Moses Where the Apostle seems to affirm two things viz. Not only that Spiritual Remission of Sins which the Law granted not at all was Preached through Jesus But that every Believer should be Justified by him from all sins from which no man could so much as carnally be Justified by the Law of Moses Hitherto concerning the first Argument of the Apostle He might have said Hitherto of all that hath any shew that he saith of the Apostle's meaning And I will add hitherto I have translated him since I begun with his Argument almost at least verbatim But in going forward will bind my self to do it no further since this first Argument is all the Arguments he brings that can with any fairness be pretended to be the Apostle's Argument to exclude Justification by the Law and works of the Law I will relate the substance of his other Arguments which is all he pretends to be the Apostle's and the relating and expatiating upon which takes up the rest of his Book almost wholly I will also relate all such Passages as have any considerable shew to support his Exposition of the Apostles words in such places as this Book is Written to Reconcile to Saint James The other Argument of the Apostle which equally hath respect to the whole Law whereby the Apostle clearly proves the Impossibility of Justification by the Mosaic-Law is taken from another defect of this Covenant from the defect of Helping or Auxiliary Grace even as the Old Law indulged no full and perfect pardon to past sins so neither did it supply sufficient aid for the avoiding of Future sins The Apostle is much in this Argument shewing the Law was very Infirm in it self and plainly destitute of strength whereby miserable men might be drawn from the dominion of sin and from an inveterate Custom of sinning to true and saving Righteousness or Holiness First This Argument from a disability of the Law to sanctifie men suppose it true which is indeed true of the Law as the Common-wealth-Law but not when the Law is used in the sense wherein it was the Gospel or Law of Grace for then this Disability can only be affirmed at the most comparatively to this clear Dispensation since Christ and consequently that Sanctification must be by some Grace and Favour of the Spirit would by no means prove Justification to be of Gospel Grace or Favour or by Pardon For suppose that God should by his Spirit take some effectual course to preserve a man wholly free from sin this Sanctification of a man would be free and of Grace and Favour but not his Justification but that would be of Works and the Law in the strictest sense of it so as not to be of the Gospel or of Mercy and Pardon The Sanctification of the humane Nature of Christ was of Grace and Favour and by special Dispensation but his Justification was of Debt by the Law and of Justice in the strictest sense and not of Grace or Mercy or Pardon or by Imputation of Righteousness to one unrighteous Secondly The Apostle doth not anywhere to my remembrance though it may have a true meaning in a very remote sense much less in any of the places propounded to be reconciled to St. James make use of this Argument That Sanctification is of Grace and Mercy therefore Justification is so and not of Works or Debt So that whether it be a good Argument or no it is not the Apostle's Argument Thirdly The Author seems now in the prosecution of this Argument not to keep Justification or Sanctification or the grace and favour of Justification and Sanctification distinct as he hath done hitherto one being the working a real change I mean real in opposition to a Law or relative change in the Soul and consisting in the favour of Converting a man The other being a Law-Act and consisting in acquitting or absolving a man from an Accusation He seems to forget that he had pag. 8 9. well and convincingly confuted the Opinion of Grotius who herein Symbolizing with the Papists affirm's that the Apostle Paul by Justification means not in a Law-sense absolution from sin but Sanctification or Purging from Vices whereas there is not one place where the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to justifie is used where it so signifies except Rev. 22. 11. He that is righteous 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 let him be further justified still And concerning this place the Author saith it is probable and it is also affirmed by Grotius himself that it should be there read according to some antient Manuscripts 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 let him do righteousness still Now as I said this Author seems to forget this in the whole prosecution of this Argument as for Example when pag. 253. he will have the meaning of those words Tit. 3. v. 7. That being justified freely by his Grace to be that being enabled by the Grace of the Holy Ghost to do those things to which Justification is promised Which is in effect to say being justified by the Grace of Sanctification or being justified by the gracious operation of the Holy Ghost in Sanctifying Which also is an Interpretation alien from the meaning of those words The meaning whereof is as may appear to any perusing the words foregoing That having the Gospel-condition wrought in us by the operation of the Holy Ghost being Regenerated we might be justified by his Grace that is by his Grace in Pardoning not by the gracious Operation of the Spirit in Sanctifying For though the Grace and Favour of Sanctifying be ascribed frequently to the Spirit as it 's peculiar operation yet not the grace and favour of Justification but is peculiarly ascribed to God the Father