Moses and that in so doing in excluding them he doth also reject the corrupt Interpretations or Opinions which the Scribes and Pharisees had fastned on this Law or added to it And also that the Apostle though speaking little about it and on the bie doth implicitly affirm that Works done according to the Law of Nature and proceeding from the strength of Nature doth avail nothing to Salvation Chap. 7. He tells us what works of the Laws of Moses in these words pag. 101. This Law consists of two Parts viz. of Moral and Ritual Precepts The Apostle without doubt had respect to them both For that he speaks also of the Moral Precepts of the Law of Moses whatever some say to the contrary is too manifest out of his own words Rom. 3. 20. Wherefore by the Works of the Law shall no flesh be justified in his sight for by the Law is the knowledg of sin From whence it may be gathered that it is that Law by which is the knowledg of sin whose works he he excludes which without controversie is spoken of the Moral-Law written in the Decalogue For so the Apostle expounds himself Rom. 7. 7. citing that out of the Decalogue Thou shalt not Covet So Rom. 3. 31. Do we destroy the Law by Faith God forbid yea we establish the Law Now the Ceremonial-Law can scarce be said to be established by Faith The Law worketh wrath For where there is no Law there is no Transgression is chiefly true of the Moral-Law For almost all Transgressions are against the Moral-Law therefore the Dispute of the Apostle pertains also to the Works of the Moral-Law In the mean time I must add this that the Works of the Moral-Law are not simply excluded by Paul from Justification but only so far as they were prescribed in the Mosaic-Covenant and were made part of the condition annexed to this Covenant It is certain that no man could come to true Justification by the Mosaic-Covenant by Works of the Moral-Law though they were rightly yea and exactly performed according to the Rule of the Law because it promised no true Justification at all That is Justification joyned with Eternal-Life For that great Benefit comes only from the Covenant of Grace made in the Blood of the Mediator So that if you respect the Mosaic-Covenant even the works of the Moral-Law are together to be excluded from Justification and are indeed excluded by the Apostle I know you are at a loss about the Author's meaning what he means by this Mosaic-Covenant that no man could be justified by as to Future life though free all sin and perfectly obeying the Moral-Law because this Mosaic-Covenant promised no Justification as to Eternal life upon any terms whatsoever Now because you will not understand what he saith here on the two Arguments he brings in the next words which he pretends are only the Apostle's Arguments against Justification by this Mosaic-Covenant and that this is all the Law and Covenant that the Apostle proves against Justification by I will bring together here all that he saith to tell us what he means by the Mosaic-Covenant that there is no Justification by as he saith as to a Future life though there was as to this Life and you will see it apparent that he means by it only that Law or Laws which I before cited out of him by the name of an Original-Law and Remedying-Law which threatned a violent Temporal death to the Transgressors of the Law and promised upon offering a Sacrifice they should escape such violent Temporal death but promised nothing of Happiness in a Future life if they offered such Sacrifices or Pardon of those sins as to a Future life He apparently either means this Remedying-Law only or both together the Original-Law as it threatned a violent Temporal death and the Remedying-Law freeing from a violent Temporal death upon the death of a Beast And he thinks that the Law taken in such a sense as to threaten Eternal death or promise Eternal life was the Gospel it self and that Paul doth not dispute against being Justified by any such Law And that the Law given from Mount Sinai however had no Promises or Threats of a Future life not so much as obscure ones and he builds the sense he gives of the Apostle Paul upon this Foundation You have seen this passage already where he saith it promised no Eternal life-Justification to any whatsoever though Sinless and perfectly keeping the Law Pag. 208. The Promises and Threatnings of the Law were only Temporal and Earthly Pag. 210. And the Precepts did wonderfully accord with the Promises Pag. 212. He speaks largely to prove this The Apostle doth in many places tax this defect of the Mosaic-Law that it had no promise of a Future life And hither some refer that Text Rom. 8. 3. where it is said The Law was weak through the Flesh i. e. say they It contained only carnal Promises But I chuse rather the common Interpretation viz. of Flesh for Sin The 5th verse of the foregoing Chapter is more apposite where the Law is called Flesh for those words When we were in the Flesh must be expounded When we were under the Law as is manifest from the Antithesis which they have to Vers 6. and also from the scope of the whole Chapter And the Mosaic-Law seems to be called Flesh not only because the most of the Precepts were carnal only and External but also because the Promises with which this Law was enforced did not look beyond this Carnal life To the same sense Grotius expounds the words of the Apostle 2 Cor. 3. where he calls the Law a Ministry of Death because all its Promises were ended with Death without any hope of Restitution So v. 6. The Law of Moses is said to kill viz. as the same Grotius notes As the Hebrew word to make alive is used of him who did not kill a man Exod. 1. 