the pardon is only as to the first Law and Breach of it for there is no pardon as to this second Law and Breach of it for if he do not read which is the condition of the second Law there is no pardon for his failing therein So that if the first Law never threatned Eternal death there can be no pardon as to Eternal death And which maketh it still apparent is this Pardon must be by some Law else it may be Forbearance or Reprieve but no Pardon and no Law can possibly in any case whatsoever afford pardon of Offences against it self it is a contradiction to say it may For to answer an objection that may be in your mind suppose a Law made threatning the Offenders only conditionally as threatning death except a man abjure the Realm or pay a sum of Money in this case if the person either abjure or pay the Money here is no pardoning any thing the Law threatned for the Law never threatned his death absolutely So that you see there cannot possibly be pardon of a transgression from the Law it self but only from another Law a Remedying Law or Act of Oblivion Therefore the Gospel which is an Act of Pardon or Oblivion for those that are guilty of the breach of another Law cannot possibly pardon an offence against it self which is failing in the performing the condition of it by dying in Unbelief For any that will affirm pardon in the failing in the condition of this Act of Oblivion he must affirm some new Law made for a Remedying Law to one cast by the Gospel to this effect That if men die impenitent they shall be saved provided they or others for them perform the condition while they are in an other world which the Papists affirm something a kin to Now if the Gospel afford no pardon to them that perform not its condition as it is impossible it should and no Law else threatens Eternal death there cannot possibly be any pardon of sin as to Eternal death So that you see whatsoever this Author saith to the contrary we must hold a Law threatning Eternal death or Wrath to come which Christ hath undergone a punishment for the satisfaction of distinct from the Gospel or the Law of Grace that was founded upon the account of this satisfaction and that all are condemned by this Law and that as to Future and Eternal concernments and that none are Justified by it Which if the Author had considered he would surely have told us better than he hath done what the Apostle meant by the Law and works of the Law which he denies Justification by Yea and you must hold that this Law threatning wrath to come to every Offender is yet in force and not Abrogated by the Gospel yea and that it threatens men that do perform the Gospel-condition as really as others I shall not deny that such a Law seiseth upon mens being sinners as to the Promissary part as a promise made to a man if he shall work all such a week doth cease after he hath failed the first day but it is actually in Force still with its penalty requiring perfect Obedience and not only sincere which I thus prove First Else we must say that no man sins or transgresseth this Law so he do but perform the Gospel condition so he be but in the main a sincere Christian and consequently that no sincere Christian needs Christs satisfaction or pardon for such sins as are consistent with Gospel sincerity which is an Opinion which I almost dread to mention though the Author seems very confident in it for he maintains pag. 108. 112. That so men do but chiefly mind the best things do but observe the main Precepts of the Law no Law whatsoever requires any more of them and also holds that men after * I cannot tell whether he mean after Conversion or after the meer Preaching of the Gospel to â—hem but however I will â—onstrue it to the best sense Conversion or receiving the Gospel for any disability on them to the contrary may and for any evidence we have in the Scripture to the contrary do live such lives as not to sin any sin that deserves or is by any Law threatned so much as conditionally with Eternal death and so it follows consequently as any one sees that they need no pardon or the Blood of Christ for such sins as to Eternal punishment though yet he grants but yet any one may see with some reluctancy That pag. 117. All do sometime or other of their lives commit some either sin or sins that deserves Eternal punishment and consequently needs pardon and the Blood of Christ Now if it be true that he saith that No Law of God requires any more than that men keep the main substantials of it and make Religion their business then he may safely affirm that they do not need pardon by the Blood of Christ for any so much as temporal punishment as to those failings that are consistent with true Christianity I grant the Gospel requires no more for our Justification and Salvation than such sincere imperfect indeavours as he mentions but I cannot enough express my dislike of saying No Law doth require any more Secondly If the Law was abrogated by Christs satisfaction and the Gospel as to its requiring perfect Obedience under a threatning of the penalty of Eternal death of those that continue performing the Gospel-condition Then we must not say that Christ died to obtain the pardon of those sins that are consistent with Gospel-sincerity but died to prevent them from being Sins and Transgressions of the Law that would otherwise have been sins or to prevent such sins from legally desâ—â—ving or being threatned with Eternal wrath and so to prevent them from being pardoned by his Blood as to Eternal wrath Secondly Another great Mistake that causeth his other Errors as any one may perceive that reads his Book is this That he doth not understand or doth not consider the difference between an Original Law with a Remedying Law or conditional Act of Oblivion distinct from the Original Law and a Law that threatens a transgressour of it only conditionally I shall make my meaning appear by an Instance which he brings of an Original Law and a Remedying Law though I confess he brings it not under that notion but speaks somthing not right concerning it and especially he is widely mistaken in making that the chief yea the only Law of Moses that the Apostle speaks against Justification by in those places where he speaks against Justification by the works of the Law though yet I do think that the Apostle had in some places a main respect to this Law of Sacrifices now to be mentioned as Acts 13. 38 39. Heb. 7. 11. 19. Chap. 9. v. 8. 18. Chap. 10. v. 1. c. The Instance is this Page 121 122. where he rightly tells us That God did make a Law that concerned the Jews as a
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-Temporal-Law of their Land threatning violent and untimely Death to all * It threatnâ—d as the common-wealth-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-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.
