the failing in not doing works of Super-erogation cannot be pardoned nor need Christs satisfaction It is but casting a Mist before the Readers Eyes so often to put in the word Eternal-death saying they do not deserve Eternal death Will he grant that God may justly punish such sins with Temporal death or any Temporal punishment I see he will not His Opinion and his and Episcopius's Argument that God cannot justly require what men cannot do areas much against their deserving any punishment at all If God do not as he affirms require them by any Law to be free from such sins then they are not sins nor deserve any Penalty It would then be Injustice in God to make any mans finger or tooth to ake for them Whereas the Popish Schoolmen themselves do grant that they do deserve Temporal punishment Though the Scripture indeed allows no ground for any such distinction but either threatens and be sure it would not threaten what sin doth not deserve death yea Eternal death or nothing The wages of Sin is death the Sting of death is Sin and the strength of Sin the Law And Cursed is he that continues not in all c. Which curse the Author as you will after see affirms to signifie Eternal wrath But to go on with his words The other thing which the Apostle supposes in his Argument is this viz. That there was no true and perfect Remission of Sins or deliverance from Divine Anger or Eternal death due to sins promised in the Mosaic-Law It is manifest enough the Apostle had respect to this ver the 20th of the foresaid Chapter viz. Rom. 3. Where having drawn his Conclusion only from the first Hypothesis viz. that all are guilty he presently subjoyns this other without which his whole Argumentation would have been infirm in these words For by the Law is the knowledg of Sin Which sentence is without doubt to be understood exclusively thus By the Law is only the * Methinks This very place viz. Rom 3. 20 which this Author insists on to prove the Apostlâ— by the Law meant a Law having only Temporal threaâ—s and External commands should have convinced him that he meant by it a Law that had Future threats and Internal commands even the Law in the strict Conscience-senâ—eâ— since it is hard to imagine how there should be much conviction or knowledg of sin and its danger by a Law that had no Spiritual or Internal commands nor Future-life-threats And the Apostle's Argument here is this viz. We cannot be justified as innocent by the Law that conviâ—â—ces us we are sinners knowledg of sin and not Remission Now I said expresly that the Law of Moses did contain no true and perfect Remission of sins Because I well knew that there was given in the Law of Moses some kind of Pardon such a slender one as it was to Sins and that to voluntary and hainous sins For though the Sins which were done by Pride notorious Rebellion or as the Scripture speaks with a high-hand could be expiated with no Sacrifices but were punished with death without Mercy or Pardon except the special Mercy of God did intervene as Numb 15. 25 26. is to be read Yet they are not all to be accounted amongst these sins as the most Learned †This is the common observation of Learned men Episcopius hath most highly well observed which are done voluntarily or are done Spontaneously or in some measure on purpose but they only which are done with an impious contempt of Gods Commands or with the stubbornness of a wilful mind And so they are They to which the Punishment of Death was appointed by God It is plain that they that think otherwise are in a manifest Errour as appear's from that that we see God appointed sacrifice for such sins as these viz. Not restoring a Pledg The taking away something from another by Force The denying of what one found of another's yea and that with an Oath Lev. 6. 2 3 4. Therefore there was granted Remission in the Mosaic-Law to hainous sins But what a kind of Remission Why External Civil Temporary and which belonged only to this Carnal life For the Law as it was an Instrument ordained for the Political Beatitude of civil Society did promise long Life to those who lived according to the Law Lev. 18. 5. and on the contrary did threaten violent death to the Transgressors of it as we learn out of Exod. 20. 7. But the highest Law-giver the merciful GOD that all the people might not be exstirpated with the punishments of their sinning appointed that some most atrocious offences indeed that did wage open war against the Life and civil Converse of men and this Political Theocracy or Government of God for the defence of which the Mosaical-Law was instituted such as Idolatry Murther Adultery c. should only be expiated with death But Sacrifices were slain for men unclean or defiled with Sins less hainous Therefore the Punishment of Temporary death which the men deserved was transferred upon a Beast Therefore the Mosaical Sacrifices did afford only a Carnal Redemption in as much as they did by Divine appointment free a man indeed from a violent and immature death but they did afford no remedy against death it self In a word they did not afford such Remission as is conjoyned with the giving of Eternal life There being no mention in the Law of Moses nor Promise made of it The divine Author to the Epistle to the Hebrews had respect to this Chap. 9. Where having spoken of the Sacrifices prescribed in the Law He denies they could make the Sacrificer perfect according to Conscience v. 8. that is Free the man from Internal and Eternal guilt of Sin in the sight of God but they availed only to the Purgation of the Flesh v. 13. that is That a man might be Externally freed from Punishment and Corporal death Then he brings in these places Heb. Chap. 7. 