17. Judg. 8. 19. So that is said to kill which leaves a man to die and doth not free from Death But that I may confess the truth I rather believe these Phrases to Kill and a Ministry of death to signifie something else viz. the written Law of Moses to make men Obnoxious to Divine anger and Eternal death if it be alone and destitute of the Spirit not through its †It is well he here grants it is through the default of the Man and not fâ—om the Law but this destroys his cause and He a few Lines after contradicts this own fault but through the infirmity of the Flesh The Apostle's words Gal. 3. 13. seem more clear The Law is not of Faith but he that doth them shall live in them That is the Law neither requires Faith neither doth it promise those things which require Faith or Belief properly so called which is the evidence of things not seen Heb. 11. 1. Rom. 8. 24. because it promises only good things of that sort which are things of Sense and
this Law that bound their minds only to Earthly profits and worldly delights should work such Piety in men And hence it cometh to pass that the Precepts of this Law were much a Kin to the Promises of it viz. Earthly He then brings-in Scripture to prove this defect but none of them out of places where the Apostle speaks against Justification by Works and by the Law but these two which I cited before to shew his meaning by the Law Gal. 3. 13. The Law is not of Faith but he that doth them shall live in them And gives this as the meaning The Law did not promise such things as that a man did need Faith which is the evidence of things not seen to believe them viz. It promised only things of Sense not of Faith Gal. 3. 21. If there had been a Law which could have given life verily Righteousness should have been by that Law And supposes the meaning to be that the fault was in the Law not in the Men for if the Law had promised it men would have attained Life by that Law Whereas the very next words of the Apostle are But the Scripture hath concluded all under sin c. implying it was through sin and mens default they did not attain life by that Law which could not be if the Law there spoken of promised no such thing to the Obedient And he after tells us that in the sense wherein the Law had any Spiritual commands or Threatnings or Promises of a Future life it was Ipsissimum Evangelium the very Gospel it self And that the Apostle never made question about it taken in this sense which is in effect to say That the Apostle never spoke against Justification by the Law in any sense wherein it threatned Eternal death or promised Eternal life Nor in any sense wherein mans sins hinder his Justification by it And also it is to say that no man is or ever was Condemned by the Law as to Eternal condemnation in any sense wherein the Law is distinct from the Gospel And that Christ never satisfied for the breach of any Law different from the Gospel that threatned Future death much less for the breach of any Law that required Spiritual or Internal obedience And also That no man is pardoned by Christ and the Gospel the breach of any Law that threatned Future death But I have already even in the beginning of this Discourse shewed both the inevitableness and absurdity of these Consequences Yet because many maintain this Opinion of the Author for substance viz. That the Promises and Threats of the Law were only Temporal and Earthly and so could not work in men true Piety As Episcopius Doctor Hammond Doctor Taylor c. Though in something disagreeing from this Author in the way of * I confess Doctor Taylor seems not careful to evade difficulties at all but seems peremptory in denying any but Temporal promises till Christs time Vnum Neces pag. 2. 3. their evading the difficulties their Opinions are cumbred with and because it is a growing Opinion and seems to me very dangerous I will here speak largely against it First I grant The Law of Moses had no Spiritual commands meaning by Spiritual as this Author doth obliging the inward man the Thoughts and Affections nor Threats or Promises of Life-to-come Punishments or Rewards as it was the Jewish Political-Law or the Instrument of the Jewish Polity But this cannot be meant by the Law in those Passages in debate to be reconciled to James For it is apparent and this Author grants it that mens sinfulness is given by the Apostle as the cause why men are excluded from Justification as to Future life by the Law But mens sinfulness could be no cause why none were Justified as to Conscience and Future-life by the Law in this Political sense since it would not have Justified any as to Conscience and Future-life had they been altogether innocent Secondly How notoriously contrary it is to David's and Paul's expressions concerning the Jewish Law to deny it had in any sense Spiâ—itual Commands or Promises or Threats of Life-to-come Reward or Punishment Psal 1. 2. The Godly man's delight is in the Law of the Lord and therein doth he meditate day and night Psal 19. 7. The Law of the Lord is perfect converting the soul The Testimony of the Lord is sure making wise the simple He meant not only wise for this world ver 8. The Statutes of the Lord are right rejoycing the heart The Commandment of the Lord is pure enlightning the eyes True and Righteous altogether more to be desired than Gold whereas Gold was worth a Temporal Inheritance in Canaan sweeter than the Honey and the Honey-comb By them is thy servant warned and in keeping them there is great reward He means greater than this world can afford or else it was not very great Psal 119. 