promise when I preach up the law as a pure covenant of works, which therefore as such must be exclusive of Christ and the promise .? And do I oppose either, when 1 tell sinners the terrors of the law serve only to drive them to Christ, their only remedy, who is
336 A liEfLV TO MH. CARl's SOLEM]^ CALt.