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-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
Common-wealth that every one that transgressed the Law should die by a violent death viz. Either I suppose by the Sword of the Magistrate if publickly known or God would in Judgment cut them off himself But God in mercy that the whole Community might not be destroyed by the death of the Multitude of Offenders and also I suppose to Typifie our greatest concernments in reference to another life made another Law concerning the most of those offences for some offences were for great reasons excepted from this Act of Oblivion and were to be punished with temporal death without mercy that if the Offender offer a Sacrifice he should be spared and it should be accepted in his stead Now to the matter in hand Suppose that the first of these Laws had it self run thus conditionally that if any man commit any such offence He shall die a violent temporal death or some Beast for him In this case we could not have said that this Law required the Offender's blood but his or the Beasts indifferently neither could we have said if he had offered a Beast that he was pardoned since the Law threatned not his death but his or the Beast's and so there was nothing of remitting or pardoning any thing the Law required We could not say that the Beast died as a satisfaction to the Law that the Law might not be executed for if the Beast died the Law was Executed according to the utmost severity that it threatned without pardon We could not say the Beast died to expiate his guilt and obligation to die for he never was guilty of Death never was threatned with death by this Law but He was to die or thus part with his Beast indifferently But now consider this Instance as it was in truth an Original Law threatning the Offender's death absolutely and a Remedying Law distinct and we here see that an Original Law and Remedying Law are well consistent both in force We cannot say that the Original Law that threatned the offender's death absolutely was null'd or abrogated by this Remedying Law but it remained in force only there was a Remedying Law in mercy provided to free from the penalty that though due to the first Law it should not be executed We cannot say the offender's death was not threatned by the Law or that he was not guilty of death by that Law we cannot say the Beast died to hinder the man from being guilty of death so far as concerns the Law but that though he was * We read expresly that in the case of sacrifice for sin there was guilt or obligation to the punishment and attonement or expâ—ation and paâ—don or forgiveness Lev. 5. v. 1. 4 10. 17 18 19. compared So Chap. 6. v 4 7. And all these well consistent Yea pardon cannot be at all without a Law in force obliging to punishment for the offence pardoned guilty by that Law that he should not be guilty with the reatus redundans in personam that it should not be inflicted You cannot say the man was not pardoned as to his death because the Beast died for him for he was pardoned the Law was not executed for it threatned his death absolutely nor that the Beast did not die a satisfaction to Justice that the Law might not be Executed by pretending the Law was executed without pardon by the death of the Beast So that original-Original-Law Cursed is every one with a curse after this Life that obeys not in every thing may be actually in force consistent with the Remedying Law the Gospel That if a man be a sincere Christian a sincere Servant of God in the main he shall be free from that Curse You cannot say If a man be a sincere Christian perform the Gospel-condition he sins not against any Law in force nor that the sins that are consistent with true Christianity are not threatned with Eternal death or that he is not condemned dayly for such sins by that Law or that he is not pardoned as to Eternal death as to those sins pretending that no Law in force threatens them with Eternal death or that there cannot be an Expiation for them they not being sins or threatned with any Eternal penalty You cannot say that Christ died not a satisfaction to Justice that the Law-threat might not be executed pretending the Law was executed without pardon for the Law threatned us absolutely and not Christ at all Thirdly Another great cause of his Mistakes is his not understanding the difference between Natural-Impotency which is when a man hath not the Natural Faculties or Abilities to do a thing as being a Natural-Fool or Deaf or Blind or hath not a sufficient proposal of the Object to be known or believed and they that have not this Natural-power of doing a thing are not bound by the Law of God to do what they have this Natural-impotency to and so do not sin in the not doing it and Moral-Impotency which is wilful wickedness and doth not in the least excuse men from obedience to the commands they have only this Impotency to the obeying of Now the not understanding of this causes that Self-contradicting Notion of his from pag. 104. to pag. 114. where he contradicts himself most fluently in almost his whole Discourse I do not much wonder at this since