Discourse of Mental Errors, Appendix 1 · Part · Section 4
Argument IV.
The last Argument I urged, was from Rom. 9. 4. and thus it may run.
No such Covenant as by the Fall had utterly lost all its Promises, Privileges, and Blessings, and could retain nothing but Curses and Punishments, could possibly be numbred among the chief Privileges in which God's Israel gloried.
But the Law given at Sinai was numbred among their chief privileges, Rom. 9. 4. Ergo.
To this he only saith, p. 57. of his Reply, That the Law, even as it was a Covenant of Works, was a privilege inestimable, beyond what all others enjoyed; because the very Curses and Punishments annexed thereunto, in case of the least faileur, were of excellent use to convince them of their sin and misery without Christ, and their necessity therefore of a Saviour; which was the proper work of the Law, as a Covenant of works; which advantage all other Nations wanting, it might well be numbred among the chief Privileges they were invested with.
But (1.) If the Law were intended by God, to be an Adam's Covenant to them (as Mr. C. saith it was) where then is the Privilege of God's Israel above other Nations? (2.) If their Privilege consisted in the subserviency of that Law to Christ (as he here intimates it did) then he yields the thing I contend for. For this being its chief scope and end, we do hence justly denominate it a Covenant of Grace, though more obscure and legally administred. And in this judgment most of our solid Divines concur. Mr. Charnock on the Attributes, p. 390. is clear and judicious in the point.Bolton's Bounds, p. 130, &c. Mr. Samuel Bolton, in that excellent Book called, The Bounds of Christian Liberty, gives nine solid Arguments to prove the Law was not set up at Sinai as a Covenant of Works.Burgess, de Lege, p. 225. Greenhill, in Loc. Mr. Anth. Burgess gives us six Arguments to prove the same Conclusion. Mr. Greenhill on Ezek. 16. gives us demonstration from that Context, That since it was a Marriage-Covenant, as it appears to be v. 8. it cannot possibly be a distinct Covenant from the Covenant of Grace. The incomparable Turrettine Learnedly and Judiciously states this Controversy;Turrettine, part 2. p. 288, 289. and both positively asserts, and by many Arguments fully proves, That the Sinai Law cannot be a pure Covenant of Works, or a Covenant specifically distinct from the Covenant of Grace. It were easie to fill Pages with Allegations of this kind; but I hope what hath been said, may suffice for this Point.
But still Mr. Cary complains, that I have all this while but threatned his Arguments to prove them fallacious, or to have four Terms in them; and therefore he hath drawn out some select Arguments, as he calls them, p. 37. to try my skill upon. I will neither tire my Reader in a foolish chase of such weak and impertinent Arguments as he there produceth, nor yet wholly neglect them, lest he glory in them as unanswerable. And therefore to shew him the fate of the rest, I will only touch his first Argument, which being his Argumentum Palmarium, deservedly leads the Van to all the rest. And thus it runs upon all four.
That Covenant that is not of Faith, must needs be a Covenant of Works, yea, the very same for substance with that made with Adam.
But the Scripture is express, That the Law is not of Faith, Gal. 3. 12. Ergo.
The Law is considered two ways in Scripture.Reply. (1.) Largely, for the whole Mosaical Oeconomy, comprehensive of the Ceremonial as well as Moral Precepts; and that Law is of Faith, as the Learned Turrettine hath proved by four Scripture Arguments, Pars secunda, p. 292, 293.*Lex dicitur non esse ex fide, Gal. 3. 12. non ut latè sumitur prout notat Oeconomiam Mosaicam; sed strictè, quum sumitur pro Lege Morali abstracte, & seorsim à promissionibus gratiae, quomodo illam intelligebant Justiciarii, qui vitam ex eâ quaerebant. Nam fidem etiam in foedere Sinaitico praeceptam fuisse evincitur, &c. Because it contained Christ the Object of Faith, &c. Because it impelled men to seek Christ by Faith. Because it required that God be worshipped, which he cannot rightly be without Faith. And because Paul describes the Righteousness of Faith in those very words whereby Moses had declared the Precepts of the Law, Deut. 30. 11, 12, 13. Again, the Law in Scripture is taken strictly for the Moral Law only, considered abstractly from the promises of Grace, as the Legal Iusticiaries understood it. These are two far different senses and acceptations of the Law. Your Major Proposition takes the Law in its large complex body, as appears by your 3d page. Your Minor Proposition, which you would confirm by Gal. 3. 12. takes the Law strictly and abstractly, as it is set disjunctly from, yea in opposition to Faith and the Promises, and so there are two sorts of Law in your Argument, and consequently your Argument is fallacious, as all its fellows be, and runs (as I told you before) upon all four.