11. 19. Chap. 10. 1. Where it is affirmed The Law made nothing perfect and thus proceeds In which place by Perfection he chiefly understands Full and Perfect that is Eternal Absolution not only from leighter faults but from most hainous which he most deservedly denies to be afforded by the Law of Moses It cannot but be manifest to him that rightly understands these things wherefore it is that the Apostle denies Justification to the Law viz. Not because it requires perfect and so impossible Obedience as the condition of Justification but rather because it grants no Justification at all that is conjoyned with the Donation of Eternal life upon any condition whatsoever Out of these Premises therefore the Apostle at length draws his Conclusion viz. Neither Jews nor Gentiles which be comprehended under these words no Flesh can be justified by the Law of Moses in the sight of God Chap. 3. 20. Which words are added by way of Emphasis because he was to grant some kind of Justification by the Law
Pâ—scaâ—or interpreting the words beside the Covenant thus Praeter actionem illam qua foedus fuit pactum which can mean nothing but the peoples Engagement which actual promise of the people the Lord commanded Moses to make with the children of Israel that is which the Lord commanded Moses to cause the children of Israel to make for so this phrase and word is expresly used Josh 24. 25. Joshuah made a Covenant with the people that day that is caused the people to promise obedience to the Lords Commands that day The like sense the word hath so far as concerns the Covenanting of the people 2 Kings 11. 17. in the Land of Moab beside the Covenant that is beside their actual promising which Moses made with them that is caused them to make at Horeb or Sinai But suppose this Verse should have reference only to the following Verses in this Chapter and the following his meaning can only be These are the words whereby he engaged the people in a Covenant distinct from the words whereby Moses engaged them in a Covenant to the Lord formerly We find Joshuah a little before his death again engaging the people in a Covenant to obey Gods Commandments and useth Words and Exhortations different from these in this Chapter in engaging them Suppose we had read such words as these viz. These are the words of the Covenant which Joshuah made with the people besides the Covenant which Moses made with them at Mount Sinai and in the Land of Moab This might import that it was a distinct Engaging of the people from the other two but not that it was another Covenant of God having other Promises and Commands and Threats We find the people in Nehemiah's time Nehem. 10. 29. entering into a Covenant But it was into the Mount Sinai-Covenant It was to walk in God's Law which was given by Moses and we may see there it was also to observe Ceremonial and Judicial commands It seems they had not observed this New-covenant of this Authors in these two Chapters of Deuteronomy Object But may not this whole Book of Deuteronomy being spoken in the Land of Moab comprehend a new Gospel-Covenant distinct from the Old at Sinai and so that be serviceable to reconcile those passages of the Apostle Paul in dispute the Author's way Answ No For the Apostle Paul cites Gal. 3. two Passages out of this Book for words of the Law And again There are by far more Promises and Threatnings in this Book expressed in a Carnal Temporal and Terrence stile than in all the Law of Moses beside in Exodus Leviti Numb I am sensible this Ignis fatuus hath led me out of my designed way for I designed here only to bring in those Passages together without any reflection upon them where the Author tells us what he supposes the Apostle Paul means by the Law which he disputes against Justification by and by the Works of even a Law that either hath or at least in the sense the Apostle opposeth Justification by it hath neither Spiritual-promises nor Threatnings nor Precepts There is only one place more and that is pag. 122 123. where he explains the Apostle's meaning by the Law but because I have been long in Reciting these and that wâ—ll methodically be brought in in another place I shall bring it in there and so shall return now to the place where I left off viz. At the end of pag. 102. and shall begin at the top of pag. 103. where he tells us The Apostle useth two Arguments against Justification by Works which two Arguments this Author only prosecutes and so largely that the Setting down and Proving and Explaining these takes up almost two third parts of his whole Book Take his own words Pag 103. The Arguments whereby Paul opposes the Law may be divided into two sorts one into those which belong to the whole Mosaic-Covenant the other into those Arguments which chiefly respect the Ceremonial Law This latter sort of Arguments which chiefly respect the Ceremonial-Law he leaves till near the end of his Book and then spends but few Lines about them as not being as he saith controverted by Christians The Arguments of this first sort whereby the Apostle fights are especially two and those are taken from a double defect of the Mosaic-Covenant viz. From the want both of pardoning Grace and of helping Grace The first Argument of the Apostle respecting the Mosaic-Covenant is drawn from the defect of Pardoning-grace or Remission of sins which that Covenant wanted