Scriptural in the words and phrases of Scripture which is that the first Covenant the old Covenant or Testament is God's Covenant with the Jews by Moses the new Covenant is that made with the faithful by Christ and what others aim at in that other way of stating the Covenants may be attained without that confusion which they make Having made two as fair Concessions as the objectors can desire A. 2. I come now to the determination of the question or repelling the Objection after I have minded you of a distinction of the Law which I lately gave and it was this That sometimes the Law is taken strictly for the bare command with the threatning annexed to the breach of it and the promise of life upon the strict obeence of it So it is in Gal. 3.10 sometimes it is taken for the whole Old-Testament as Rom. 3.19 where the Psalms of David are made a part of the law sometimes taken for the five Books of Moses as in Luke 24.44 where the Old-Testament is divided into these three parts The Law of Moses the Prophets and the Psalms Now I answer Take the Law in the first sence for a Covenant of Works strictly and so it was not given for a Covenant to the Jews for then it must have come in against the promises or the Covenant of God in Christ that was made before But take it in the second or third sense either for the whole Old-Testament as we call the Writings of the holy men of God till our Saviours time or for the five Books of Moses the dispensation by Moses from the Mount and this I confess was a Covenant to them but then it was a Covenant of Grace and indeed contained in it all the promises that were given before it that traditional Gospel which Abraham and the holy Patriarchs before him were saved by is inserted in the Law of Moses else it had been a vain thing for the Apostle Paul to have undertaken to prove Justification by Faith out of the Old-Testament yea out of the Law of Moses for as a man cannot bring a clean thing out of an unclean so neither can he bring Gospel out of pure Law if therefore the Law of Moses had not been a Covenant of Grace the Apostle could never have proved Justification by faith out of it which yet he doth not onely by strained consequences but as there professedly Abraham believed God saith he and it was imputed to him for righteousness they therefore which are of Faith are blessed and justified with faithful Abraham Galathians 3. ver 6 7 9. which is as fair an Enthymema as can be and every Sophister can supply the Proposition that is wanting St. Paul proves Justification by Faith by two great Arguments out of Genesis the first Book of Moses viz by Abraham's Justification and the Allegory of Hagar and Sarah which I explained and urged before Nay the Apostle makes a great affirmation indeed which is this that even Moses himself the great Law-Covenant Mediator doth in his Writings give a clear distinction of the two Covenants of Works and Grace shews us the tenour of one Covenant and another When he had produced the Allegory of Hagar and Sarah out of Genesis saith he Alas Moses in this Story gives you Allegorically the two Covenants Gal. 4 21. to the 24. But the chief place for proof of what I have said is Rom. 10.5 6. for Moses describeth the righteousness which is of the Law That the man which doth these things shall live by them Lev. 18.5 But the righteousness which is of Faith speaketh on this wise Say not in thine heart who shall ascend up into Heaven c. and so goes on in the words of Moses Deut. 30.12 13 14. Here we see Moses in his Writings delineates and describes the two ways of Works and Grace of the Law and Faith and it is proved out of the same â—oses that the Law is no way to justifie sinners Now I shall but draw out the Apostles Argument which I suppose to be this Moses describes two ways of Justification that by the Law and that by Faith that by the Law Moses tells you is no way for sinners because you must continue in all things or you are accursed therefore certainly he described the way of Faith too that ye might betake your selves unto it for justification and life therefore the Law take it either for the whole Old-Testament or for the Dispensation by Moses and it was a Covenant indeed with the Jews but it was a Covenant of Grace for in it Moses describeth the way of Grace that his Disciples might adhere unto it But here you will object still Well 3 Object if Moses his Dispensation or Covenant which he was the Mediator of was a Covenant of Grace and not of Works for Justification why is it called a killing Letter a Ministration of Death a Ministration of Condemnation as it is 2 Cor 3.6 7 9. Why is the Lord said to find fault with it and so to abrogate it and make a new Covenant Heb. 8 7 8. By this it should seem to be a Covenant of Works for else God would not have found fault with a Covenant of Grace nor abrogated it To this I answer 1. Here observe That this 〈◊〉 no Jewish Argument for they would not acknowledge that their Law is a ministration of death whilest they seek life by it nor yet a ministration of condemnation whilst they seek justification by the righteousness of it but it is a cavil or objection against the Apostle Paul who