people were to hear them and also to take heed how they heard and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees They were to embrace their Doctrine only so far as they sate in Moses Chair and taught Moses's Doctrine truly Sixthly Christ expresseth the saying opposed or added to by him in the very words of the Ten Commandments Therefore to say he speaks by way of Opposition and not of Addition would be to say he opposes the very Commandments Answer 1. He doth so only in one place of this Chapter viz. ver 27. Thou shalt not commit Adultery 2. Any one may yet perceive by his following Opposition what it is he meant by those words and what it is he opposed viz. Not the very Law or the true sense of the Law but that Exposition of the Law which laid the stress on the word commit as if it meant only commit with the outward Fact and forbad nothing else And it is apparent the Scribes and Pharisees so taught The Doctor giveth us another Argument taken from a saying of Saint John which carrieth so little evidence in my opinion that I would not have here set it down but that he seems to lay so great stress not only on this his Interpretation of Christs Words as being as he saith A foundation of a great and weighty Superstructure but also upon that Scripture as being as he saith a remarkable place to prove it The words are these 1 John 1. 5. God is Light and in him is no darkness at all The meaning whereof he saith is this That God is Light and in him is no Darkness at all in respect of his Law and Commandments the rule of mens lives and implies that these had before viz. Christ's teaching some indulgence for some sins and where they had not so yet they had some mixture of Imperfection but now they have none they had before some Vacuities in them which are now filled up by Christ Answer 1. I see no evidence or probability that this is the meaning of these words 2. We read The Law of the Lord is perfect i. e. without Imperfection and is Light i. e. without darkness and this was spoken of the Law before Christs Teaching 3. I cannot understand the consistency of these words That the Law and Commandments the Rule of mens lives had before Indulgence for some sins If no Law forbad them they were not sins or if it did not forbid them under the penalty of Future-death then they were not sins For I have I suppose made it appear it threatned Future death to all sins and else none were pardoned those sins as to Future death because they did need no such Pardon 4. Nor can I understand the words following That where the Law the Rule of mens lives did not allow Indulgence for some sins yet it had some mixture of Imperfection I cannot imagine how this appears for none will surely say it appears in this that it did not require some thing the Law now requires as Baptisme and the Lords Supper for that will no more prove the Law imperfect then then that the Law of God is now imperfect in not requiring circumcision whereas the Law did then as it doth now require all to obey whatsoever he should any way whatsoever command them and that under the penalty of Future-death 5. You may see by what hath been said That the Law not as referring to Conscience and Future-life but as the Jewish Common-wealth Law did allow or indulge some things that is so far as not to threaten violent death to them at all and so in this Common-wealth sense did not forbid such Practises at all which yet the Law in the most Important and Conscience sense did forbid and so were sins threatned with future-Future-death As for example The putting away a Wife for any cause and Heart-murther and Heart-adultery Also I have made apparent that the Scribes and Pharisees the Jewish Doctors taught and it was an Opinion ordinarily received amongst the Jews in the days of Christ and his Apostles that if men were but justi ad legem that is righteous so far as to be free from such things as Temporal death was by the Law of the Land remedilesly threatned to and had offered Sacrifice for such as the Law allowed it for they were either as righteous as any Law of God in the utmost rigour required them to be or however at the least as righteous as the Law of God in the indulgent Gospel-sense required them as necessary to their Future salvation And that Christ opposeth in this Chapter the common Jewish conceit taught by their Doctors And without doubt there was no Jew ever saved by that Law of Moses taken in the Gospel-sense as all good men that lived under it were that did not more than was required by that Law in the strictest sense as the Law of the Land threatning violent death to be Executed by the Magistrate As for example that did not love and fear God and endeavour inward Holiness and the repressing of the inward sins which the Law in the Political sense required not And again All saved by that Law did far less than was required by that Law as the Original strict Law under the penalty of Future-death For all saved were pardoned as