Where the Apostle shews the Universal guilt as well of the Jews as of the Gentiles and that all are guilty of those sins that there is no true and perfect Remission to be hoped for by this Law It is clear that this is the scope of Paul in the third Chapter of the Epistle to the Romans For there after a long Catalogue of sins charged both on the Jews and Gentiles by the Law v. 10. c. At length ver 20. he inferrs this conclusion Wherefore by the works of the Law shall no flesh be justified in his sight viz. in the sight of God And also the things which the Apostle disputes in the 3d. Chap. of Gal. are to be referred the same way where he proves also by this Reason That all who are under the Law are under a Curse because it is written Cursed is every one that shall not continue in all things written in the Law to do them v. 10. But here I am sensible that upon the very Threshold I am cast upon a great difficulty For it may be doubted here whether this Argumentation of the Apostle doth not lean upon this Foundation that he determines The Mosaic-Law as it was given to the Jews was a Law requiring Obedience wholly perfect and so impossible to be performed and also whether the Apostle conclude that upon this account all men are sinners by this Law and by and for their sins guilty of eternal Death and Malediction and so that no man can be Justified by this Law Thus indeed the most think affirming that the Law of Moses did oblige if not absolutely yet †Conditionally is no good word here For though we may properly say Men shall perish for their sins conditionally except they repent for this is no more than to say the Law that threatens death absolutely shall be executed except they repent yet we must not say that the Law threatens death conditionally except they repent but we must hold it threatens death absolutely repent or repent not and that the Gospel is a distinct Law a Remedying-Law For if God threatned death by the Law only conditionally except they perform the Gospel-condition it would follow that no man is pardoned that performs the Gospel condition it would also quite destroy Christs Satisfaction Though I know many mean well that use such speeches and however far better than the Author that denies any such Law-threat either absolute or conditional conditionally
and facilly gathered that all are sinners and cannot be justified by the Law that is without pardon of sin hainous sort as will easily appear to any one viewing the place Secondly If you enquire concerning the Persons charged by him they are as well Gentiles as Jews v. 9. 19. 23. but both considered as they were before and without the Grace of the Gospel which is even manifest from the scope of the Apostle whose purpose it was to stir up both Jews and Gentiles convinc't of their guilt and misery to seek and embrace the Grace of the Gospel Therefore Paul contends that both Gentiles and Jews considered in this estate to be all under sin You will Object But there were some at least amongst the Jews who liv'd a holy and unblamable life before the Faith of Christ or their faith in Christ and a life most alien from the Vices which the Apostle here reckons up and from all of the like kind such as were Zachary Elizabeth Simeon Anna and others I answer I confess it yea I do not doubt but amongst the Gentiles †I dare not affirm this For then I must hold their Salvation whereas I read Salvation is of the Jews and that the Gentiles were without hope without God in the world Neither yet daâ—e I say that none did thus sincerely also there were some who abhorred the Vices here mentioned and also did sincerely and from their hearts love and follow Coluerunt Virtue and Righteousness so far as it was known to them And both right Reason and St. Paul himself perswades me to be of this Opinion who doth not obscurely teach it himself Rom. 2. v. 14 15 26 27. But because the Objection is made only concerning the Jews I will answer only concerning them leaving it yet to the Reader to accommodate or fit the same Answer to the Gentiles mutatis mutandis changing what is to be changed I say therefore that First These Pious men amongst the Jews were very few and being compar'd to others as a drop in the Sea and therefore the Apostle was to take no great notice concerning them But it was reasonable that the great scarcity of good men should as one speaks give its testimony to the numerosity of the wicked And certainly universal speeches of this sort that the Apostle here uses do often occurr in Scripture which yet it is certain are †That is all put for the most This then is to say that the most men are guilty of sins deserving Eternal death and needing pardon by Christ but he contradicts this sence after Hyperbolical see John 3. 32. Isa 66. 23. Joel 2. 28. Acts 2. 17. Psal 14. 23. 145. 14 15. Phil. 2. 