every man must necessarily contradict himself in all he saith about such things that doth not keep notions clear and distinct about this Distinction which too few do where he tells us He cannot be of the judgment of the most who hold that the Law doth oblige men if not absolutely yet conditionally except they flie to the Covenant of Grace and that under the peril of Eternal death to absolute Obedience that is such Obedience as excludes all sin And for this reason he cannot be of this Judgment Because no man can do it And adds pag. 108 That therefore he holds that the Law threatens only those that do not do all things the Law requires them to do What Is not this perfect Obedience even to Innocency to do all the Law requires men to do If a man do all the Law requires him to do he doth perfectly obey the Law he doth not sin except he fail in something the Law requires from him Strange speech No Law of God he saith requires perfect Obedience because no man can perform perfect Obedience therefore the Law requires no more than a man can perform Is not this to say That the Law doth only require what a man can do and yet all a man can do is not all the Law requires is not perfect Obedience If no Law require a man to be free from those sins he speaks of that are consistent with Christianity then those sins are lawful and the doing of such things as are lawful cannot hinder a man from being innocent can be no hindrance to his perfect obeying the Law Yea it is a Contradiction in the very Words keeping to the same Law as
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-Original-Law and remedying-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-Remedying-Law only or both together the original-Original-Law as it threatned a violent Temporal death and the remedying-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
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-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-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
sinned before the knowledg of the Gospel and because of those sins to have been guilty of Eternal death and so yet to be guilty unless the Grace and Mercy of the Gospel should Relieve us we are plainly Lyars and basely ingrateful toward the Gospel and that Truth which we profess What need of many words John himself is a manifest * Why may not both Speeches be true Or why may not the latter Speech as well be Expounded by the former I could shew that these words were spoken against such as pretended Perfection and that Grotius's interpretation is not right but that would require too many words It is a shorter way to refer you to other Scriptures speaking in the Present tense Jam. 3. 2. In many things we offend all He puts himself into the number and saith not we have offended Eccles 7. 20. There is not a just man upon the Earth that doth good and sinneth not 1 Kings 8. 46. There is no man that sins not If it should be replyed Such are not properly sins I shall ere long answer that Interpreter of himself when afterwards he Expounds not by we sin in the Praesent tense but we have sinned in the Praeter tense that which before he had said viz. We have no sin But let us return to Paul It appears from what we have spoken that this is the Sum of the first Hypothesis the Apostle's Argument leans on viz. That both Jews and Gentiles if you consider the far greatest part of them were plainly under the dominion of sin enslaved Pag. 119. to most filthy Vices And they who were the best and most holy of either Nation had not so ordered their life but at some time they had faln into some sins or at least into some †But they all according to his great Argument could have lived without all these sins or without that grievous sin worthy of Death and consequently so as to have no need of Pardon or Christs death to free them from Eternal deâ—th else no Law could require them to live free from such sin and consequently would be guiltless in committing that Act and not need pardon for it and consequently not need pardon or Christs death at all one more hainous sin and worthy of death And so all both Jews and Gentiles without difference and without acception were guilty before God Rom. 3. 19. were obnoxious to Divine wrath and Eternal death Thus he verbatim His great Argument against the ordinary Interpretation of the words of the Apostle Paul viz. That no Law of God requires any more than a man can do which I grant to be true but not in his sense in the sense that he useth it will do strange feats By the same Argument that he proves that God doth not require his people to be free from their dayly failings viz. Because no man cloathed with flesh can live without such he may prove that any man for any Impotency on him to the contrary may be free from standing in need of Pardon or the Blood of Christ thus Whosoever can live free from any great sins deserving or threatned with Eternal death can live without need of pardon or Christs satisfaction But all men can live free from any great sins deserving or threatned with Eternal death Ergo. The consequence is apparent He may prove his Minor thus If there was any man