18. 20. Open thou mine eyes that I may behold wonderous things out of thy Law My soul breaketh for the longing it hath to thy Judgments at all times Ver. 111. Thy Testimonies have I taken as a heritage for ever for they are the rejoycing of my heart That these things were spoken of the Law of Moses is apparent nothing else that could pretend to the Name of the Law of God being then written And it is equally apparent These things could not be truly spoken of a Law that had neither Spiritual Precepts nor Future Promises or Rewards And sure none will pretend that David's working-Fancy conceited such things of the Law as was not true of it for then he would have been too blame And also these phrases David saith and The Holy Ghost saith are used as Equipollent terms Heb. 3. 7. and Chap. 4. 7. compared Psal 16. Thou wilt shew me the Path of Life in thy Presence is fulness of Joy and at thy right Hand there are pleasures for evermore David that thus speaks tell 's us He learned his Wisdom and Understanding from his Meditation on the Law Further lest any should conceit that David was a man wonderfully panting after the Word and delighted in the Law only upon the account of worldly Promises therein made to the Righteous Let it be considered that Psal 17. 14. he allows wicked men to have great things in this life calling them Men of this world which have their portion in this life whose belly thou fillest with hid treasures they are full of Children and leave the residue of their substance to them In the following Verse he distinguisheth himself from these as appears by the Antithesis ver 15. as for me saying As for me I will behold thy Face in Righteousness I shall be satisfied when I awake with thy Likeness So Psal 49. 6. They that trust in their Wealth and boast themselves in the multitude of their Riches Ver. 14. Death shall feed on them c. Then follows by way of Antithesis ver 15. But God will redeem my soul from the power of
cordibus non minus quam manibus oculis loquutas est Reus erit judicio Hoc membrum confirmat quâ—d diximus vitium illud reprehendi quod lex Dei quae regendis animis tradita fuit in Politiam conversa erat Calv. in Loc. Doctors hence gathered and taught the people by this Argument that none else was threatned by the Law with Future punishment And so that the Commandment reached no further than to prohibit the External act under a Future penalty and that such speeches as Thou shalt not hate thy Brother in thy heart And Be not hasty in thy spirit to be angry Anger resteth in the bosome of Fools Eccles 7. 9. were but Counsels Now ver 22. Christ teacheth them the true meaning of the Law and since their Rabbies used the word the Judgment to signifie Future punishment he doth so too But I say unto you that he that is angry with his brother without a cause though his anger do not proceed so far as to kill him nor to any outward Expression is yet guilty of Murder in the sense of the Law and so obnoxious to the Future death signified by you to be due to the External act and meant by the Word the Judgment in the former Speech which primarily signifies putting to death with the Sword And he that shall proceed so much further in causless anger as to use only some lesser words of reproach as Racha shall be yet in danger of a greater punishment in the Future-life shall be in danger of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Council of the Jerusalem-Court of Seventy that is of a severer Future-death answerable to the Punishment which used to be inflicted by the Sanhedrim which word came from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 who ordinarily punished Offenders with stoning to death But whosoever shall though not kill his Brother yet proceed so far in wrath as to say thou fool i. e. to use the most Villifying and Approbrious expressions shall be punished hereafter with death * Christ's Speech could proceed no fuâ—ther in keeping to the Metaphor expresssing Future punishment by Jewish courts since no other but the two fore-mentioned inflicted the punishment of death And though it may be Objected that one of these Couâ—ts also put to death by burning however in two cases viz of a Priests daughter committing whoredom Lev. 21 9. And of a man lying with his Wives Mother Lev. 20. 14. Yet these were it is probable crimes seldom hapning so that the ordinary punishment of the highest Court was as it is commonly agreed Stoning And however this would no way have served to have carried on the begun Metaphor which expressed the Gradation of punishments by several Courts since this was a punishment by the same Court and rarely used Now since the Court of Judicature is put in this speech to signifie immediately the punishment of the Court it was most consentaneous to rational Speech to signifie by it the ordinary punishment of the Court And so he expresses the third Degree of Future punishment due to the third and greatest Offence mentioned by him by a burning to death in Tophet that was often used by the Jews to express Future punishment answerable to the being put to death with fire in the Valley of Hinnom which was a more cruel death than by the Sword or Stoning and the meaning of it well known to the Jews though no judicial death and used often by them and sometimes by the Scripture to signifie Future torments And the word should have been thus Translated viz. Shall be in danger of