21. c. Secondly Those few that were Righteous under the Law did not receive their Righteousness from the Law but they owed it to Gospel-grace which even before the Promulgation of the Gospel did indeed more sparingly and rarely put forth it's force through all past-Ages In a word they were led with the Spirit of the Gospel and not of the Law and so deserved to be accounted with those who are not of the Works of the Law but are of Faith Whence the Author of the Epistle to the Hebrews shews that all the works of Pious men who shine in the History of the Old Testament proceeded not from the Law but from Faith Thirdly It is †Sure this is too easie a word that it is likely such did commit such a sin as to deserve Eternal death so as to need Christ and Pardon likely that those few did not so carry themselves through the whole course of their lives but that they some time fell into some sins or into some more hainous sin and worthy of death Yea this is to be accounted for certain †This doth not prove his Opinion for though these did not yet it is probable Some did live without any hainous sin in his sense in the whole course of their lives and so did not need pardon as to Eternal guilt by his opinion because it is expresly read concerning those very men to whom in the Old Testament an unblamable and perfect observation of the Divine Law is ascribed That sometimes they fell into some sins and those enormous ones and most worthy of Death as of Asa 2. Chron. 16. Of David 1 Kings 15. 5. Of Josiah 2 Chron. 35. 22. And I think that which follows with the Apostle v. 23. must be interpreted to this sense viz. All have sinned and come short of the Glory of God That proposition seems plainly Universal so as to except none implying there is no man who hath not been guilty of some sins or of some more hainous sin either some one time or for some time Sive aliquando sive aliquandiu And this seems to be that very thing which the Scripture in many places asserts as for Example 1 Kings 8. 46. For there is no man who doth not sin 1 John 1. 8. If we say we have no sin we deceive our selves and the Truth is not in us Which speech that it ought to be understood of sins properly so called not only of lighter faults and also that it is Universal the very matter shews and the things which are after Pag. 118. added in that Epistle Chap. 2. v. 12. wherein also that is to be noted that St. John speaks in the Praeter-tense If we say we have not sinned viz. before the knowledg of the Gospel that is to say The holy Apostle would have the Christians to whom he writes diligently to take heed to themselves of the fault of an ingrateful mind And that they would not attribute this that they are purged from Vices either to themselves or the Law of Moses or Nature but only to Gospel-grace Otherwise he doth not seem to deny but that after the knowledg of the Gospel and its Grace received some could be without sin so as the word Sin is taken by him not so as it should signifie meer Ignorance or suddain Motions but those evil acts which have tractum a continued course as Grotius speaks and do not go before deliberation yea he doth not obscurely hint that this is possible 1 Epist 2. 1. Where he doth seriously exhort Christians not to sin Perhaps one may reply that the Apostle in the aforesaid Chapter v. 3. doth use the Present tense If we say we have no sin c. Therefore he implies That no man even after the Faith of the Gospel is free or can be free from those sins more properly so called But the answer is easie for to have sin and to sin or to do sin do not signifie the same Because to have sin as Grotius saith rightly is not now to be in sin but to be guilty or to be made guilty for sins formerly committed as doth most manifestly appear from John 9. 41. and 15. 22 24. The sense therefore is If we say that we have not hainously
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
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
viz. unless they fled to the Gospel-covenant all those to whom it belonged and that under the peril of Eternal death to most absolute obedience that is such as comprehends all manner of sinlesness yea and that perpetually and did forbid all Imperfection Inadvertency and Infirmity through the whole course of their lives But I cannot be perswaded to the opinion of these for Reasons which I shall presently give In the mean while that you may more rightly understand the state of this Controversie keep this exactly in your mind that these two things do widely differ viz. A man to be accounted by God unworthy of the reward of Righteousness and Eternal life And a man to be accounted of God worthy to be punished with the punishment of Eternal death For the first For a man to be judged unworthy of Eternal Life it sufficeth that he is not altogether Sinless for God may and that righteously deny him the reward of Eternal Life for the least Imperfection For God might deny that infinite Gift of Eternal Life to a man obeying perfectly if such a one could be found because it is a free Gift and cannot be due to the Merit of any Creature But for that last That one should be accounted by God worthy of the punishment of Eternal death it is necessarily required that he did not perform that Obedience which he could perform Hence it follows that no man can righteously be adjudged guilty of Eternal death for the defect of perfect Righteousness since this Righteousness is simply impossible to a man in this Life And it is manifest that the Apostle in the Dispute of which we speak doth prove all Jews and Gentiles without difference for not obeying the Law not only to be unworthy of the reward of Eternal life but obnoxious to Divine anger and Eternal death That every mouth might be stopped Rom. 3. 19. that is that all Jews and Gentiles may be without excuse Rom. 1. 20. and 2. 