that could not live without any great sin threatned with Eternal death then he is not bound no Law requires him to live without such sin But the Law of God requires him to live without such sin Ergo. Yea And he might produce Aquinas and others affirming that though a man may live a little while without Venialsin though yet not long yet he may live without Mortal sin all his life Yea this Argument will as well prove the Heathen may live perfect and without sin as any else If they do what they can do what they can do And it is a contradiction he saith to say otherwise The consequence he may prove still thus That no Law requires any man to do more than he can As for such words Properly sins Improperly sins Less properly sins sins not deserving Eternal death and then sometime again saying no Law requires a man to live without them It is such slippery Discourse off and on That I can but ask Questions to have him clear his meaning in Answering and such Questions I would ask a man speaking obscurely about venial-Venial-sins amongst which some reckon Fornication Are these Things or Entities that are consistent with truth of Grace or Sincerity those peccata quotidianae incursionis as they are commonly called forbidden by any Law of God or not If you shall say as Lombard Aquinas Bellarmine that they are not then they are not Transgressions of the Law are not sins at all and no punishment whatsoever can be due to or deserved by them being no faults and a man is perfect notwithstanding them Bellarmine saith There is no way possible to maintain the Catholick Doctrine of mans ability perfectly to keep the Law but by denying Venial-sins to be forbidden by the Law Lib. 4. de Justif Chap. 14. Again may a sincere Christian seriously ask Pardon for these sins of dayly Incursion Then they are Sins and Transgressions of a Law or they could not be pardoned neither could Christ be a Sacrifice for them and then they are threatned with and deserve Eternal death for a man cannot with understanding ask pardon for that punishment which God cannot in Justice inflict There can be no Pardon but of Grace and Mercy and Favour and whatsoever God doth of Grace and Favour He might justly not have done it and so might in strict Justice not have pardoned but have condemned us for these Shall a man be condemned for these except he repent of his other sins Aquinas and Bellarmine maintain that men should be punished with Eternal death for their Venial-sins that do not they say deserve death Eternal except they repent Then they do deserve Eternal death for He may not so much as punish a man except he repent for those things which do not deserve the Punishment for he may not do unjustly though men do not repent Will any say though they be not contra legem against the Law yet they are prâ—â—ter besides the Law as many say concerning Venial-sins I would only say What do you mean Do you mean that they are neither commanded to commit those sins of dayly Incursion nor forbidden then they are as some say the Ceremonies are meerly things indifferent If they be not meerly indifferent will you say that the abstaining from such things is commendable though not commanded And so say as this Author rightly tells us the Pharisaical Jews held that those Commands that required Spiritual and inward Holiness as the Tenth Command were not Commands but Counsels If so then the abstaining from such Sins is a work of Super-erogation And then indeed
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-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
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-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-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
And one in Answer to this Book replying that this is contrary to the seventh Article of the Church of England which saith They are not to be heard who say the Fathers looked for no more than Transitory promises Meaning things Promised In his Appendix to the third Part pag. 150. He rejoyns I never thought that the Fathers looked for no more than Transitory promises but that it was not by virtue of the Covenant made with Moses that they looked for more I did and do affirm A great many of the Worthies mentioned Heb. 11. lived before the Law was given and the rest that followed them built their Expectation on the same ground they did Which also seems to be Doctor Hammond's opinion viz. That there were Promises of Future-life made to the more Ancient Patriarchs but none in the Mosaic-Dispensation For First Almost all the Arguments I have used do convincingly prove this That the Law of Moses to the Jews promised Future-life as well as threatned future-Future-death Now whether this Author holds the Law of Moses threatned future-life-Future-life-death to any sin or not I know not but think I have proved both sufficiently Also the Threats of Moses Law are expressed in as temporal a stile as the Promises so it would be irrational to affirm it threatned future-Future-death but promised not Future-life Secondly The promises made to Abraham were made in as temporal a stile as those in the Mosaic-Law if not in a far more temporal Thirdly If it shall be urged for I know the misunderstanding of such passages occasions this mistake that those Promises made to Abraham Isaac and Jacob are Interpreted in the New Testament as apparently reaching to a Future-life I answer So are the Promises of the Law of Moses made with the Jews Rom. 7. 