I hope this may suffice with respect to the Sinai Covenant controverted betwixt me and my Neighbour, to evince that it cannot be what he asserts it to be, even an Adam's Covenant of Works: and that I have discharged what I undertook to prove with respect to this Covenant, namely, That Mr. C. cannot free his Position from the gross Absurdities with which I loaded it, but endeavouring to do that, hath incurred many more: that his Reply hath left my Arguments standing in their full strength against him: and that the Position I have set up against him, is well founded in Scripture; and hath the general concurrence and consent of Learned, Holy and Orthodox Divines.
To conclude, Let the grave and learned Dr. Edw. Reynolds, in his excellent Treatise of the Vse of the Law, determine this Controversy betwixt us, p. 371, &c. where designedly handling this Doctrine from Rom. 7. 13. That the Law was revived and promulgated anew on Mount Sinai by the Ministry of Moses, with no other than Evangelical and merciful purposes, he abundantly confirms my Sense and Arguments, and saves me the labour of refuting the principal, and most of yours: where carrying before him the whole Context of Gal. 3. from the 15th to the 23d, he clearly carries his Doctrine with it, proving from v. 15. That God's Covenant with Abraham was perpetual and immutable, and therefore all other subsequent Acts of God (such as the giving of the Law was) do some way or other refer unto it. (2.) From v. 16.P. 376. he further proves, That as God's Covenant with Abraham is most constant in regard of the wisdom and unvariableness of him that made it; so it can never expire for want of a Seed to whom it is made.P. 377. (3.) From v. 17. he proves, that if another Law be made after the Promise, which prima specie, and in strict construction, doth imply a contradiction to the terms and nature of the former Law; then it is certain, that this latter Law must be understood in some other sense, and admit of some other subordinate use, which may well consist with the being and force of the former Covenant. (4.) From v. 18. he proves, that the coming of the Law hath not voided the Promise, and that the Law is not of force (as you vainly dream) towards the Seed to whom the Promise is made; and therefore if it be not to stand in a contradiction, it follows that it must stand in subordination to the Gospel; and so to tend to Evangelical Purposes. (5.) He further proves his Conclusion from v. 19. which shews for what end the Law was added, foreign. It was not (saith he) set up alone, as a thing in gross by it self; as an adequate, compleat, solid Rule of Righteousness, as it was given to Adam in Paradise: much less was it published to void and disannul any precedent Covenant; but so far was it from abrogating, that it was added to the Promise by way of subserviency, and attendance; the better to advance and make effectual the Covenant it self; and that until the Seed should come, which whether it respect Christ personal, or mystical; in either sense (saith he) it confirms the point we are upon, viz. That the Law hath Evangelical purposes. If the Seed be understood of the Person of Christ, then this shews that the Law was put to the Promise, the better to raise and stir up in men the expectations of Christ, the promised Seed. But if we understand by Seed, the Faithful (which I rather approve);P. 379. then the Apostle's meaning is this; That as long as any are either to come into the unity of Christ's Body, and have the Covenant of Grace applied to them, &c. so long there will be use of the Law, both to the Unregenerate, to make them …ly to Christ, and those that are already called, that they may learn to cast all their faith, hope, and expectation of Righteousness upon him still. This then manifestly shews,P. 380. that there was no other intention in publishing the Law, but with reference to the Seed: that is, with Evangelical purposes to shew mercy: not with reference to those that perish, who would have had condemnation enough without the Law. And further strengthens his Conclusion from the last words of vers. 19. That it was ordained by Angels in the hand of a Mediator. This (saith he) evidently declares, That the Law was published in mercy and pacification, not in fury or