Page images
PDF
EPUB

It also has a respect unto the seed of those that are thus circumcised in heart; for the same blessing is extended to their seed, "and the heart of thy seed;" so that not only the heart of the parents, but the hearts of their seed, are the objects of the Divine grace promised in it.

The second question here proposed was, Are they the same in respect of the interesting or entitling condition, that is, is the ground of interest or claim the same in both? To this I answer, with the greatest confidence, that the righteousness of Christ is the condition of the enjoyment of any blessing; consequently the condition or ground of claim under both covenants is the same. I maintain that temporal blessings as well as spiritual, are enjoyed through Christ, or were a part of Christ's purchase, and therefore, with the greatest propriety, can it be affirmed, that all the blessings mankind ever enjoyed, even the very least, are enjoyed through his righteousness And with regard to his third question, Is the condition of the continued enjoyment of the covenanted blessings the same in both covenants? I answer, that they are enjoyed upon the same footing. I cannot perceive any great difference betwixt this query and the preceding. Whatever blessedness we enjoy, and in what manner we enjoy it, equally flow from the satisfaction of Christ, or in consequence of his purchase. The righteous have temporal as well as spiritual blessings promised them their bread shall be given them, and their water shall be sure ;" and on what footing are these blessings promised them, if not through Christ, by whom we enjoy all blessings and all grace?

I am now going to propose Mr. C. a few questions, such as I presume he will have no objections to answer, and which are as intimately connected with his principles, as those he has proposed are with mine.

The first I propose to him is-Was the blessedness of Abraham a spiritual blessedness; that blessedness of which Paul speaks, Rom. 4, was it a temporal or a spirit

ual blessedness ?

Query 2d-When did Abraham get that blessedness; in circumcision, or in uncircumcision ?

Query 3d-Was earthly Canaan sealed or secured to Ishmael in circumcision; and if not, how could circumcision seal to all its specified subjects an inheritance in Canaan ?

When these questions are answered, I have a few others to propose, to which I hope Mr. C. will give plain and pertinent answers-in the mean time he may proceed.

I then replied:

Mr. W. has answered those questions I proposed to him very explicitly, and desires that I should do the same. To his answers and queries I will attend in due times in the mean time, that he may have time for reflection, will propose him three more, which he will doubtless be prepared to answer when he next speaks.

Query 4th-If both covenants are the same, in what respect is the new said to be "better" than the old ?

Query 5th-Are the duties enjoined upon the covenantees the same in both ?

Query 6th-Are the penalties threatened the same in both ?

[Here I was interrupted by Mr. Findley, who objected to this mode of proceeding; he said, that as the object of this meeting was the edification of the public, he could not conceive how the asking and answering of questions, could promote their edification-he desired that we should proceed in some way more conducive to their edification: To which I replied-Mr. Findley, you are doubtless an advocate for the Westminster creed and catechism, and I presume, as such, must agree with your brethren, that the catechetical mode of instruction is the best.-As we are now proceeding as the Westminster Divines direct, I think you cannot, without a dereliction of principle, object.-Mr. Findlay then was mute.-I proceeded:1

Having submitted three additional questions, I proceed to review the answers Mr. W. gave to mine.

To the first he replied, that the covenants were the same in the nature and extent of their privileges-Then Mr. W. must affirm, that the covenant of circumcision promised a new heart, pardon of sins, the gift of the Holy Ghost, and eternal life, to the specified subjects of it!! For the New Covenant absolutely promises these blessings to the subjects of it. Thus the new is better than the old.

In my comment on the New Covenant Heb. 8, which I presented yesterday, I fully proved and Mr. W. did not attempt to refute it, that the new covenant absolutely

and unconditionally secured to every subject of it all spiritual blessings. To substantiate this answer Mr. W. quoted Deut. 30, 6-from which verse he attempted to prove, that the promise to circumcise their heart, implied all spiritual blessings-I deny that the phrase "to circumcise the heart" can, in its utmost latitude of interpre tation, imply all the blessings promised in the New Covenant. But this is not necessary to prove in the mean time, for this promise, whatever it may signify, belonged not to all the specified subjects of the old covenant, nor to any of them, as such, unconditionally; nor was it a part of that covenant as given to Abraham.-In the days of Moses it was a promise relating to events then future.The proof of this last declaration is to be found in the first five verses of this same chapter, "And it shall come to pass, when all these things are come upon thee, the blessing and the curse (temporal) which I have set before thee, and shalt call them to mind among all the nations, whither the Lord thy God hath driven thee; and shalt return unto the Lord thy God, and shalt obey his voice, according to all that I command this day, thou and thy children" then, at that time, "I will circumcise thy heart, and the heart of thy children" &c.-When these verses are read, Mr. W's. scheme vanishes into thin air, and his quotation is altogether irrelevant to his purpose.

