If Christ himself were the angel by whom the laws were delivered to Moses, which are there called the lively oracles of' God ; then the law cannot be a pure Adam's covenant of works : for it is never to be imagined that ever Jesus Christ himself should deliver to Moses such a covenant, directly opposite to all the ends of his future in- carnation.
But it is more than probable, from that text, that it was Christ which delivered the law to Moses on the mount. Ergo.
To this argument he saith not one word, in p. 49. of his reply, where he cites a part of it, nibbling a little at that expression, [The lively oracles of' God,'\ thinking it unimaginable the Sinai law should be such; when as the apostle Paul, Rom. vii. 10. found the com- mandment to be unto death ; and the apostle, 2 Cor. iii. 6, 7. calls it a mhust7'ation of death. I must therefore leave Mr. C. to recon- cile those two scriptures. And withal, I must tell him, that Spanhemius * gives the same sense I do of Acts vii. 38. as the cur- rent judgment of Christians against the Jews, that it was not a created angel, but Christ himself
Jrg. 4. The last argument I urged, was from Rom. ix. 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 numbered among the chief privi- leges in which God's Israel gloried.
But the law given at Sinai was numbered among their chief pri~= vileges, Rom. ix. 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 failure, 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 numbered 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 pri- vilege 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 administered. And in this judgment most of our solid divines concur. Mr. Char-
* Fran. SpauLem. Elench, Coutrov. p. 552.
VINDICIARUM VINDEX. 50$
nock on the Attrihites, p. 390. is clear and judicious in the point. * 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, f Mr. Anth. Bur- gess gives us six arguments to prove the same conclusion. \ Mr. Greenhill on Ezek. xvi. gives us demonstration from that context, that since it was a marriage-covenant, as it appears to be ver. 8. it cannot possibly be a distinct covenant from the covenant of grace. The incomparable § Turrettine, learnedly and judiciously states this controversy ; and both positively asserts, and by many arguments fully provos, that the Sinai law cannot be a pure covenant of works, or a covenant specifically distinct from the covenant of grace. It were easy to fill pages with allegations of this kind ; but I hope what hath been said, may suffice for this point.
But still Mr. Gary complains, that I have all this while but threatened his arguments to prove them fallacious, or to have four terms in them ; and therefore he hath drawn out some select ar- guments, 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 imper- tinent 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 \ery same for substance with that made with Adam.
But the scripture is express, that the law is not of faith, Gal. iii. 12. Ergo.
The law is considered two ways in scripture. (1.) Largely, for the whole Momical 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, part sccoiid^ p. 292, 293. Because it contained Christ the object of faith, &c. Because it compelled men to seek Christ by faith. Because it re- quired that God be worshipped, which he cannot rightly be with-
* Bolton's Bounds, p. 130, ^c.
f Burgess, de Lege, p. 225.
j: Greenhill, in Loc.
§ Turrettine, part ?. p. 288, 289.
11 The law is said not to be of faith, Gal. iii. 12. Not as it is taken in a large f;ense, to denote the IMosaic Occonomy, but strictly, as when it is taken for the moral law abstractly, and separate from the promises of grace ; as the self-justiciai les ch'J understand it who souglit life from it; for it is proved that faith was also commanded in the Sinaitic covenant, &c.
510 VINDICIARUM VIKDKX.
out faith. And because Paul describes the righteousness of faith in those very words whereby Moses had declared the precepts of the law, Deut. xxx. 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 justiciaries 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 con- firm by Gal. iii. 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 consequent- ly 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, con- troverted 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.