revenge; (for the work of a Mediator is to negotiate peace, and treat of reconcilement between Parties offended) whereas, if the Lord had intended death in the publishing of the Law, he would not have proclaimed it in the hand of a Mediator, but of an Executioner. (6.) From vers. 20.P. 381▪ Those words (saith he) shew why the Law was published in the hand of a Mediator, viz. that they should not despair and sink under the fear of his Wrath. For as he made a Covenant of Promise to Abraham, and his Seed; so he is the same God still, one in his grace and mercy towards Sinners. God is one, i. e. in sending this Mediator, he doth declare to Mankind, that he is at peace and unity with them again. Moses was the Representative, and Christ the substantial and real Mediator. God is one, i. e. P. 382.he carries the same purpose and intention both in the Law and in the Gospel;P. 384. namely, benevolence, and desire of reconcilement with men. (7.) To sum up all that hath been spoken touching the use of the Law in a plain similitude; Suppose we a Prince should proclaim a Pardon to all Traitors, if they would come in and plead it; and after this, should send forth his Officers to attach, imprison, examine, convince, arraign, threaten and condemn them: is he now contrary to himself? hath he repented of his Mercy? No, but he is unwilling to lose his Mercy, desirous to have the honour of his Mercy acknowledged unto him. The same is the Case between God and us. To Abraham he made a promise of Mercy and Blessedness to all that would plead interest in it, for the remission of their Sins; but men were secure and heedless of their Estate,P. 385. &c. Hereupon the Lord published by Moses a severe and terrible Law; yet in all this, God doth but pursue his first purpose of mercy, and take a course to make his Gospel accounted worthy of all acceptation; which clears the general point, That God in the publication of the Law by Moses on Mount Sinai, had none but Merciful and Evangelical Intentions. And once more; The Law was not published by Moses on Mount Sinai, as it was given to Adam in Paradise, P. 386.to justify, or to save men. And p. 385. it is not given, ex primari… intentione, to condemn men. In consequence to all which he saith, p. 388, 389. that to preach the Law alone by it self, is to pervert the use of it; neither have we any power or commission so to do. It was published as an Appendant to the Gospel, and so must it be preached. It was published in the hand of a Mediator, and must be preached in the hand of a Mediator. It was published Evangelically, and it must be so preached.
See how this agrees now with p. 173. of your Call, and how the several parts of the discourse of this sound and eminent Doctor (which I have been forced to sum up and contract) do abundantly confute your vain Notions of the Law, and cut the very nerves of your best Arguments, if they had any nerves in them: for indeed it is moles absque nervis:
It were easy for me to represent the Sense of many other eminent Divines in perfect harmony with the Doctrine of this great and excellent Divine, who hath substantially proved the Point I defend against you: but 'tis enough.
II. Let us next examine what execution his Reply hath done upon my second Position, set up in direct opposition to him; namely, That God's Covenant with Abraham,Abraham's Covenant, Gen. 17. the Covenant of Grace. Gen. 17. unto which Circumcision was annexed, is, for its substance, the self-same Covenant of Grace with that which Gentile-believers and their Infant-seed are now under.
Here I have abundant cause again to complain, that Mr. C. hath so formed his Answers, as if he had never read the Book he undertakes a Reply to. And I do verily believe, the greatest part of his Reply was made at random, before ever my printed Book was in his hands. For he hath not at all considered the state of the Question as I there gave it him; nor kept himself to the just and necessary Rules of Disputation, as I earnestly desired he would. However, 'tis not Complaints, but confirmation and vindication of my Arguments, which is my proper work. I shall therefore recite them briefly, and vindicate and confirm them strongly; contracting all into as few words as can express the sense and Argument of the Point before me.