Gospel-condition the whole duty required for Salvation or the obedience of Faith And I judg thus much of it which is near one third part of the Book highly worth the Reading of any that have any other apprehensions of the meaning of James or that are not satisfied that the Apostle Paul by Faith means the whole necessary duty of a Christian But * Quantum mutatus ab illo Hectore qui redit exuvias indutus Achillis now when he begins at the 6th Chapter of the second Dissertation to tell positively what the Apostle Paul means by excluding Works of the Law from Justification and what he means by Works and by the Law The sense he fastens on the Apostle is quite remote from his meaning and would not only make the whole discourse of the Apostle about denying Justification by works a vain useless Speculation but also would bring in such intolerable Opinions as these following at least by evident consequence viz. First That no man sins while he lives a truly Christian life sincerely obedient to the Law and so needeth no pardon or Christ's satisfaction for such failings as are consistent with true Christianity Secondly That there is no such thing as pardon of sin possible as to Eternal punishment or punishment after this Life neither did Christ satisfie for the breach of any Law as to any Eternal punishment or punishment after this Life but onely for Temporal Not that I affirm that the Author holds this Opinion for it is apparent he holds the contrary but this follows by undeniable consequence from his discourse though he see it not but will deny this consequence Thirdly That there is no possible Argument against Popish perfection or meriting so far as to need no pardon from those passages in Pauls Epistles that deny Justification by Works but meerly such a vain useless Speculation as this That good Works done without knowledg of or respect to a future recompence of reward do not merit and works done by one that hath in no sense any ability to do them do not merit These four things following seem apparently to be the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the first great Mistakes and the occasion of all his * Yea these also seem to be the causes of the mistakes of many other very learned Authoâ—s much of his Judgment in the paâ—ticulars here endeavoured to be Rectified other mistakes of the Apostle Pauls sense in denying Justification by Works 1. His denying that there is any such thing as any Law of God setting the Gospel it self aside made with Mankind to this Tenour or Purport That he that doth not every thing that God requires of him whatsoever whether by the Light of Nature or the Writings of the Old and New Testament shall be subject to Eternal misery or misery after this Life and if men do all that God requires of them by any way making his will known they shall be eternally Happy or Happy after this Life but he thinks There is no Law of God that threatens future misery or promises future happiness but only the Gospel it self which is reveaed in the Old and New Testament And that any Law threatning future misery I mean after this Life or promising future Happiness is the Gospel it self whereby men alwayes were and are justified and saved Now to prove against this and that we must hold a Law threatning future and Eternal misery to all sinners and that all are condemned and none justified by this Law and that this Law is distinct and quite different from the Gospel let these things be considered 1. If there be no Law distinct from the Gospel threatning future misery or misery after this Life then Christ never satisfied for the future misery that was threatned to any never died to free any from the wrath to come from the eternal or future Curse of any such Law but only from a temporal Curse or Curse of this Life The consequence is apparent because he knows not what he says that should affirm that Christ was made under the Gospel to free us from the Curse of the Gospel for the Gospel either threatens nothing as many hold but I judg them to err or which is apparent it threatens nothing except to them that perform not its condition viz. To them that Believe not and Repent not in this Life and it is certain Christ died not to Redeem finally Impenitent Unbelievers Christ's Satisfaction was made to the Law and not to the Gospel to free them that perform not the condition of the Law viz. perfect Obedience but not to free them that perform not the condition of the Gospel There was indeed a satisfaction made to the Law that God might with Justice and Honour with safety to the Law make this Act of Oblivion this Law of Grace the Gospel Therefore surely that first Original-Law did threaten eternal death to sinners and not meerly Temporal punishment else there cannot possibly be any satisfaction for sin as to Eternal punishment at all because the first Law to which the satisfaction was made did not threaten it Suppose a Law in force that every Felon shall be sold to work in the Galleys and the King's Son paid a great price and by this obtained of the King this conditional Act of Oblivion to be made that if such Offenders will serve his Son in the Wars they should be Acquitted but if they shrink from such Service they shall die Here indeed was a price paid to free them from being Gally-slaves but none paid to free them from Death because the first Original Law that was transgressed by their Felony did not threaten Death but only Slavery And you cannot say that the price was paid to free them from the Penalty of the Law of Grace or Act of Oblivion which doth threaten Death but the satisfaction was made to the first Law only though indeed the Act of Oblivion or Remedying Law was made upon the account of the price paid in satisfaction for the breach of the first Law 2. If there be no Law threatning wrath to come or future misery but only the Gospel it self then no man can be pardoned or can need pardon by the Gospel or the Bloud of Christ as to the wrath to come for the Gospel affords no pardon to its transgressors that is to men continuing to death in Impenitency and Unbelief The Gospel indeed affords pardon to transgressors of the Law yea and to transgressors of the Commands of the New Testament so far as they are transgressions of the Law and threatned by that general Law Cursed is he that doth not all any way revealed to be his duty provided they perform the Gospel-conditions but the Gospel affords no pardon at all to them that fall under its curse by not performing the Gospel-condition Suppose a Law made threatning every Felon with Death and suppose a conditional Act of Oblivion or Remedying Law made that if the Felon read he shall not die