I presume Mr. W. will not deny that circumcision was the same in import to the children of Israel at all times, and in all places-I think he will not say that circumcision implied any more 600 or 1000 years after its institution, than at first-if so, then any promise published in the days of Moses, respecting future things, can have no bearing upon the covenant of circumcision established four or five hundred years before. Moreover, in the days of Moses, in those very times, to which Mr. W. has appealed, for a promise importing spiritual blessings yes, in the chapter immediately preceding the one he has cited-although they had had the benefit of circumcision for so many hundred years-Moses declares-29th, 4th, "The Lord hath not given you an heart to perceive, and eyes to see, and ears to hear, unto this day." Where, now, are the spiritual blessings promised to the subjects of circumcision as such!-What spiritual blessings had it se cured for so long a time!! Is this the respect in which the two covenants are the same!!!-O human tradition, how

hast thou biassed the judgment and blinded the eyes of them that should know-under thy influence we can strain out a gnat and swallow a camel!

With regard to his answer of the second question, I must observe, that he is obliged to give up his own system, or the system of the seceders, as well as to oppose the plainest statement in the Bible, to support his cause. He affirms that the righteousness of Christ is the entitling condition under both covenants, therefore they are the same in this respect. To illustrate this, he asserts that all temporal blessings, as well as spiritual, are enjoyed through his righteousness. The covenanters of Europe maintained this thesis, and the seceders opposed it. The seceders in Scotland, maintained that it was derogatory to the redemption of Christ, to suppose that he died" to purchase food and raiment for mankind, which the Almighty has given to the brutes that perish." Moreover, the seceders affirmed, that it was an error of a very pernicious tendency, to say, that wicked men dying impenitent, had enjoyed any part of the purchase of Christ, which, upon the Covenanter's hypothesis, they must, if their food and raiment, houses, lands, and tenements, were a part of his purchase. Mr. W. then abandons the "Mother kirk” of Scotland, and joins the Covenanters of Europe, in or der to maintain, that the covenant of circumcision is the same as the covenant of Grace. This, however, is with me a small matter if he did not also oppose Moses and Paul. His brethren and he may settle these differences among themselves, but, with respect to the ground of claim being the same under both covenants, I have to observe, that it is most manifestly an error-the ground of claim under the covenant of circumcision, was carnal descent from Abraham alone.-On that footing, and on no other, were all the privileges of the covenant of circumcision claimed. "We have Abraham to our father," was all the reason the Jews submitted, as their claim of privilegeAnd on this footing they presumed so far, as to claim the privileges of the dispensation of John the Baptist. Yea, on this same footing, they continued to claim, even when converted to Christianity, a continuation of Jewish peculiarities. The Apostle Paul taught them, that no privileges were any longer to be claimed on the footing of carnal descent-even that all the spiritual privileges, promised to the spiritual seed of Abraham, were to be claimed

and enjoyed on a footing quite different from the obsolete Claim. It runs in these words, "If ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to promise." Of the temporal privileges promised to the natural seed of Abraham in the covenant of circumcision, this was the claim. "If ye be Abraham's seed through Sarah, then are ye heirs according to promise."-Of the spiritual privileges promised to the spiritual seed of Abraham, in the covenant confirmed before of God in Christ 25 years before the covenant of circumcision, this was the claim—“ If ye be Christ's then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise."-This distinction is abundantly evident, and should forever terminate the controversy betwixt the Baptists and bedo-baptists, on the subject of Baptism.

Mr. W's answer to my third query, is as contradictory to fact and plain scripture, as either of the preceding, and shews to what an awful extremity he is driven to maintain the cause he has unscripturally espoused. I am convinced that when his answers to these queries appear in print, he will be ashamed of them. However, as he has promised to abide by the consequences resulting from these answers, I shall comment on them in his own words.

The continued enjoyment of the privileges of these two covenants, he says, was on the same footing-Now the enjoyment of them was at first of grace, or mere favor; or, in other words, the institution of both of them was an act of grace. But the continued enjoyment of them was upon different principles-The first depended upon an if -it was conditional, they were to enjoy it so long as they were willing and obedient"-consequently by their dis obedience they were excluded, and the nation stands to this day excluded from the enjoyment of the privileges of that covenant. This is a fact indisputable. Now the New Covenant is better than the old, because it is established upon better promises; and, being unconditional, it cannot be broken. The language of both covenants fully expresses their difference-The old abounds with conditions-if ye do so, and if ye do so- -The new speaks absolutely they shall know me-they shall be my people." These things being so, the privileges of these two covenants are not enjoyed on the same footing.-The first was enjoyed in such a way as it might be forfeited, the second is enjoyed by Grace, and not one of its subjects has ever been excluded from the enjoyment of it.

[ocr errors]
« PreviousContinue »