as Judg and Rector being a Law-Act It is GOD that justifieth who is he that condemneth The Law had a defect of strength to Sanctifie men Why Because it wanted External help necessary to work true Sanctification and Internal help necessary to work true Sanctification It wanted an External help necessary to work true Sanctification viz. it wanted a promise of Eternal life to encourage men to obey it It wanted an Internal help necessary to work Sanctification because it wanted the Gift of the Holy Ghost First As to the first It wanted this External help to work true Sanctification in that the Promises and Threatnings of this Law wherein the strength of every Law lies were only Temporal and Earthly and men might easily contemn these Those Earthly good things would not much move the mind of an intelligent man Yea the Law of Moses upon that account that it contained only Earthly Promises and Threats was in it's own Nature apt to beget in men a base and sordid Temper yea a Temper plainly alien from true Piety The chief parts of Piety are the denying of self bearing the Cross dayly Prayer Meditation on the Life-to-come and a moderate and a sober use of the good things of this Life But how could it be that
AN ENDEAVOUR TO RECTIFIE SOME PREVAILING OPINIONS Contrary to the Doctrine of The Church of England By the Author of The Great Propitiation And A Discourse of Natural and Moral-Impotency LONDON Printed by T. M. for Robert Clavel in Cross-Keys Court in Little-Brittain 1671. THE Author to the Reader I Published about two Years since some Sermons called The Great Propitiation and thereto Added a short Discourse concerning the Apostle Paul's meaning by Justification by Faith without Works About half a Year after there came forth a Learned Book called Harmonia Apostolica written by Mr. George Bull which quite crossing the Interpretation I had given of Saint Paul I was Occasioned by some Occurrences which it concerns not the Reader to know to Write the substance of these Reflections upon it which were Written within less than three Months after it's coming forth without any Design of Printing them And since I had Written this there is Published a Discourse of Mr. Charles Gataker Thomae 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Filii wherein he signifying his dislike of Mr. Bull 's Propounds a third way to Reconcile the Apostles Paul and James What my thoughts are of Mr. Bull 's way you will here see I think he hath in the main spoken right concerning the sense of Saint James But I think Mr. Gataker hath given the right Interpretation of neither and judg that I have said enough in my Book fore-mentioned to make it appear and so hath Mr. Bull in his I grant and lament it that many Important Doctrines of the Reformed Churches are frequently by too many grosly Explained so as to have ill Consequences following from them which if rightly Explained would be found not to Patronize but to disown such Consequences And hence many Learned men seeing the Intolerableness of such consequent Opinions and not being able to Extricate themselves deny Important truths and maintain such Opinions as these following which are the Foundation of the greatest part of Mr. Bull 's Book opposed and would make an intolerable change in the very substance of the Body of Divinity viz. First That there is no Law that threatens Future-death or promised Future-happiness but the Gospel or Law of Grace Secondly That the Jewish Law or Law of Moses had only Temporal Promises and Threats and required only External Obedience Which yet you will see I grant in one Limitted sense of it to be true Thirdly That no Law of God whatsoever requires perfect Obedience and so no man is bound to live perfectly or free from sin Fourthly And that for this Reason because no man is bound to do what he cannot do Which Reason is only true in a sense nothing to the purpose but it is dangerously false to deny a man is bound to do what he cannot do in another sense viz. Upon the account of his Morally insuperable wickedness as I have else-where at large shewed Fifthly That for any Evidence we have from Scripture to the contrary men after Conversion or after the receiving of the Gospel do live perfectly or without sin or do as much as any Law of God requires from them Sixthly That the effect of the Grace of the Spirit is something that if denied to men enjoying the Gospel they would be excusable or blameless in not obeying the Gospel Also These following Expositions would alter the very substance of the sense of most Important parts of Scripture First That the Apostle Paul doth not dispute against Justification by perfect Obedience to the Law as being impossible to man in this Life Secondly That our Lord in the 5th of Matthew doth not vindicate the Law from corrupt Interpretations but adds to it making that the meaning of it that never was so before Take notice I charge not this last mentioned Exposition as maintained by Mr. Bull though it be by many others and though it must follow by consequence if what he maintains be true viz. That Moses's Law had no Internal Precepts I judg what I have here written may be of use for the clearing of those in Dispute and many other passages of Scripture and for the Confutation of many dangerous Opinions or I should not have permitted it's Publication I shall not here needlesly use Protestations concerning my Fidelity in representing by a Translation Mr. Bull 's Discourse since it is commonly accounted a sign of Guilt to cleer one's self before accused If any should suspect me of Disingenuity herein let me