1. And what is more unlikely that I may use here the words of Episcopius that the Apostle would charge men to be guilty of Death and Condemnation for violating or not keeping a Law which he judged it impossible for them to keep Neither is it likely that Paul had any Adversaries but what would grant that no man could keep the Law so exactly as not to offend in the least and so no man to be justified in that sense by the Law And who would not also object to him that men were ill accused to be guilty of Punishment when it is certain they could not avoid the fault The foundation of all here said is this That it is repugnant to Divine Justice that any should be bound to Impossibilities Pag 106. especially under the peril of Eternal death He here make 's out That that-usual pretence of some is very absurd that men have lost their power to do what God requires of them and so God may justly require what they cannot now do which I grant and have elsewhere proved to be so absurd as no way to answer that difficulty He thus proceeds And to come to the Mosaic-Law it is far more unlikely that it was a Law requiring perfect Obedience Which that I may make manifest It is diligently to be observed that the Old Law as Grotius de Satisf cap. 10. noteth may be considered * This â—â—numeration is not near large â—â—ough nor any thing to the puâ—pose two ways as having a double relation or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 First Carnally and according to the Letter as it was an Instrument of the Government of the Jewish Polity or the Common-wealth Secondly Spiritually as having a shadow of good things to come Heb. 10. 1. Now in this last 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Habitude since the Law was nothing else but the * The Law as it had a shadow of good things to come was not the Gospel it self Again so far as it was an Instrument of the Jewish Polity it was a shadow of good things to come And so far as it was the Law of Grace the Gospel of Salvation it Typified nothing Gospel it self shadowed with or shadowed under Types no man in his right wits will say it was a a Law requiring perfect obedience viz. In that sense wherein the Law was meant in this Controversie to require perfect Obedience It remains therefore to be affirmed that the Law of Moses required perfect Obedience under the former consideration viz. As the Instrument of the Jewish Government But to affirm this would be wonderfully * †It did threaten death in this consideration to the least failing in this Political-Law absurd Because First Because we read expresly that God by * It was not by that Law formally considered but by the Remedying-Law different from it that Law commanded Sacrifices by which the offences which were not done in contempt of the Law and with a high Hand were expiated as may be seen Num. 15. from the 22d to the 29th v. Now * The just contrary is true For there can be no pardon of the want of perfect obedience but where perfect obedience is required where any pardon of sin is granted there the requiring of Perfect-bedience cannot have place For these are inconsistent Secondly The Mosaic-Law was so far from requiring Perfect-obedience from the Jews that it is too manifest that some things were in that Law * The doing things permitted by a Law is no breach of that particular Law nor hinders a man from perfectly obeying that Law permitted to them for the hardness of their hearts which things cannot be excused from being sin as Polygamy and Licence of divorcing for leight causes Deut. 24. 1. and compared with Mat. 19. 3. c. I conclude therefore that since by the Mosaic-Law carnally considered many sins were remitted to the Jews and some things which at least to us Christians are accounted sins were expresly permitted It ought to be granted without controversie that this Law so considered did by no means require perfect and exact Obedience Yet there are not wanting Arguments by which some endeavour to prove this Hypothesis to be true and that thence Paul gathered the impossibility of Justification by the Mosaic-Law We will weigh these Arguments exactly to try if they have any thing of Solidity which ought to prejudice so plain a truth They bring two chiefly Their first Argument is taken from that place fore-alleadg'd by me Pag. 108. viz. Gal. 3. 10. As many as are of the works of the Law are under a Curse For it is written Cursed is every one that doth not continue in all things c. Where say they it is manifest that the Apostle gathers the Impossibility of Justification by the Mosaic-Law from thence that by this Law no man is free from a Curse who hath not obeyed all the commands of this Law perfectly I answer It is not necessary nor convenient in the cited place
this phrase continue in all things should signifie most Perfect-obedience or quite sinlesness since such Obedience is impossible to man encompassed with Flesh neither doth it seem consentaneous to Divine equity that any one for the defect of it should be obnoxious to Eternal Malediction Therefore the sense of the Testemony cited is this That every man is Accursed that is is Execrable and Obnoxious to the Punishment threatned by the Law who doth not do and observe perseveringly * Is not this perfect obedience to a Law to do all the Law requires to be done all those things which the Law prescribeth to be observed And he is reputed to do all things who doth not err from the end of the Law who keeps safe the essenal parts of the Law or as others speak who keeps all those Precepts of the Law which contain the substance of Life of which sort are all those Commands which are expressed by Moses in the Curses Deut. 27. In a word who admits nothing into himself knowingly and wittingly against the Law of God although he fails in something either out of Ignorance or Inadvertency That place Jam. 2. 