to Future-death as to some Heart-sins which could not be if such sins were not Threatned with Future-death Now upon this false foundation viz. That the Law of God as to Conscience required no more than it required as the Law of the Land was without doubt built that Interpretation of the 18. ver of Psal 66. given by the Ancient famous Rabbi David Kimchi who upon the words which are these If I regard iniquity with my heart the Lord will not hear me gives this as the meaning viz. Though I shall see Iniquity in my heart which I am forward to execute in fact Though God do see it yet he will not hear it meaning he will not impute it to me for sin For God doth not charge a wicked Thought for a wicked Act except only a wicked Thought against the Faith and true Religion so as to worship Idols For this such Doctors did hold to be sin threatned with Future punishment though it proceeded not to the Fact but not any other wicked Thought or Intention And it seems apparent the Apostle Paul took the Law in this Vulgar sense when he saith Phil. 3. 6. He had been a Pharisee and touching the righteousness which is of the Law blameless That is he had lived without fault so far as the Law required in that sense wherein the most Jews then and he himself formerly being so taught by his Master Gamaliel understood it viz. in this external Political sense And though he had formerly accounted that perfect Obedience to the Law or however all required to his salvation yet now he looketh upon such Righteousness as insignificant as to Future salvation and understood the Law was truly
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
to say he will surely hardly pardon such great sins as mine are How can he with safety to his Justice Now further to enable any to answer many Scriptures which this Author brings to maintain his extenuating Expressions of the Law Though such Scriptures are not immediately serviceable to discover the Apostle's meaning where he ascribes Justification to Faith in opposition to Works else I would have taken more particular notice of them Remember what I spoke before that sometimes not only the Author to the Hebrews but this Apostle in speaking of the Law understands by it the Jewish Common-wealth Law threatning Violent Immature Temporal death to all External visible sins and in some cases allowing Sacrifices in the stead of this violent death in other cases not And the occasion of the so using the word Law which you may possibly think very Improper when speaking of Conscience-concernments is this It was the common yea almost Universally professed Opinion of the Jews sometime before and about those days of the Apostles taught them by all their Rabbies As this Author also affirms pag. 306. That the Law did not threaten Future punishment to any sins but to those that it as the common Law of the Land threatned Temporal violent death to to be Executed by the Magistrate And that the Law required no more to Future salvation than so much as was made necessary by it to escape violent death And also that the expiation of their Sacrifices which were for faults granted by them to be sins threatned by their Law with Future death reached so far as to expiate and absolve them from sins as to Future punishment which Opinion the Author to the Hebrews at large opposes And since they could not but grant that there were commands of inward Holiness forbiding Heart-adultery and Heart-murther and meer inward coveting as the Tenth Commandment and commands to fear and love the Lord and walk in his Ways and keep his Commandments with all their heart and soul Deut. 10. 12. Chap. 11. 13. And it would not be Sense or it would be Remiss sense to say that keeping the Commandments as for example of not doing Murder or not committing Adultery with the whole heart was only to abstain from the outward Fact without avoiding the occasions beginnings or causes thereof They held these were not properly Commands that any penalty of Exclusion from Heaven or that Future-life death was threatned unto But that these Precepts were only Councels recommended to them that had a mind to do the best and that it was commendable and men did well to observe them but the refusing to obey these was not sin by their Law nor punishable with any Future misery And the Scribes and Pharisees the wicked Doctors of this and some former degenerate Ages making it their study almost unanimously to excuse themselves and others from inward Piety which they were resolved against as being the most difficult part of true Religion and most ingrateful to flesh and blood might have this pretence from the Law it self to maintain their Flesh-pleasing exposition of the Law to quiet their own and others Consciences in the neglect of inward Purity viz. There is no violent penal Temporal death threatned to such sins to be inflicted by the Magistrate as there is to all External sins therefore it is likely there is no Eternal or Future punishment