desire them to read the passages here replyed to out of Mr. Bull 's Book it self And to encourage so far as my word will pass them that have it not to procure it I shall say that much of it is well worth Reading and that I am far from passing that censure on the rest of the Book which I do on the parts here replied to May but what is here written be so read and considered without prejudice and passion which may well be expected from ingenuous Lovers of Truth that it may have free Influence upon mens understandings according to the evidence it brings I shall not much doubt of it's good success in composing many differences in Opinion Which is the Prayer of the Author ERRATA PAge 27. Line 17. Read so speak Marg. r. Heavenly p. 34. l. 16. after here r. in p. 67. l. 23. instead of also r at Sinai p. 75. l. 17. after fatuus r. of a new Covenant p. 90. l. 5. for was r. as l. 6. r. on us p. 108. l. 25. after ask r. as I would ask p. 125. l. 20. for Arguments r. Argument p. 168. l. penult r. exiguum p. 171. l. marg 20. r. Adulterio p. 208. l. 15 for to r. do An endeavour to Rectifie some prevailing Opinions THe Learned Author's design is very commendable viz. To reconcile such seemingly contrary Expressions of the Apostle Paul and James as these You see therefore that a man is justified by Works and not by Faith only Jam. 2. 24. We conclude therefore that a man is justified by Faith without the works of the Law Rom. 3. 28. which Scriptures he sets down before his discourse as the Chief or Examplaâ—s of the chief Places he designs to reconcile He divides his whole Discourse into two Dissertations The first whereof is about the meaning of the Apostle James in such Expressions as that cited and is so short as not to take up a fifth part of the Book The second about the sense of the Apostle Paul in his seemingly contrary Affirmations taking up all the rest of the Book His whole first Dissertation concerning the sense of the Apostle James in affirming Justification by Works as a condition is Acute Solid and Cogent yea and so is all generally in his second Dissertation to the 5th Chap. and part of it he spending those Chapters in discovering the weakness and falsehood of the attempts of many designing to reconcile such places and in proving the Apostle Paul means not one single virtue by Faith but the whole
Pâ—scaâ—or interpreting the words beside the Covenant thus Praeter actionem illam qua foedus fuit pactum which can mean nothing but the peoples Engagement which actual promise of the people the Lord commanded Moses to make with the children of Israel that is which the Lord commanded Moses to cause the children of Israel to make for so this phrase and word is expresly used Josh 24. 25. Joshuah made a Covenant with the people that day that is caused the people to promise obedience to the Lords Commands that day The like sense the word hath so far as concerns the Covenanting of the people 2 Kings 11. 17. in the Land of Moab beside the Covenant that is beside their actual promising which Moses made with them that is caused them to make at Horeb or Sinai But suppose this Verse should have reference only to the following Verses in this Chapter and the following his meaning can only be These are the words whereby he engaged the people in a Covenant distinct from the words whereby Moses engaged them in a Covenant to the Lord formerly We find Joshuah a little before his death again engaging the people in a Covenant to obey Gods Commandments and useth Words and Exhortations different from these in this Chapter in engaging them Suppose we had read such words as these viz. These are the words of the Covenant which Joshuah made with the people besides the Covenant which Moses made with them at Mount Sinai and in the Land of Moab This might import that it was a distinct Engaging of the people from the other two but not that it was another Covenant of God having other Promises and Commands and Threats We find the people in Nehemiah's time Nehem. 10. 29. entering into a Covenant But it was into the Mount Sinai-Covenant It was to walk in God's Law which was given by Moses and we may see there it was also to observe Ceremonial and Judicial commands It seems they had not observed this New-covenant of this Authors in these two Chapters of Deuteronomy Object But may not this whole Book of Deuteronomy being spoken in the Land of Moab comprehend a new Gospel-Covenant distinct from the Old at Sinai and so that be serviceable to reconcile those passages of the Apostle Paul in dispute the Author's way Answ No For the Apostle Paul cites Gal. 3. two Passages out of this Book for words of the Law And again There are by far more Promises and Threatnings in this Book expressed in a Carnal Temporal and Terrence stile than in all the Law of Moses beside in Exodus Leviti Numb I am sensible this Ignis fatuus hath led me out of my designed way for I designed here only to bring in those Passages together without any reflection upon them where the Author tells us what he supposes the Apostle Paul means by the Law which he disputes against Justification by and by the Works of even a Law that either hath or at least in the sense the Apostle opposeth Justification by it hath neither Spiritual-promises nor Threatnings nor Precepts There is only one place more and that is pag. 122 123. where he explains the Apostle's meaning by the Law but because I have been long in Reciting these and that wâ—ll methodically be brought in in another place I shall bring it in there and so shall return now to the place where I left off viz. At the end of