Prolegomena — Position 3

That neither Moses's Law (Exodus 20) nor God's Covenant with Abraham (Genesis 17) can be any other than an Adam's Covenant of Works, because they have each of them conditions in them on man's part; but the Gospel-Covenant has none at all, but is altogether free and absolute.

The controversy here between us is not (1.) whether the Gospel-Covenant requires no duties at all of them that are under it? Nor (2.) whether it requires any such conditions as were in Adam's Covenant, namely, perfect, personal, and perpetual obedience under the severest penalty of a curse; and admitting no place of repentance? Nor (3.) whether any condition required by it, on our part, has anything 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 controversy, but the only question between 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) is not required to be performed by us, antecedently to a blessing or privilege consequent by virtue of a promise? And whether such an act or duty, being of a suspending nature to the blessing promised, it has 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, namely, 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 (Genesis 17) is the very same Covenant of Grace we are now under; and (2) that circumcision in the nature of the act, did not oblige all men to keep the whole law for righteousness. And (3),

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 myself 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 fieri potest per pauciora, I have overthrown them all together at one blow; by proving 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 promulgated by God for man's justification and happiness in the way of personal obedience; and that the Jews that did accordingly endeavor 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 whatever 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 has 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 it is but labor lost to write again.