calls the Law a ministration of death and condemnation and yet acknowledgeth that it was the Jews covenant and that Moses in it describeth the righteousness of Faith 2dly I answer That these two are very consistent it might prove a ministration of death to them and yet be a way of grace and life in it self so is the plainest Gospel in the World a savour of death unto the disobedient and unbelievers that yet is certainly in the great intendment of it a way of grace and life 3dly The Law proved a ministration of death to many of them because they mistook it for a covenant of works though it were not given with that intention they did not see the Grace that was contained in it There was a vail upon their heart and is to this day upon the hearts of many of the Jews their minds were blinded so that the Children of Israel could not stedfastly look to the end of that which is alolished they could not see Christ the end of the Law 2 Cor. 3.13 14 15. 4thly There is thus much indeed to be said concerning the dispensation it self that it was dark and obscure the children of Israel had not onely blinded eyes and a vailed heart but Moses had also a Vail upon his face ver 13. which was one reason they could not see that Grace which was in his Dispensation Moses had a vail over
is every one that continueth not in all things that are written in the Book of the Law to do them Gal. 3.10 2dly The Law is taken in a sence all as large as this is strict and that is for the whole Old-Testament So it is likewise taken in several Scriptures Gal. 4.21 Tell me ye that desire to be under the Law do ye not hear the Law For it is written that Abraham had two sons c. where the whole Book of Genesis is made a part of the Law again in Rom. 3. the Apostle makes the Psalms a part of the Law where having quoted a great part of the 14. Psalm in the 19. ver saith he Now we know that whatsoever things the Law saith c. and so in other Scriptures Now to apply the distinction in answer to the last query The Law strictly taken for a Covenant of Works did only teach Christ virtually and by consequence as it taught them that they could not be justified by its righteousness and thus for ought I know the Law in its accusations taught Christ to the Gentiles as it convinced them of the insufficiency of their own righteousness But now the Law in the second sense as taken for the Scriptures of the Old Testament taught Christ formally and directly though more obscurely then the Gospel teacheth him viz. in Types and Prophecies it were endless to reckon up all the Types Promises and Prophesies of Christ that are in the Old-Testament This way indeed the Law could not teach Christ unto the Gentiles who had not the Scriptures of the Old-Testament It is now high time and yet in this place seasonable enough to answer some other parts of the objection which I proposed at large some pages since which pleads for the Law its being a way of Justification unto the Jews at least before the coming of Christ if not to us now and something of that which remains yet unanswered Obj. 2. The Law was given to the Iews as their covnant is this If the Law was not given to be a way of Justification why is it called a Covenant the Old-Testament or Covenant 2 Cor. 3.14 and the first Covenant Heb. 7.8 expresly said to be made with the Children of Israel when the Lord took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Aegypt For whatever you have argued about Adam's estate of innocency that God made a Covenant of Works with him and that if he would he might have been justified by Works by the Law that since him all men have sinned and the Law was no way of Justification to them Whatever you have argued to this purpose say the objectors yet we find not that the Law was given to Adam but onely to the children of Israel by Moses and given to them as a Covenant therefore called the old Covenant or first Covenant in Heb. 8. out of Jer. 31.31 32.33 34. Therefore it was given them as a way of Justification for certainly the Justification that they were to seeke of God they were to seek in the way of a Covenant therefore in the way of the Law which was their Covenant To this I answer some things by way of concession A. 1. By way of concession in two particulars afterwards some things more concluding And first of all I grant that the Law is no where to my remembrance said to be given to Adam but onely to the children of Israel I am sure usually when mention is made of the giving of the law Where the law is said to be given it is to the children of Israel not to Adam Yet Adam had the Law and it was a Covenant of works to him 1. He had the Law it is likewise noted in the same place as given to the children of Israel by Moses so 2 Cor. 3 7. Heb. 8.9 1 Joh. 17. For the Law was given by Moses Gal. 3.19 Wherefore then serveth the Law It was added because of transgressions and it was ordained by Angels upon Mount Sinai in the hands of a Mediator viz. Moses Though when I make this concession that the Law is not said to be given to Adam but to the children of Israel by Moses I still think it may be easily collected from the Scriptures that Adam had the Law too