the fire of the Valley of Hinnom or Tophet For as it is Translated it is apt to minister a doubt to the Vulgar as if the two former sort of offences were not by Christ accounted to be threatned with Hell whereas had it been Translated according to the Words it would have been more easie and occasioned no such doubt the Judgment the Council the fire of Hinnom all equally signifying Future death and punishment and only here used to denote Degrees of punishment in Hell Yea and Christ here assigns as great a Future punishment to the least offence viz. Anger as they did to actual Murther Now it will appear to you no great unlikelyhood that the Jewish Doctors gave such a loose Interpretation of the Law if you consider that it is a growing Opinion at this day taught by some of our own Doctors as well as by Socinus that no more was commanded to the Jews however not under the penalty of Future death but only such External obedience And if perhaps there were any Commands in the Old Testament-Scriptures requiring such Internal obedience as is required by Christ in his Sermon on the Mount they were glimmerings of the Gospel and not Universally commanded to all under threat of Eternal punishment but only recommended to them that will do what is best Pract. Cat. pag. 141. Though now since Christs Sermon in the Mount they are acknowledged to be Commands which not to do is a sin and not only Counsels of Perfection which to do is to do better pag. 142. But Doctor Taylor if I can understand him holds that now no Law threatens Hell to the neglect of them but that they are yet Counsels left to a man's choice Unum Neces pag. 48 49. You may find this Opinion maintained by many who pretend that Christ's oppositions Mat. 5. to what hath been said by others were however in several of those sayings referring to the Ten Commandments really Additions to the Law and not vindications of the right true sense of it against false Flesh-pleasing expositions And that the Law till Christ made those Additions to it in his Sermon in the Mount did not as a Law require any however not with any Threat of Future punishment to abstain from Heart-Adultery or Heart-Murder provided it proceeded not to the External fact Now I look upon my self as bound here to answer the Arguments for that Opinion viz. That that is a true notion of the Jewish Law as referring to Conscience and the Future life-state For if this be so All that I here speak thus largely and make apparent chiefly from this Chapter which you will at last I hope see the necessity of for the Interpreting many Scriptures of the New Testament that speak derogatory to the Law will fall to the ground The strongest Arguments by which they prove their Opinion are such as these Pract. Catech. pag. 136. First The most of the Fathers especially of the Greeks before St. Austines time so held Answ 1. I could easily I think make it appear that the most of them held the contrary 2. The most of the Citations produced may be made appear either not to prove that to be their Opinion but are capable of another Construction or they might be forced to that Exposition to maintain now-acknowledged Errours frequent in those days as that it is unlawful under the Gospel to Swear
whatsoever required more than men have the Natural ability to do And also passing by his mentioning of it as a defect in Moses Law and the Law of Nature that they gave no ability to perform what they required Whereas every Law supposeth ability to obey it or it could not be a Law or Obligatory and therefore no Law giveeth or promiseth the proper Ability to obey it self I say setting these things aside I shall only mind you how Inconsistent with themselves as well as with one another both these Arguments are which he pretends are the Apostles two main if not only Arguments against Justification by Works of the Law of Moses I have shewed before in speaking to it the Inconsistency of the first Argument with it self which he saith leaneth on two Foundations viz. 1. That all men are guilty of great sins so that they cannot be Justified as to Conscience by the Law of Moses 2. That the Law of Moses promised no Justification as to Conscience on any terms whatsoever whereas one of these can only possibly be a reason why they were not Justified by the Law of Moses For if that Law promised no Justification on any terms whatsoever then their being sinners can be no reason why they were not Justified by that Law And again if their sins were the reason why they were not Justified by the Law of Moses then the Law did promise Justification to them on condition of their being free from such sins So this second Argument which he ascribes to the Apostle viz. That none could be Justified by the Law of Moses because of two Internal defects of the Law which are that it had no promise of Future-life Justification and that they had no ability to do the things it required for their Future-life Justification labours with the same 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For if they had no ability to do the things it required for their Future-life Justification then their disability was the only cause of their not being Justified by that Law and not the Laws not promising it And again if the Laws not promising it was the reason why they could not attain Future-life Justification by that Law then their disability to perform what it required could be no cause of their not being Justified by it If any should reply their disability was the cause why they could not perform true Piety which