10. being Twin-brother to this gives great light to this place Whosoever keeps the whole Law and yet offends in one point is guilty of all That is is obnoxious to the Punishment threatned to the Transgressors of the Law v. 10. For he that said Do not commit Adultery said also Do not kill c. Here he giveth the true and ordinary Interpretation of this place so largely as to take up pag. 109. and half pag. 110. which is this He that knowingly allows himself in the knowing Transgression of any one Law is as far from Salvation as if he kept none for such a one doth not act sincerely in Obedience to any Law since all Divine Laws have the same Author and Authority Therefore he that knowingly neglects one Law doth not keep other Laws because of Gods Authority in Commanding or because of Gods Command but because he hath not that list through Temptation to break them for if he had as much list through Temptation to break them such a one would break the other Laws He goes on But one may perhaps reply Grant it let that place of James be so expounded Pag. 110. yet the same Interpretation will by no means agree to the Apostle's scope in that place of the Epistle to the Galatians For since the Apostle doth prove all who are of the Law to be under a Curse only by this reason because it is written Cursed is every one that doth not continue in all things c. he doth manifestly hint that no man can continue in all things or that the Law doth require such perfect obedience as none can perform Answer I altogether deny that to be hinted or implyed in the Apostle's Argument Which that it may be made apparent I will reduce it to a Syllogistical form Thus He is accursed who doth not continue in all thing which the Law commands But whosoever are of the works of the Law do not continue in all those things Ergo They that are of the works of the Law are under a Curse The Apostle speaks expresly of Pag 111. those who are of the works of the Law v. 10. That is who seek Righteousness in the Law being ignorant of or despising the Grace of the Gospel whom he opposeth to them that are of Faith v. 9 That is who believe the Gospel and embrace it's Grace and who have attained the Promises or thing Promised of the Spirit whereby they may fulfil the Righteousness of the Law and so avoid the Curse of it v. 14. Of the first sort indeed he hints that they neither continue nor †Then they aâ—e not according to his Argument bound to continue in all c. and so are free from the Curse though they continue not in all c. can continue in all things written but of the second sort he by no means affirms it In a word The Apostle â—â—ver spoke word against man's being able to fulfil the Law in all things by Gospel-Grace so far as it was a Law that is under the penalty of Eternal death is imposed us or ever was imposed upon Mankind since the fall of the first man yea he often acknowledges this possibility as we shall see hereafter There remains another Argument of the Adversaries of which they boast as being most unconquerable taken out of that famous place Deut. 6. 5. Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart and with all thy soul and with all thy strength You may see here say they that the highest and perfectest love of God is required of all in the Law Answer They who fight with this Argument do kill themselves with their own Sword For since God requires no other love than what is done with all the Heart and Mind and with all the Strength it is manifest that nothing is required of us beside or above our strength our strength I mean helpt with that measure of Grace which God communicates to every one of us in this Life or is certainly ready to communicate Now it is certain that we can with all our Pag. 112. strength obey God because it would be a †It is no contradiction but a great truth It is appaâ—ent that a man's culpable Impotency to good is an Impotency of doing something that we have the natural power and strength to do And whosoever doth not understand this must necessarily talk ridiculously about such matters as these in hand manifest contradiction to say we cannot do the thing we can do or cannot do a thing according to our strength The truth of this Answer is established firmly with these following Reasons First Because God promises that he will give to his people that which he requires viz. To circumcise their heart to love him with all their heart Deut. 30. 6. Secondly Because God himself witnesseth that there were some that loved him after this manner so it is said of Asah the King and all the people that they sought the Lord with their whole heart 2 Chro. 15. 2. We read of David that he followed God with all his heart 1 Kings 14. 8. But that is a famous Testimony which the Holy Ghost gives concerning Josiah the King That he turned to the the Lord with all his heart and with all his soul and with all his strength according to the Law of Moses 2 Kin. 23. 25. viz. That is said to be done with the whole heart and whole strength which a man imploys his chief Thoughts and Endeavours about even as we say A man is totus in literis wholly in studies that maketh them his chief business I shall as soon as I have recited all he saith of this nature answer the substance of all But this of loving God with all the Soul being something out of the Road I will answer it here The
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
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
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-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