and that it was to him a Covenant of Works 1. That he had the Law for 1. if Adam as a creature had not the Law written in his heart how came the Gentiles who had not the Law given them by Moses to have it written in their hearts 2. Else as I urged it before it had been no sin for man in innocency to have killed whom he pleased to have lyed forsworn himself to have defiled his own body by Adultery or other uncleanness for where there is no Law there is no transgression 3. If Adam had not the Law before his fall how came he to have it written in his heart presently after as it is certain he had for all other men have it so written and I cannot think that Adam alone wanted this excellency of all mankind neither do I think that he got this advantage by his fall to have the effect of the Law written in his heart which he had not written there before therefore he had it written in his heart before the Fall 2 It was to him a Covenant of works 2. It was a Covenant of Works to Adam in innocency For Adam then had no need of Grace or Pardon before his fall and I have proved that the Law is in its own nature a Covenant of Works and Adam had the Law therefore it was a Covenant of Works to Adam I deny not but Adam might have some positive Laws in his Covenant of Works as we find one viz. that of the forbidden fruit My second Concession is this That the Law was given to the Jews as a Covenant 2d Concession and where-ever mention is made of the Old-Covenant or First Covenant the parties covenanted withall are the people of the Jews So it is in 2 Cor. 3.6.14 in the 6. ver we have mention made of the New-Covenant which is that made by Christ in preaching the Gospel and in the 14th of the Old-Testament or Covenant which is that made with the Jews So in Heb. 8.6 7. the first Covenant is that which Moses was the Mediator of the second or better Covenant is that which Christ is the Mediator of this must not cannot be denyed and I have been often offended at persons that when they make a distinction of the Covenants a first and second old and new they make the first that with Adam in innocency the second the Covenant of grace made with the faithful ever since this though it may be true Divinity yet is not Scriptural or if it be somewhat Scriptural yet it is onely to be drawn by consequence out of the Scripture But there is another determination in this business that is more plainly
of the Law Judgement Mercy and Faith these ought ye to have done and notto leave the other undone Matth. 23.23 and so in Isa 1. chap. ver 10. And this I think is the judgement of all Divines to have been the error of the Jews and Galatians Now let these three things be granted yet in the 4th place by way of direct answer to the objection Though the Ceremonial Lâ—w were apt to prove a Snare and actually did prove a Snare to the Jews and Galatians yet it was their natural inclination to Legality to a Legal way of treating with God for their Justification and acceptation that betrayed them into this Snare or that made it prove such a Snare to them For else the Ceremonial Law was in its true use and in the design of the Lord when he first gave it a great blessing unto the people of Israel it was a part of that Dispensation which is called their wisdom and their glory in the sight of the Nations Deut. 4.6 I say the Ceremonial Law was not in its own nature unavoidably such a snare as would lead them to a Covenant of Works nor in the design of God who gave it nay it was designed to be to them a sigurative Gospel and therefore though it was somewhat capable of being made use of to such an end to serve the turn and humor of a Legal Spirit yet none but those that were so addicted could have made such a perverse and destructive use of it or if it had been unavoidably I say make the supposition that it had been unavoidably such a dangerous snare to the Jews who had the Ceremonial Law given them from Mount Sinai yet the Gentile Galatians had not such a temptation to receive it with that veneration that the Jews had and having received the Gospel before and stil retaining the profession of it might have been well antidoted against the danger of it and yet they receive it suddenly in this noxious and mischievous use of it And for what reason can we imagine all this to have come to pass but because they were naturally disposed and exceeding apt to catch at any occasion of serving God as it were by the works of the Law or according to a Covenant of Works 5thly I say therefore that though we have not the Ceremonial Law of the Jews to prove a Snare to us yet we have this radicated inclination to a Covenant of Works which betrayed the Jews and Galatians by occasion of the Ceremonial Law into the prosecution of Justification by Works and this I think was formerly evinced from the example of the Jews and Galatians as by an induction 6thly As for the ceremonial Law perhaps it would be granted that if we had such reason to receive it as the Jews had before Christ when it was their duty to observe it or but such a seeming reason as the Galatians after their seduction thought they had perhaps it would be granted that if the case were so with