pag. 102. and shall begin at the top of pag. 103. where he tells us The Apostle useth two Arguments against Justification by Works which two Arguments this Author only prosecutes and so largely that the Setting down and Proving and Explaining these takes up almost two third parts of his whole Book Take his own words Pag 103. The Arguments whereby Paul opposes the Law may be divided into two sorts one into those which belong to the whole Mosaic-Covenant the other into those Arguments which chiefly respect the Ceremonial Law This latter sort of Arguments which chiefly respect the Ceremonial-Law he leaves till near the end of his Book and then spends but few Lines about them as not being as he saith controverted by Christians The Arguments of this first sort whereby the Apostle fights are especially two and those are taken from a double defect of the Mosaic-Covenant viz. From the want both of pardoning Grace and of helping Grace The first Argument of the Apostle respecting the Mosaic-Covenant is drawn from the defect of Pardoning-grace or Remission of sins which that Covenant wanted Where the Apostle shews the Universal guilt as well of the Jews as of the Gentiles and that all are guilty of those sins that there is no true and perfect Remission to be hoped for by this Law It is clear that this is the scope of Paul in the third Chapter of the Epistle to the Romans For there after a long Catalogue of sins charged both on the Jews and Gentiles by the Law v. 10. c. At length ver 20. he inferrs this conclusion Wherefore by the works of the Law shall no flesh be justified in his sight viz. in the sight of God And also the things which the Apostle disputes in the 3d. Chap. of Gal. are to be referred the same way where he proves also by this Reason That all who are under the Law are under a Curse because it is written Cursed is every one that shall not continue in all things written in the Law to do them v. 10. But here I am sensible that upon the very Threshold I am cast upon a great difficulty For it may be doubted here whether this Argumentation of the Apostle doth not lean upon this Foundation that he determines The Mosaic-Law as it was given to the Jews was a Law requiring Obedience wholly perfect and so impossible to be performed and also whether the Apostle conclude that upon this account all men are sinners by this Law and by and for their sins guilty of eternal Death and Malediction and so that no man can be Justified by this Law Thus indeed the most think affirming that the Law of Moses did oblige if not absolutely yet †Conditionally is no good word here For though we may properly say Men shall perish for their sins conditionally except they repent for this is no more than to say the Law that threatens death absolutely shall be executed except they repent yet we must not say that the Law threatens death conditionally except they repent but we must hold it threatens death absolutely repent or repent not and that the Gospel is a distinct Law a Remedying-Law For if God threatned death by the Law only conditionally except they perform the Gospel-condition it would follow that no man is pardoned that performs the Gospel condition it would also quite destroy Christs Satisfaction Though I know many mean well that use such speeches and however far better than the Author that denies any such Law-threat either absolute or conditional conditionally
Pardon as to Conscience and Future happiness upon repentance and sincere Obedience but the Jewish political Law And it is a palpable mistake though common to say otherwise Secondly The Reply That God intended Life and Death eternal by the words used in the promises and threats but the people could not so understand them though they used their utmost integrity and diligence Is already confuted For then they would have been excusable and it would not have been said they have Moses and the Prophets let them hear them c. And I have made it apparent the people did so understand them Thirdly It is irrational to reply as some We grant the ancient Jews did believe God would give Eternal life to the obedient but God never promised it to them Thus Socinus For first Then they were to blame to believe it if God never made any Notification of his Will that it should be so It was then an Irrational foolish act for them when tortured not to accept deliverance that they might obtain a better Resurrection Heb. 11. 35. Secondly We read they believed and embraced the Promises of Future-life happiness So that they had such Promises Heb. 11. and there was no more in their Faith than in the Divine promise no more in their Subjective than in their Objective faith than in the Revelation Thirdly This is to affirm that if they did well in thus believing That they gave God what was none of his own gave to God what they had no power or ability from him to do in believing what God never said and hoping for what God had never promised This would be To Supererogate in Faith and Hope if it was but well done of them But to avoid such Supererogation we must say that such doing would not have been acceptable to God but a foolish sinful irrational act As it would be in a man now to believe and hope that if he serve God here he shall have a fair House built in the Moon to dwell in for ever when God hath made no Revelation or Promise of any such thing Fourthly The most rational and probable reply possible of them that deny Life-to-come Promises in the Old Testament-Writings would be this though apparently false and I know not of any that use it That the Jews before Christ had such Promises