the Authour doth to say Any Law doth not require perfect Obedience for it is to say it doth not require all that it doth require We may indeed say the Gospel doth not require the perfect Obedience of another Law that is the whole condition of the Original Law which it was made to pardon our failure in because sincere Obedience only to that Original-Law was made the condition of it but it is impossible but the Gospel being a Law it is a Law of Grace commanding sincere obedience with a penalty of our otherwise not having the benefit offered by it I say it is impossible but that it should require perfect Obedience to what it doth require as it's condition whereon we shall attain the pardon offered by it and this condition is perfectly all that it doth require as a Remedying-Law or Act of Oblivion For if there be any thing that it doth not require of us so as we should lose the offered Pardon if we do not perform it this thing is not it's condition nor any part of it which is required that we might not so fall short Also as was demonstrated before No Law either doth or can remit any thing required by it self If a man fail in any thing required by the Gospel under the penalty of having no benefit by it he is Remediless Fourthly Another fundamental cause of his Mistake of the Apostle's sense is want of true notions about the Law of Moses which he thinks to be a Law that had only Temporal Promises and Threats and to be void of Spiritual and Internal commands and also that the Apostle only excludes it and its works from Justification Now because I know not of any that speak exactly and satisfactorily of the Law in the several Notions and Acceptations of it nor in all things * I mean not rightly only because not comprehensibly enough so as to include all the senses of it here to be mentioned rightly however not in my judgment which in this may possibly differ from all others I think it needful to speak here something largely and distinctly of it not to destroy the Author's Opinion about the Apostle's sense since that may be done in few words but that I may lay a foundation for the right understanding not only of the passages of the Apostles in debate but other passages also of this Apostle and of the Authour to the Hebrews respecting the Law where they take it in a different sense from that wherein it is mainly taken in the places now in dispute My thoughts are these The Law of Moses or Old Testament-dispensation may be considered as to Temporal respects only or as to Conscience or Life-to-come Concernments And first to speak of it as to Temporal concernments only it may in this respect be considered either strictly or as affording pardon 1. The Law of Moses may be considered as to Temporal respects in its utmost exacting Rigour I mean in its utmost Rigour threatning Temporal Punishments as Dearth or Barrenness to their Land and by that Calamity to the Community as also by Pestilence and Banishment out of their Land to be executed by God And as the Instrument of the Jewish Polity or Common-wealth for they had no other Temporal-Law of their Land threatning violent and untimely Death to all * It threatnâ—d as the Common-wealth-Law this violent death to every external visible Breach whether Omissiâ—n or Commâ—ssion of every express Law either Mâ—ral Judicial or Ceremâ—nial This appears plain enough â—y that Sanction Cursed is every one that continues not in all things c. The penalty was threatned to every Transgressâ—â— and what this penalty was appâ—aâ—s by its contrary the Life promised to the Obedient which all will grant to contain temporal Life But it most undeniably appeaâ—s by that of a Beast's blood being offered in stead of the offender's I do not think it threatned as the Câ—â—mâ—n-wealth-law this death to a breach in thought or will with us any visible I mean by this word that may bâ— seen or Externally perceived if any man was by to perceive it external Omâ—ssion or Câ—mmission nor to a not-express but only by remote consequence implied breach nor was the Magistrate bound to inflâ—ct death on the offender guilty of such sinful thoughts or desires or refusing to offer sacrifice for them though it some way came to his knowledg as by the parties confessing such inward sins to him and declaring his resolution not to â—ffer sacrifice for them Yea it seems apparent that none of their sacrifices were to be offered for such Internal sins Transgressors of it to be Executed by the Magistrate or if secret from him or in the Magistrate's neglect or default by God himself Lev. 20. 3 4 5. Yea and it enjoyned exclusion from Society and from the Congregation for pollutions Lev. 15. Numb 19. Which were at least most of them no sins though so called figuratively not being forbidden being generally altogether Involuntary and it might often be a man's duty to pollute himself as for Example by Burying the Dead Though yet it was a sin yea and might be a presumptuous sin in the sense of Numb 15. 30. to neglect wittingly the Expiation or Purgation in that case appointed and also to come into society till the Purgation finished This would take up too much time to speak more particularly exactly of I would speak more plain if possible let me Repeat it in other words which may be plainer to some understandings I say the Law may be considered in this External political sense viz. so far as the Offences might be Expiated by their Sacrifices or were excluded positively by it from being expiated by their Sacrifices for that Exclusion was meant only as to Temporal punishment taking no notice of the Future or Eternal In this sence it had only as Temporal punishments of Offenders so only Temporal promises of Peace or Prosperity or Long-Life in the Land of Canaan upon obedience to the Law and also had in this sense no Spiritual or Internal precepts Now the Law in this strict temporal sense wherein it threatned such calamities to every Offender was a shadow of things to come Punishments to come a Shadow and Commemoration of the same I mean materially the same Law 's * It was a strangely severe Common-wealthlaw even beyond Draco's Laws that for their severity were said to be writ in blood and this severity would even appear irrational and unaccountable unto us did we not consider its typicalness and representation of the great strictness of the same law in a higher sense cursing with eternal death every one not continuing in all c. And also did we not consider that it wâ—s given with a Râ—medâ—ing Law accâ—pting the blood of beasts in stead of a man's in most cases severe threatnings of Future punishments to every Transgression either External or Internal And a shadow or pattern of Good things to come Heb. 10.
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
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