threatned by the Law for such there are no Expiations appointed for such sins surely therefore they are no sins and need no Expiations These Pharisaical Doctors did hold their Law promised Future-life and threatned Future punishment but * I shewed you at the beginning four true senses of the Jewish Law all intended by the Law-giver But the Pharisaical Jews maintained a fifth sense and that a false and pernicious one viz. That their Law promised the Future-life happiness to their observing the Law Politically and Externally taught the people that if they were but justi ad legem righteous according to the Law in the sense that Seneca useth the word saying Exignum est ad legem bonum esse that is Righteous so far as the Law of the Land was to compel them by Temporal punishment as all those were that had committed none of those Crimes that were excluded from attaining Temporal pardon by Sacrifice and had offered Sacrifice for their other External faults they were as perfectly righteous before God as their Law in any sense required them to be So because the Law as the Law of the Land appointed no punishment for one that put away his wife for any light cause so he did but set her wholly at liberty by a Bill of Divorce to marry another they were taught it was no sin so to put away a Wife Mat. 5. 31. Also because the Law as the Common-wealth Law gave men liberty to require an Eye for an Eye and Tooth for Tooth and if they so required it the Magistrate was bound to Inflict it Deut. 19. 21. They were taught it was no sin to seek this revenge in any case And so that the Commands of forgiving Injuries were but Counsels as Prov. 24. 29. and Chap. 20. 22. Say not I will do to him as he hath done to me Lev. 19. 17 18. Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thy heart thou shalt not avenge nor bear any grudg c. But shalt love thy Neighbour as thy self Rev. 25. 21. If thy enemy hunger give him meat c. Exod. 23. 4 5. If the Ass of thy enemy wander or be faln under his burden bring him back or help him up Which Opinion of theirs Christ confutes Mat. 5. v. 21. You have heard that it hath been said by them of old or to them of old thou shalt not Kill and whosoever shall Kill shall be in danger of the Judgment That is you have been told it as a Tradition taught by the Ancients or to the Ancients by some Ancient Rabbies that you break not any Law of God nor incur danger of Future torments by anger hatred or approbrious speeches but only he that actually kills shall be in danger of Future punishment of the Court of Judgment the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which litterally signifies is in danger of the Court of the 23 Elders that sate in the †Deut. 16. 18. Chap. 19. 11 12. Gates of the City and put Offenders to death by the Sword Now since Murtherers in Fact were to be put to death only not they that only hated or reproached another the * Damnat Christus in Pharisaeis quod legis Doctrinam ad Politicum or dinem transtulerant ut sufficeret externis officiis defungi Ita fiebat ut se ab homicidio absolveret quisquis hominem manu non occiderat Se purum castum putaret coram Deo quisquis Adulteria corpus non polluerat Hâ—c vero erat minime ferenda Legis profanatio quum certum sit spiritualem Dei cultum a Mose requiri Deus
them in Horeb They weakly trifle who here understand * Such an Interpretation is not so weak and trifling but had I no other evasion I would fly to it rather than affirm here as this Author doth a new Covenant on Gods part having quite different Precepts Promises and Threats a renewing of the Covenant made in Mount Sinai and do contradict the most plain words of the Text. Neither can the words of the Covenant made in Mount Sinai repeated and renewed in any sense be called the words of the Covenant which God made besides that he had made in Sinai Secondly It is expresly said * It is only said That he might be to them a God as he promised them meaning from Mount Sinai and also had sworn it before to Abraham c. as appears Lev. 26. 45 46. and from many other places Exod. 19. 5 6. Deut. 26. 15. 18 19. that this Covenant is altogether the same with that which God made and confirmed by Oath with the Israelites Ancestors to wit with Abraham Isaac and Jacob v. 12 13. which Covenant was the very Gospel something obscurely revealed as Paul saith Gal. 3. 16 17. Thirdly Paul cites some words of this Covenant as words of the * So Paul doth cite these words Lev. 26. 12. I will walk among you and will be your God and you shall be my people which words weâ—e spoken at Mount Sinai as appears by v. 46. as a Gospel-promise as indeed they were 2 Cor. 6. 16. and begins the following Chapter thus Having these Promises let us cleanse our selves c. Gospel-covenant which holds forth the Righteousness of Faith see Rom. 10. 6. c. compared with Deut. 30. 