of Future-life happiness and so were obliged to Piety but they were revealed only by the light of Nature and Providence and not in the Scriptures And that the Jews erred in looking for Eternal life from the Scriptures For the Old Testament Scriptures were only written for the Common-wealth Temporal-Law and to typifie Soul and Conscience-concernments but did not so far intermedle with Conscience-concernments as to threaten Future misery to any sin or to promise Eternal or Future happiness on any Terms whatsoever But 1. I have proved they had such Promises in the Scriptures 2. They had need of their Reason and Faculties and of the Light and Law of Nature and of all helps they had to understand these things in their Scripture as we have also yet to understand the Writings both of the Old and New Testament 3 I do hold and could prove it apparently from the Scripture That there were and are some discoveries by the Light of Nature and Works of Providence not only of the strict Original-law making Future misery due to every sin and Future happiness to perfect Obedience But also of the Gospel or Law of Grace viz. that God was placable and that there was place for Repentance and that God would receive sinners to Future favour and happiness by pardoning their sins upon Repentance and sincere Obedience It is apparent The Heathens did ordinarily maintain this and without doubt it was not their Errour And this they might gather from their beholding the present goodness of God to them notwithstanding their incorrigibleness in great sins in giving them Rain and fruitful Seasons and filling their Hearts with Food and Gladness Yea they had so much Light as to make them Inexcusable and Condemnable in not Repenting which could not be if there was no Notification of his Will to receive them to Future-life favour upon Repentance but rather as some hold were bound to believe that there was no forgiveness with him no Future reward or happiness Notified by such goodness of God in his Providence to men that were sinners and did need Repentance Though I think the Scripture offers us ground to believe That this way of Revelation enough for their Condemnation did not yet through their own wickedness effectually prevail to turn any man throughly from sin to God or to cause such Repentance to Life as in its own Nature it dictated any man I mean that had no more or further Revelation from God Now if they had such Discoveries these are as properly Promises of a Future-life and threatnings of Future-death as those written Fourthly It is apparent that there was more cleer and convincing Discoveries of Future-life happiness to the Obedient and miseries to the Disobedient in the Old Testament-Scriptures than in the Law of Nature and Book of Providence The Law was given that the Offence might abound and doth not only discover Duties and Sins known by the light of Nature more cleerly but the great danger of sin and happiness that comes by obedience more convincingly yea this discovers the Future-life happiness so much the more cleerly that the Discoveries made to the Heathen of this was no discovery comparatively which is implied at least in those words Aliens from the Covenants of Promise without hope And those words they have Moses and the Prophets c. teach us that there they were taught Future misery due to sinners and Future happiness to the Obedient as convincingly as if one rose from the dead to tell them of them The Apostle Paul also speaketh of the written Law and therefore of the Old Testament-Law as the norma judicii as the rule of the Future judgment to them that lived under it Rom. 2. 12. As many as have sinned without Law meaning written Law shall perish without Law And as many as have sinned in the Law shall be judged by the Law viz. at the Future judgment as appears by the following words Judged that is Justified or Condemned at the last day by the Law which could not be if the Law promised no Future-life or threatned no Future-death Also by the Law he means the Law of Moses as appears by the following words ver 17. Thou art called a Jew and restest in the Law and by the words until the Law And until Moses being used as equivalent terms by this Apostle Rom. 5. 13 14. compared Fifthly It would be in vain for any to reply here as the Author of the Book called Friendly Debate doth who having said Part 1. pag. 26. That the difference between the two Covenants is this That the old Covenant made with the Jews had Temporal promises But the Gospel Eternal
Gospel-condition the whole duty required for Salvation or the obedience of Faith And I judg thus much of it which is near one third part of the Book highly worth the Reading of any that have any other apprehensions of the meaning of James or that are not satisfied that the Apostle Paul by Faith means the whole necessary duty of a Christian But * Quantum mutatus ab illo Hectore qui redit exuvias indutus Achillis now when he begins at the 6th Chapter of the second Dissertation to tell positively what the Apostle Paul means by excluding Works of the Law from Justification and what he means by Works and by the Law The sense he fastens on the Apostle is quite remote from his meaning and would not only make the whole discourse of the Apostle about denying Justification by works a vain useless Speculation but also would bring in such intolerable Opinions as these following at least by evident consequence viz. First That no man sins while he lives a truly Christian life sincerely obedient to the Law and so needeth no pardon or Christ's satisfaction for such failings