true Piety was required by some other Law for their Future-life Justification Setting aside the Illogicalness and Incoherency of Discourse which this would fasten on the Apostle in many particulars I will only ask one so replying By what Law was true Piety required of them This Author tells us by the consequence though possibly not expresly it was not required by the Law of Moses or Nature neither of them as he saith promising Future happiness and both being purely destitute of those helps whereby men might be drawn to true Piety and consequently by his Argument none were bound to true Piety by them If it shall be answered according to this Author and some others that true Piety was only required by the Gospel I have said enough against this already in shewing this Opinion would inevitably destroy Christs satisfaction for any though Partial or Temporary defect of true Piety I shall further ask Had the Jews under the Law of Moses this Gospel that required true Piety Or had they it not If they had not this Gospel either they then had ability to perform the true Piety required or had not If they had ability to perform it then they had no need of this Law of Moses to promise Future-life Justification or to give them ability for true Piety If they had no ability to perform true Piety which the Gospel required of them This is to say the Gospel required of the Jews what they had in no sense any ability to do which this Author denies as well he may taking Ability in the strictest sense any Law of God to require Yet this Author here forgetting himself I suppose hath run himself into such straits in affirming the Jews could not perform true Piety without the Spirit and that this Spirit was denied them which is to say they could not at all perform true Piety That he must grant this of the Gospel or some Law that it required what they had in no sense any ability to do which without doubt is false or he must deny that God required any true Piety of them by any Law whatsoever which Evasion I suppose he will not make use of From the whole Series of the Apostles Disputation it is made manifest that he only rejects such works from Justification which if admitted may seem to yield to men matter of glorying and boasting themselves before God Rom. 3. 27. and 4. 2. Ephes 2. 9. And who doth not see that that can only be spoken of Works which men do by their own ability without the help of Grace For it is manifest that the Works which men perform through the assistance of Grace are owing to God and their glory redounds to Him as the highest and chiefest Author These good Works which we perform are not so much our Works as the Works of God himself in us And no man can rightly boast of that thing which he ows to God I shall ere long take notice of this Pag. 271. Since Abraham in the 4th Chapter to the Romans is considered by Paul as the Father of the Faithful and the great Exemplar of the Justification of all justified ones It is impossible but the speech of the Apostle concerning his Justification should give great light to this whole Dispute concerning Justification This is well observed therefore I shall diligently attend to this This Author begins to give largely the meaning of the first Verses of the fourth to the Romans pag. 264. which speak of Abraham's Justification And proceeds well for substance to ver 3. only he affirms that these words according to the flesh in the first Verse and by the Law in the second Verse which he grants do both signifie the same thing do signifie Works done by a mans own power that is without a promise of Future reward and without the help of Gods Spirit which I see no evidence of but have told you my thoughts that these words signifie perfect and unsinning Obedience or meritorious Works But now ver 3. For what saith the Scripture Abraham believed God and it was accounted or imputed to him for Righteousness Here saith he well This Citation of Scripture is brought to prove the words in the verse before viz. That Abraham in the business of Justification had nothing to boast of before God And the Apostle gathereth it thus That the reward was imputed to Abraham not of debt as a reward useth to be given to workers but of meer Grace And therefore Abraham had no cause to boast before God of any thing in the matter of his Justification Thus far well He goes
on verbatim thus But how doth the Apostle gather this Pag. 264. from the words cited I answer Some think that this Argument is placed in the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was accounted or imputed as if the word signified graciously accepting or accounting according to Grace and Favour and that it signifies accounting or rewarding according to Debt either never or very Improperly Whence Erasmus Interpreteth the word acceptum fert adding Est autem acceptum ferre pro accepto habere quod non acceperis quae apud Jureconsultos nifallor vocatur acceptilatio That is the word imputed it self signifies such a Law acceptation as when one grants he hath received a thing and acquits as if he had received it when indeed he hath not received it Many most learned Pag 265. Interpreters follow this Interpretation of Erasmus thus forming the Apostles Argument If the reward had been given to Abraham of debt it would not have been said God Imputed Righteousness unto him For Imputation denotes gracious and free Donation But the Scripture saith God Imputed Righteousness to Abraham Ergo c. But this Interpretation doth not please me since it is manifest from the Scriptures that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 used in the Old Testament and also the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 used by the Apostle in the Greek and which answereth to the Hebrew word are used concerning the Imputation of a thing to or for sin 2 Sam. 19. 