10. Chap. 10. 5 6 7 2 Cor. 6. 16. Gal. 3. 10 11 12. And also the Threats Fourthly It seems apparent to me that that Dispensation of the Law from Mount Sinai and the Land of Moab was a clearer Dispensation of Threatnings of future-Future-death to the Disobedient and Promises of Future Soul-life to the Obedient than that to Abraham Sixthly You cannot with any colour reply It is true there are Promises of Future-life and Threatnings of Future-death as this Author somewhere grants but virtually and often unsays it again in Moses writings but not in the Law of Moses for these Promises and Threats were Gospel in Moses writings For First I have spoken against this Opinion enough already Secondly Some you see deny any such Promises in the Jewish Law And some any such Promises or Threats in the Scriptures of the Old Testament Thirdly If this was true it would follow That Christ never satisfied for any more than a temporal Curse of the Law For I have shewed the obsurdity of saying that he satisfied for the Curse of the Gospel in Moses writings threatned Fourthly The Apostle speaks of the Law in a sense distinct from the Gospel in Moses writings wherein it had Spiritual commands and that to Life meaning Eternal-life and also Future life Threats saying Christ hath born the Curse of the Law for us So Rom. 3. 20. By the deeds of the Law shall no flesh be justified in his sight For by the Law is the knowledg of sin So that I may conclude from what hath been here said that the utmost that can be said in derogating from the Law is First That the Law of Moses as it was the Common-wealth Law had no Eternal Promises or Threats or Spiritual Commands And in this sense are many Scriptures produced by this Author to be understood Secondly That the Law of Moses and the Old Testament-Law dispensation taken in the Important sense as refering to Conscience and Soul-salvation or damnation both in the sense wherein it was the original-Original-law of Works And also in the sense wherein it was the Gospel or a Law of Grace and Pardon hath no such cleer and distinct Promises of Eternal-life and threatnings of eternal-Eternal-death as are in the New Testament-Scriptures And in this comparative sense may some places of Scripture speaking in extenuation of the Law-promises be understood as being no Spiritual promises or Promises of Heaven comparatively to these in the New Testament And multitudes of Instances may be brought of Scriptures denying possitively and yet to be understood only comparatively As for Instance That place 2 Tim. 1. 10. where we read that Christ hath brought Life and Immortality to light through this clearer Dispensation of the Gospel must be understood comparatively as this Author grants though he destroys his whole Argumentation by granting it And may possibly be understood only of bringing them to light among the Gentiles who are said to be without hope being aliens from the Covenants of Promise For he saith in the verse following He was made a Teacher of the Gentiles viz. in these things Now though the light of Nature and Providence taught them Future-life happiness to the Obedient and Future misery and death to the Disobebient yet they taught these things so obscurely and faintly That they living wickedly and contrarily to the Light they had and so making it their interest to wish there was no Future-life might with ease stiffle and bafle such natural Sentiments so far as to hope there was no such Future state or however to make it a disputable Point as it was amongst them I mean more easily than the Jews that had the Law given in a dreadful manner testifying these things and credibly and convincingly brought down to them by Irrefragable testimony and more easily by far than men now But it is probable also this Scripture is to be understood comparatively to the Jewish dispensation of the Law and Gospel by Moses and the Prophets And indeed though it is so apparent that the Jews were taught a Future-life of Retribution by the Scripture of the Old Testament else those Scriptures could not have taught the Foundation of Religion and they did so understand the Scriptures That it is a wonder so many Learned men should incline to any Notions contrary yet the evidence they had of these things was very obscure to what this open-fac'd Dispensation of the Gospel affords and especially as to the exact manner of the great Judgment by Christ Jesus Acts 17. 31. And of Bodys being raised and made glorious like Christ's Body c. And also without doubt the best of them had very little particular hope and assurance ordinarily comparatively to this cleer Gospel-dispensation That they themselves in particular should enjoy the Future blessed state For they that knew but little of Christs satisfaction as comparatively to us they did which being now with open face known answereth such perplexing difficulties as they were ordinarily perplexed with and made subject to Bondage through fear of death could not ordinarily but be much perplexed thinking though it is apparent by the Testimony of God himself he will pardon sinners yet every truly Pious person might be ready