11. I am not ignorant that some determine these words to be accommodated to the Righteousness of Faith only by way allusion But I cannot believe them since Paul manifestly alledges these words as the very words of the Righteousness of Faith that is as the very words of the Gospel-covenant in which this Righteousness is revealed And that I may confess the truth I have always esteemed these Allusions to which some flie as to the holy Asylum or Sanctuary of their Ignorance for the most part to be nothing else then manifest abuses of the Holy Scripture Fourthly All the things contained in this Covenant do wonderfully fit or agree to the Gospel 1. As for the Precepts there are only commanded here * There are no particular Laws recited not so much as the Ten Commandments in these two chapters which he will have to contain this whole Covenant things belonging to Manners and which are in their own nature Honest there being no mention here made of those Rites whereof the whole Legal-covenant is almost full which being considered according to the words may seem childish and further the whole obedience which is here required may be †So may equally all Covenanted by the people at Mount Sinai or required of them by God referred to a sincere and diligent endeavour to obey God in all things Chap. 30. 10. 16. 20. 2. As for the Promises God here promises full Remission of all sins upon Repentance even of the most ‖ So he doth as fully from Mount Sinai Lev. 26. 40 41. heinous Cap. 30. 1 2 3 4. which favour was never granted in the Legal covenant And further the Grace of the Holy Ghost whereby the hearts of men may be circumcised that they may love the Lord with all their hearts and souls is clearly promised v. 6. How far is this from the usual vein of Moses writings Fifthly That Covenant which Jeremiah foretold Jer. 31. 31 32. c. was a Gospel-covenant as all Christians grant and the Author to the Hebrews expresly teacheth Heb. 8. 8. Now all those things which the Prophet foretels of that Covenant do †Allusions being too much built on may be Illusions exactly answer to this Moabitish-covenant Jeremiah calls his Covenant a new Covenant altogether different from that which God plighted with the Ancestors of Israel going out of Egypt Moses saith the same of the Moabitish-covenant Jeremiah gives this cause why God would make a new Covenant viz. because they brake the Old wanting Gods powerful Grace The same reason Moses gives here of making this new Covenant Deut. 29. 4. Jeremiah's promised circumcision of heart so this That promised Remission of sins Jer. 31. 34. So this Deut. 30. 1 2 c. Jeremiah speaks of the clearness and facility of the Precepts which are contained in the New-covenant that they might know and obey them without much search and labour So doth Moses Deut. 30. 11 12. compared with Romans 10. 6. All these things seem very clear to me I have dwelt something long upon these things Both that it may be manifest hence that all things in the Mosaic-writings do not belong to the Mosaic-Covenant properly so called And to shew how necessary it is to restrain the old Law properly so called only to the Covenant made in Mount Sinai And also chiefly that the Wisdom of God might appear in dispencing the Covenant of Grace God had made that gracious Covenant with Abraham many years before the giving of the Law to which Covenant it afterwards pleased him to add another Covenant made up of many painful Rites and Ceremonies by which he might keep in their Duty that is restrain from the Idolatrous-worship of the Heathen the rude and carnal posterity of Abraham lately brought out of Aegypt and so too much addicted to Paganish Rites and Superstitions But the most wise God foreseeing that this People of a foolish or hard-heart obtusi pectoris would not understand his purpose after he had made this carnal Law He commanded Moses that he should promulgate a New-covenant to the Israelites or rather that he should renew that Old-covenant which he many years before had made with Abraham which did chiefly require spiritual Righteousness and was full of Grace and Mercy That from hence the Jews might know that the Abrahamatical-covenant was yet in force even after the Ritual-Law was made and also was to be accounted for the Covenant by which only their Salvation was to be attained see Gal. 3. 17. Who would not here cry out with the Apostle Oâ— the depth of the Riches and Wisdom and Knowledg of God! Since this here recited hath some dark shew of proof I shall before I go any further manifest that the Author is notoriously mistaken in affirming that the Covenant made in the Land of Moab was not the same for substance repeated with that made at Horeb or Mount Sinai but a Covenant having quite different Promises and Precepts the one carnal and earthly the other Spiritual and Heavenly and also in thinking that these two Chapters 29th and 30th comprehended the whole Covenant made in the Land of Moab Let these things be considered A Covenant in the strictest propriety of the Word is a mutual Engagement of Parties two at the least