as are consistent with true Christianity Secondly That there is no such thing as pardon of sin possible as to Eternal punishment or punishment after this Life neither did Christ satisfie for the breach of any Law as to any Eternal punishment or punishment after this Life but onely for Temporal Not that I affirm that the Author holds this Opinion for it is apparent he holds the contrary but this follows by undeniable consequence from his discourse though he see it not but will deny this consequence Thirdly That there is no possible Argument against Popish perfection or meriting so far as to need no pardon from those passages in Pauls Epistles that deny Justification by Works but meerly such a vain useless Speculation as this That good Works done without knowledg of or respect to a future recompence of reward do not merit and works done by one that hath in no sense any ability to do them do not merit These four things following seem apparently to be the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the first great Mistakes and the occasion of all his * Yea these also seem to be the causes of the mistakes of many other very learned Authoâ—s much of his Judgment in the paâ—ticulars here endeavoured to be Rectified other mistakes of the Apostle Pauls sense in denying Justification by Works 1. His denying that there is any such thing as any Law of God setting the Gospel it self aside made with Mankind to this Tenour or Purport That he that doth not every thing that God requires of him whatsoever whether by the Light of Nature or the Writings of the Old and New Testament shall be subject to Eternal misery or misery after this Life and if men do all that God requires of them by any way making his will known they shall be eternally Happy or Happy after this Life but he thinks There is no Law of God that threatens future misery or promises future happiness but only the Gospel it self which is reveaed in the Old and New Testament And that any Law threatning future misery I mean after this Life or promising future Happiness is the Gospel it self whereby men alwayes were and are justified and saved Now to prove against this and that we must hold a Law threatning future and Eternal misery to all sinners and that all are condemned and none justified by this Law and that this Law is distinct and quite different from the Gospel let these things be considered 1. If there be no Law distinct from the Gospel threatning future misery or misery after this Life then Christ never satisfied for the future misery that was threatned to any never died to free any from the wrath to come from the eternal or future Curse of any such Law but only from a temporal Curse or Curse of this Life The consequence is apparent because he knows not what he says that should affirm that Christ was made under the Gospel to free us from the Curse of the Gospel for the Gospel either threatens nothing as many hold but I judg them to err or which is apparent it threatens nothing except to them that perform not its condition viz. To them that Believe not and Repent not in this Life and it is certain Christ died not to Redeem finally Impenitent Unbelievers Christ's Satisfaction was made to the Law and not to the Gospel to free them that perform not the condition of the Law viz. perfect Obedience but not to free them that perform not the condition of the Gospel There was indeed a satisfaction made to the Law that God might with Justice and Honour with safety to the Law make this Act of Oblivion this Law of Grace the Gospel Therefore surely that first Original-Law did threaten eternal death to sinners and not meerly Temporal punishment else there cannot possibly be any satisfaction for sin as to Eternal punishment at all because the first Law to which the satisfaction was made did not threaten it Suppose a Law in force that every Felon shall be sold to work in the Galleys and the King's Son paid a great price and by this obtained of the King this conditional Act of Oblivion to be made that if such Offenders will serve his Son in the Wars they should be Acquitted but if they shrink from such Service they shall die Here indeed was a price paid to free them from being Gally-slaves but none paid to free them from Death because the first Original Law that was transgressed by their Felony did not threaten Death but only Slavery And you cannot say that the price was paid to free them from the Penalty of the Law of Grace or Act of Oblivion which doth threaten Death but the satisfaction was made to the first Law only though indeed the Act of Oblivion or Remedying Law was made upon the account of the price paid in satisfaction for the breach of the first Law 2. If there be no Law threatning wrath to come or future misery but only the Gospel it self then no man can be pardoned or can need pardon by the Gospel or the Bloud of Christ as to the wrath to come for the Gospel affords no pardon to its transgressors that is to men continuing to death in Impenitency and Unbelief The Gospel indeed affords pardon to transgressors of the Law yea and to transgressors of the Commands of the New Testament so far as they are transgressions of the Law and threatned by that general Law Cursed is he that doth not all any way revealed to be his duty provided they perform the Gospel-conditions but the Gospel affords no pardon at all to them that fall under its curse by not performing the Gospel-condition Suppose a Law made threatning every Felon with Death and suppose a conditional Act of Oblivion or Remedying Law made that if the Felon read he shall not die