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
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-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-Future-death 5. You may see by what hath been said That the Law not as referring to Conscience and Future-life but as the Jewish Common-wealth Law did allow or indulge some things that is so far as not to threaten violent death to them at all and so in this Common-wealth sense did not forbid such Practises at all which yet the Law in the most Important and Conscience sense did forbid and so were sins threatned with future-Future-death As for example The putting away a Wife for any cause and Heart-murther and Heart-adultery Also I have made apparent that the Scribes and Pharisees the Jewish Doctors taught and it was an Opinion ordinarily received amongst the Jews in the days of Christ and his Apostles that if men were but justi ad legem that is righteous so far as to be free from such things as Temporal death was by the Law of the Land remedilesly threatned to and had offered Sacrifice for such as the Law allowed it for they were either as righteous as any Law of God in the utmost rigour required them to be or however at the least as righteous as the Law of God in the indulgent Gospel-sense required them as necessary to their Future salvation And that Christ opposeth in this Chapter the common Jewish conceit taught by their Doctors And without doubt there was no Jew ever saved by that Law of Moses taken in the Gospel-sense as all good men that lived under it were that did not more than was required by that Law in the strictest sense as the Law of the Land threatning violent death to be Executed by the Magistrate As for example that did not love and fear God and endeavour inward Holiness and the repressing of the inward sins which the Law in the Political sense required not And again All saved by that Law did far less than was required by that Law as the Original strict Law under the penalty of future-Future-death For all saved were pardoned as to future-Future-death as to some heart-Heart-sins which could not be if such sins were not Threatned with future-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
Spiritual and required more yea more necessarily for salvation even Internal Piety and so could not have spoken after that manner of his Righteousness according to the Law in the true important sense of the Law And hence it comes to pass since the Law was used by most of the Jews in those days in this external Political and Ritual sense That the Author to the Hebrews doth almost I think altogether constantly use this word the Law in this sense but confutes their erronious Opinion that held that in this sense it availed to Salvation in a Future-life and shews it in this sense made none perfect as to Conscience or Future-life concern's but only as it threatned violent death and exclusion from Society so the Sacrifices for Expiation reached not to Expiate sins as to Future-life concerns but only to free from the Temporal punishment of Death and Exclusion from the Congregation And hence also it comes to pass that the Apostle Paul often useth the word the Law in this Political sense Though it is apparent he doth not so when he denies Justification by the Law as to Future-life by reason of mens sinfulness as it is apparent he doth in those places that seem opposite to St. James And this Author also confess it For mans sinfulness could not possibly be any reason why men were not Justified as to Future-life by the Law in that Political sense wherein it neither promised Future-life nor threatned Future death You must observe diligently as you desire to understand the Apostle Paul in many places that he often passes from the Conscience strict sense of the Law opposed to the Gospel to the Common-wealth sense of the Law as Gal. 3. and often runs them together as Rom. 7. using the word sometime in one of the senses and intermixing passages that agree to it in the other which I could give you I think a satisfying account of and would indeavour by reciting the particular places but that I am sensible I speak more largely than is suitable for such a short Discourse as I intend Now to draw to a conclusion of this long Digression designed to help you to understand many Scriptures Since so many took the Law in this low sense as requiring so short an obedience and foolishly promised themselves that Eternal happiness in the observance of it so far which it never promised them It is no wonder that you find so many extenuating Expressions of it in this sense Not that any such Expressions extenuate it as the Common-wealth Law for it was an excellent one imposed by the only Wise God and fitted to the temper of the Jewish people and to Typifie the great things But they extenuate it 1. As a way of Salvation for it promised no