19. which every one will grant is Imputation in Justice yea and the same word often signifies in Scripture a true and just Estimation and Judgment of a thing Deut. 2. 11 20. And it is too manifest that the Apostle himself in the very next verse ver 4. uses this very word for rewarding according to debt Therefore this Argument of the Apostle whereby he infers from the Text cited that the Justification of Abraham was meerly Gracious cannot lean upon the naked signification of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is Accounted or Imputed or Reckoned Since this Objection hath a colourable shew and the right Interpretation of this Chapter Rom. 4. doth depend wholly upon it as I have shewed in a short Discourse of the Apostles meaning and since many Learned men are perplexed so with this difficulty as to be driven to Interpret this place otherwise than right thinking the very word doth not signifie Accounting of Grace and Favour and so that the Apostle's Argument cannot lean on this word And since none that I know of have attempted to Answer it I shall speak largely in Answer to this that I may speak satisfactorily I know the Hebrew and Greek words in dispute are Polysema have divers significations just as the English word Account also hath For they signifie properly and in the first sense meerly the immanent Acts of the Understanding as to Think Esteem as also the immanent acts of valewing computing Sums together devising inventing though not so primarily Now when these words are used in this sense they may be according to the reality and truth of things or not according to the reality or truth of things If there be an Accounting or Esteeming in this sense not according to the reality and truth of things it is an errour of the Understanding and a fault or weakness though it can neither be an Act of Kindness or Severity and so cannot be ascribed to God his Judgment and counting and valuation in this sense being always according as things are But the words cannot have this proper sense here as is apparent for imputing Righteousness is either an Act of Mercy or Justice For Acts of Justice and Mercy belong not to the Understanding nor are Acts of that for they proceed from the Will and are not neither meer immanent Acts of the Will but transient Acts proceeding from it and caused by it Therefore let this proper and most common use of the words pass as not capable of being meant in such Speeches Sometime these words are used not for Acts of the Understanding as I said But for the Rectoral transient Acts of Rewarding or Punishing of dealing Kindly or Severely Graciously or Justly For these words when used of such transient Acts are capable of either of these significations and which of the significations they have in particular places is known readily by seeing whether it be some good or evil that is reckned or imputed or whether it be some good or evil thing that is not reckned or not Imputed But let these words when used in this Rectoral Law-sense be used in whether of the senses they will viz. of doing Justly or Mercifully Severely or Graciously yet this is true of them that they always signifie the accounting or imputing something that is not in reality the thing that it is accounted or imputed for but only by a kind of Law Construction or Acceptilation or the not accounting or not imputing the thing that is that in reality which it is not accounted or not imputed for Now if this be true which I shall after make appear by producing all the places of Scripture where the word is used in any sense different from a meer Act of the Understanding then it follows that when ever we read of Imputing or accounting to a man a thing that is a good thing as here Righteousness or Reward then it is an act of Grace or Law acceptilation and kindness and that God might justly have done otherwise because the word Implys a man had not that Righteousness that perfect Innocency that was accounted to him And also when ever we read of God's not Imputing or not accounting that which is evil to a man as Sin Iniquity then it was an act of Kindness or Grace because the very word Implys the man had that sin had done that evil that was not accounted to him Now to make it appear that these words when they do not signifie a meer immanent Act of the understanding but are used in the sense of doing good or evil kindly or severely yet they always signifie the accounting something that is not or not accounting something that is the thing respectively as I have said First Let these Scriptures be considered wherein the words are used in the Penal or Inimical sense and not in the Benigne rewarding favourable sense Lev. 7. 18. Where speaking of a mans Peace-offering It is commanded that he eat all he eats of it in two days and burn the rest with fire If any of it be eaten by the man on the third day the Offering shall not be accepted neither shall it be imputed to him that offereth it That is though he did offer indeed this Offering yet this Offering for an offence committed three days after shall be null and void for any benefit coming to the man by it even as if he had not offered it at all not that Godwill account that in reality he did not offer it So Lev. 17. 4. If any man kill