us as it was with either of them that then we should be in great danger to do as they did and to vent that natural Legality or addictedness to the way of works which hath been evinced to be in all men in ceremonial observances Now let but so much be granted and then I have this to offer That though we are free from the ceremonial Law of the Jews know it abrogated by Christ's death yet we may stil have a like danger though not the same nay the Christian Church hath for many hundreds of years I shall not meddle with the present state of things I say the Christian Church hath for many hundreds of years together formerly been under as great a danger from ceremonies as the Jewâ— were in from the ceremonial Law and for proof of this I shal onely quote some passages out of the preface to the Book of Common-Prayer under the title Of Ceremonies why some be abolished and some retained where you have these besides other expressions Some Ceremonies are put away because the great excess and multitude of them hath so encreased in these later days that the burthen of them was intollerable whereof St. Austine in his time complained that they were grown to such a number that the estate of Christian people was in worse case concerning that matter then were the Jews and he counselled that such yoke and burthen should be taken away as time would serve quietly to do it But what would St. Austine have said if he had seen the Ceremonies of late dayes used amongst us whereunto the multitude used in his time was not to be compared This our excessive multitude of Ceremonies was so great and many of them so dark that they did more confound and darken then declare and set forth Christs benefits unto us There are other considerable passages concerning ceremonies in that Preface but this that I have transcribed serves sufficiently for my purpose and I suppose fully takes off the objection that since the ceremonial Law is down Christians cannot be in the same danger that the Jews Galatians were from ceremonies I have yet one more particular to add by way of answer to the objection and it is this in the seventh place That I verily believe though the Jews had had no such Law given them nor the Gentile-Galatians such a Law preached amongst them by the Jews nor had any such ceremonies ever been set up in the Church of Christ as the quotation speaks of yet both the Jews and Galatians and we all have such an inclination to such an earnest desire after the way of Works that without a strict hand over our selves from giving way to this natural disposition we should be all exceeding apt to find out some way or other of venting this humour either by inventing ceremonies and superisttions or doing the duties of the Moral Law superficially and yet resting upon them for our Justification As for duties or good works that are truly good though they may be abused after their performance by a spiritual pride adhering to them nay though they may perhaps be spoiled sometimes by an opinion of merit yet because I cannot think it possible for a man that doth exercise himself to serve God with a perfect heart to turn all his really-good Works into Legal-Works by an opinion of Merit I shal except this from being a third way in which Legality predominant may exert and shew it self But for the other two ways of invented ceremonies or superstitiuâ—s observances and an external obedience to the duties of the Moral Law I think the nature of man is so addicted to the way of Works that though there were no ceremonial Law amongst us at present either from God or men yet men would generally find out one or both of those ways to vent their Legality even to an opinion of merit in them This I shal shew to have been usually practised in the times of the Scripture and since and
man hath made God himself his righteousness and Christ his righteousness and this is a glorious righteousness indeed far beyond the righteousness of a perfect and unerring obedience if a man had it for this see one proof out of the Old-Testament and one or two out of the New Isa 45.24 25. Surely shall one say in the Lord have I righteousness and strength even to him shall men come and all that are incensed against him shall be ashamed in the Lord shall all the Seed of Isral be JUSTIFIED and SHALL GLORY For the New-Testament I have often mentioned already that place Gal. 2.20 yet it can never be too often repeated I am crucified with Christ nevertheless I live yet not I or no longer but Christ liveth in me and the 〈◊〉 that I now lâ—ve in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God who lived me and gave himself for me Here St. â—aul had a glorious righteousness indeed for Christ was his riches and righteousness and dwelt in him by Faith that is he lived upon Christ by faith 't is true he had a Christ-like nature in his soul but this Christ-like nature was not the righteousness of faith or the righteousness of God or his Gospel-righteousness but a fruit of that Faith which was his righteousness All other glorying is excluded in the Gospel save crâ—ely to glory in the Lord Rom 3.27 2 Cor. 1.30 31. Of him are ye in Christ Jesus who of God is made unto us wisdom and righteousnesâ—y that according as it is written He that glorieth let him glory in the Lord. Now this making God and Christ a mans righteousness is that alone which commends the Gospel so highly above the Law sets up he second Adam above the first gives a just account of all those Elogies which the Apostle gives of the Gospel the way of believing above the first way of works which I suppose out of Dr Moor's notion would not arise at all For though the Drs notion should be true which I confess there is no contradiction in I have delivered some things above p 218 219. but a little too much in favor of it * I would have that expression p. 219. 