such thing made nothing perfect as to Conscience and Eternal life though observed with the greatest exactness 2. It is not extenuated as a shadow or resemblance Typical of the great things for it was a wonderful perfect Shadow and Type But it is extenuated as being but a Shadow which the the Jews would have to be the very substance the way of Salvation it self of the great concernments a poor and beggarly Rudiment or * I could I think give satisfying Reasons that thâ— Law in this sense only is by the Apostle called a School-master to teach the first beggarly Letters or Elements and so to ceaâ—e its imployment and not at all in the strict Conscience sense Element or rude first Draught or representation of the great Realities 3. As that which was but Temporary and to vanish away as this Typical Common-wealth Law was to do at the fuller Exhibition of the things it was but a Type of 4. This is called the Letter the very outward Letter of the Old Testament for the most part though yet frequently otherwise holding forth the Law in this Common-wealth sense with the rewards prosperity in Canaan and the threats Temporal death And in its being called the Letter it is opposed to the Internal and Spiritual meaning of that Law as it was the strict Law and the Gospel and to this cleerer Dispensation of both the Law and Gospel under Christ and called the Oldness of the Letter being the Old common way they had been taught by their Doctors and educated in For the Gospel and more Spiritual way of the Mosaic-Law was New and strange to them as you may perceive by John the Baptist's Doctrine of Repentance for the Remission of sins being rejected by the Pharisees as well as this cleer Dispensation under Christ though that was the true way of Salvation from the beginning ever since mans fall 5. The Law in this sense is said to kill and to be a Ministry of condemnation though not only in this sense I suppose but also in this sense taken in Conjunction with the strict Law of Works revealed in by and with this Law It is said to kill and condemn 1. Because this Law did condemn with Temporal violent death every one that did neglect any such external Work whatsoever But did not justifie to a prosperous life in Canaan any but they that observed every puntilio of it 2. Or rather since the Apostle useth sometimes to run the Law in the strictest sense exacting perfect Obedience and the Law in this Political sense together The Law may be said to condemn and to be a Ministry of condemnation because the Law did as the Original strict Law of Works in reality though not in their Opinion condemned every man that did not all whatsoever required yea that fail'd in obedience to any Internal command and did also condemn as to Conscience all External failings which they also held but did not quicken or revive or justifie any as to Future-life Not the Political Law through it's own weakness and default having no such Promises to any performances whatsoever Not the Law in the strict Conscience-sense through mans default because all are sinners 3. This Law taken still conjunctly may be said to condemn and kill men in another respect Taken politically it condemned men and killed them as to Eternal death by occasioning men or rather men taking occasion by it to go on in all Internal wickedness securely even to condemnation by the Law in a higher sense because the Law in this Political sense never forbad those sins that is did not forbid them with its penalty of violent death and they took occasion hence to think such inward Impiety was not forbidden by the Law in any sense nor such inward Piety required to their Salvation which may be the meaning of Rom. 7. 8 11. and so fell under Eternal condemnation through the neglect of such Piety It proved to them a Ministry of condemnation in the event through their own fault they abusing this â—itual Political dispensation against the end and aim of it 6. The Law also in this sense is said to be-get Bondage and Baseness and Servility of Spirit even disingenuous and unfilial Tempers
AN ENDEAVOUR TO RECTIFIE SOME PREVAILING OPINIONS Contrary to the Doctrine of The Church of England By the Author of The Great Propitiation And A Discourse of Natural and Moral-Impotency LONDON Printed by T. M. for Robert Clavel in Cross-Keys Court in Little-Brittain 1671. THE Author to the Reader I Published about two Years since some Sermons called The Great Propitiation and thereto Added a short Discourse concerning the Apostle Paul's meaning by Justification by Faith without Works About half a Year after there came forth a Learned Book called Harmonia Apostolica written by Mr. George Bull which quite crossing the Interpretation I had given of Saint Paul I was Occasioned by some Occurrences which it concerns not the Reader to know to Write the substance of these Reflections upon it which were Written within less than three Months after it's coming forth without any Design of Printing them And since I had Written this there is Published a Discourse of Mr. Charles Gataker Thomae 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Filii wherein he signifying his dislike of Mr. Bull 