viz. Before men and such as would stand a man in stead for Temporal felicity only but not to obtain the Kingdom of Heaven Therefore this whole Argumentation of the Apostle may be comprehended in this Syllogism No man can be justified by the Law of Moses in foro Dei in the sight of God who is guilty of those Sins to which no Remission in the sight of God is granted by this Law But all as well Jews as Gentiles are guilty of those Sins to which no Remission in the sight of God is granted by the Law of Moses Therefore no man Jew nor Gentile can be justified by the Law of Moses in the sight of God I confess I am Puzled and at a Loss where to bâ—gin here to answer this Discourse there are so many things to be Objected against this Argument I will in short mention some few First Here is an Arguing per saltum by a great Leap by supposing things according to this Authors way impossible viz. That all men are obliged to Eternal Condemnation for their sins whereas there is no possibility of this For if thus obliged let it be asked By what Law Now there is no Law according to him either promising Future happiness upon Obedience or threatning Future misery upon Disobedience but only the Gospel it self If it shall be replied that all were obliged to Eternal punishment for their sins by the Gospel by the Law of Grace and Pardon revealed in former times amongst the Jews and Heathens It is so absurd that I shall speak no more to it than I have Christ was sent to Redeem us from the Curse of the Law and not of the Gospel Secondly It is apparent that the Apostle in such places as this Author makes it his business to Reconcile to the Apostle James speaks of Justification so as to deny Justification by a Law that did promise Eternal life and threaten Eternal death and required inward and spiritual Obedience and therefore he did not speak of the Jewish Common-wealth-Law By the deeds of the Law shall no flesh be justified in his sight For by the Law is the knowledg of sin He tells us None can be justified by that Law that Christ bore the Curse of surely then that Law threatned Eternal death else Christ had born and freed from only a Temporal Curse He speaks of a Law that the Apostles established Do we make void the Law by Faith yea we establish the Law Surely they did not establish this Common-wealth-Law And saith the Law is Spiritual and did not by those words mean the Gospel is Spiritual but opposes the Law to the Gospel Thirdly But suppose all men guilty of Eternal death without any Law and suppose the Apostle do speak of the Jewish Common-wealth-Law yet this Argument that he ascribes to the Apostle would be intolerably faulty and inconclusive For suppose some in Charity to the Author should think he meant that the Apostle's supposition is this That all men Jews and Gentiles are guilty of such sins as there was no temporal Remission upon Sacrifice allowed to by that Law but all guilty of them were without mercy to be cut off by the Magistrate Then this Supposition would be false for without doubt there were many among the Jews not guilty of such sins And again The Argument must mean only the denying of Temporal Justification and the denying of Eternal here would not be sense and is also against the Author's intention Or secondly The meaning is which is apparently the Author's mind All are guilty of such Sins as there is no Eternal Justification promised from by this Law because it promises no Eternal Justification at all upon any termes whatsoever And then methinks the Author being a Disputant might have had a strong tentation to think he could have told the Apostle how to prove his great design easier even by leaving out and without making use of one of the Hypotheses or Foundations of his Argument which is this That all are Sinners and especially since this Author finds it such a difficulty to maintain that all are Sinners and deserve Eternal wrath by some Law that he could not maintain it if there should be found some man that never committed a very gross sin in all his life and therefore supposes that every man hath committed one at least And so by arguing thus No man be he guilty or innocent can be justified as to Conscience or as pertaining to Eternal life or death by a Law that neither promises Eternal life to the Obedient or threatens Eternal death to the Disobedient But the Law of Moses neither promised Eternal life to any man Obedient nor threatned Eternal death to any Disobedient Ergo. No man Guilty or Innocent can be justified as to Conscience or Eternal things by the Law of Moses The Minor might according to the Author thus be defended It is true there are it may be some Expressions in the Mosaic-writings that command Spiritual obedience and promise Eternal life upon Obedience and threaten Eternal death for Sin But these are the Gospel it self comprehended in Moses Writings and men might be and were Justified as to Conscience by this And that is not it that is meant by the Law in these Disputes of denying Justification by the Law but only the Jewish Common-wealth-Law And indeed if this be true that the Law the Apostle speaks of promised no Justification as to Eternal or Future concerns upon any terms whatsoever the Argument would not only have run easier and better without any mention of all being Sinners But such mention in that case would be vain and idle yea and false if given as a reason why they were not Justified by such a Law as to Conscience For the Sinfulness of men could not be in the least any reason at all why men are not Justified as to Future life by a Law that promised no such Justification if they had obeyed But the Law 's not promising it is all the cause possible But to go on with the Author Hence moreover the Apostle infer's that the Jews and Gentiles ought to flee to another Covenant of greater Mercy viz. that Covenant established in the Blood of Jesus Christ in which there is promised not only Temporal but Eternal Redemption and Salvation Heb. 5. 9. and 9. 12. and a most full and perfect Remission of all Sins even the most hainous conjoyned with the donation of Eternal life to all those who shall from Faith in Christ repent heartily of those sins and give up themselves to God and a holy Life And here the Apostle doth urge that upon both Gentiles and Jews which other-where he had seriously pressed upon the Jews chiefly in these words Acts 13. 38 39. Be it known therefore unto you Brethren that by him there is is Preached to you the Remission of sins And by him every one that believes shall be justified from all things from which you could not be justified by the Law of
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
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
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
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