〈◊〉 shall say something to the like purpose understood only thus Tha sanctification is the condition of our justification onely in the second place faith in the first I say suppose the Dâ—â— notion should be true That faith justifies us purely because it sanctifies us and that the holiness which arises from faith should be that which is called the Righteousness of Faith yet how could this ever advance the Gospel above the Law in the business of Justification If we take the Law not in the mistaken sense of the Legallist but in the proper sense of it For so the righteousness of the Law is unerring obedience and the righteousness of Faith in the Dâ—s sence is obedience full of defects Now comparing obedience with obedience and the righteousness of Faith with the righteousness of the Law how can the righteousness of Faith be preferred to the righteousness of the Law How can the second Adam in the holiness which he causeth be advanced above the first in his earthly righteousness That therefore which make the excellency and precedency of the Gospel to the Law is this that the righteousness of the Law was one 's own this of Faith makes God himself and Christ himself our righteousness by our living wholly upon them I have said as much as I intend to the Dr. s notion of the righteousness of saith and I do cordially profess That what I have spoken hath been meerly out of love to the truth and if the truth had not engaged and enforced me to deliver what I have I should not have presumed to encounter counter such a great man being my self not worthy to carry the Doctors books after him And I know the Doctors candor and ingenuity to be so great that he will give others leave as freely to differ from him as he takes to differ from others I shall shut up this Question with a grave admonition out of Mr John Goodwin in his Banner of Justification displaied pag. 32. That Faith justifies saith he is the constant assertion of the Scripture and the Architectonical doctrine of the Gospel Rom. 5.1 3 28. Gal. 2.15.16 By the way upon occasion of these with many the like passages in the New Testament wherein Justification by faith is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 expresly affirmed I cannot but mention my dislike of their strein in teaching who lay down and deliver it to the people for a doctrine positively and plainly That men are not justified by saith or by believing Douotless it is not convenient or comely positively to deliver or assert that for a doctrine of truth which is so diametrally opposite to 〈◊〉 frequent clear and express words of the Scripture And again I judge it very incongruous for any Minister of the Gospel to seâ— up a doctrine as it were in defiance of or in conâ—â—st against any thing so frequently and so directly in terminis affirmed in the Scriptures as Justification by faith I do not â—â—â—â—uce this quotation to infirmate as if the Doctor did not hold that we are justified by the acts of faith as well as by any other good actions but for that I am sensible the Doctor intends that we are not more justified by the acts of faith than by any other good actions which if it were true I could not see how faith could be worthy of so famous attributious of justification to it in such an eminent manner when the Apostle is silent about other graces only here and there in some places where there is no such professed dispute he speaks wordâ— in Tayor of other graces and good works in the matter of justification I tome now to a fifth Question which is this How do good works justifie And in answer to this I must first premise That seeing the Scripture is so express in it that works to justifie Jam. 2.25 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified and 〈◊〉 by saith only I dare not pass over this Question without speaking to it But I shall need to speak the less to this because Mr Baxter and others have delivered so much upon it I shall first shew the agreement which there is betwixt St Paul and St James in this business and then shew how works justifie 'T is true St Paul assirms Rom. 3.28 chat we are justified by faith without the deeds or works of the Law St James saith that we are justified by works and not by faith only here seems to be a jarring and disagreement But they are to be reconciled by the observation of the several sorts of works that these two Apostles speak of St Paul speaks of legal works or works of the Law which contain in them an opinion of merit or debt as I have shewn above pag. 97 98.