's Propounds a third way to Reconcile the Apostles Paul and James What my thoughts are of Mr. Bull 's way you will here see I think he hath in the main spoken right concerning the sense of Saint James But I think Mr. Gataker hath given the right Interpretation of neither and judg that I have said enough in my Book fore-mentioned to make it appear and so hath Mr. Bull in his I grant and lament it that many Important Doctrines of the Reformed Churches are frequently by too many grosly Explained so as to have ill Consequences following from them which if rightly Explained would be found not to Patronize but to disown such Consequences And hence many Learned men seeing the Intolerableness of such consequent Opinions and not being able to Extricate themselves deny Important truths and maintain such Opinions as these following which are the Foundation of the greatest part of Mr. Bull 's Book opposed and would make an intolerable change in the very substance of the Body of Divinity viz. First That there is no Law that threatens future-Future-death or promised Future-happiness but the Gospel or Law of Grace Secondly That the Jewish Law or Law of Moses had only Temporal Promises and Threats and required only External Obedience Which yet you will see I grant in one Limitted sense of it to be true Thirdly That no Law of God whatsoever requires perfect Obedience and so no man is bound to live perfectly or free from sin Fourthly And that for this Reason because no man is bound to do what he cannot do Which Reason is only true in a sense nothing to the purpose but it is dangerously false to deny a man is bound to do what he cannot do in another sense viz. Upon the account of his Morally insuperable wickedness as I have else-where at large shewed Fifthly That for any Evidence we have from Scripture to the contrary men after Conversion or after the receiving of the Gospel do live perfectly or without sin or do as much as any Law of God requires from them Sixthly That the effect of the Grace of the Spirit is something that if denied to men enjoying the Gospel they would be excusable or blameless in not obeying the Gospel Also These following Expositions would alter the very substance of the sense of most Important parts of Scripture First That the Apostle Paul doth not dispute against Justification by perfect Obedience to the Law as being impossible to man in this Life Secondly That our Lord in the 5th of Matthew doth not vindicate the Law from corrupt Interpretations but adds to it making that the meaning of it that never was so before Take notice I charge not this last mentioned Exposition as maintained by Mr. Bull though it be by many others and though it must follow by consequence if what he maintains be true viz. That Moses's Law had no Internal Precepts I judg what I have here written may be of use for the clearing of those in Dispute and many other passages of Scripture and for the Confutation of many dangerous Opinions or I should not have permitted it's Publication I shall not here needlesly use Protestations concerning my Fidelity in representing by a Translation Mr. Bull 's Discourse since it is commonly accounted a sign of Guilt to cleer one's self before accused If any should suspect me of Disingenuity herein let me desire them to read the passages here replyed to out of Mr. Bull 's Book it self And to encourage so far as my word will pass them that have it not to procure it I shall say that much of it is well worth Reading and that I am far from passing that censure on the rest of the Book which I do on the parts here replied to May but what is here written be so read and considered without prejudice and passion which may well be expected from ingenuous Lovers of Truth that it may have free Influence upon mens understandings according to the evidence it brings I shall not much doubt of it's good success in composing many differences in Opinion Which is the Prayer of the Author ERRATA PAge 27. Line 17. Read so speak Marg. r. Heavenly p. 34. l. 16. after here r. in p. 67. l. 23. instead of also r at Sinai p. 75. l. 17. after fatuus r. of a new Covenant p. 90. l. 5. for was r. as l. 6. r. on us p. 108. l. 25. after ask r. as I would ask p. 125. l. 20. for Arguments r. Argument p. 168. l. penult r. exiguum p. 171. l. marg 20. r. Adulterio p. 208. l. 15 for to r. do An endeavour to Rectifie some prevailing Opinions THe Learned Author's design is very commendable viz. To reconcile such seemingly contrary Expressions of the Apostle Paul and James as these You see therefore that a man is justified by Works and not by Faith only Jam. 2. 24. We conclude therefore that a man is justified by Faith without the works of the Law Rom. 3. 28. which Scriptures he sets down before his discourse as the Chief or Examplaâ—s of the chief Places he designs to reconcile He divides his whole Discourse into two Dissertations The first whereof is about the meaning of the Apostle James in such Expressions as that cited and is so short as not to take up a fifth part of the Book The second about the sense of the Apostle Paul in his seemingly contrary Affirmations taking up all the rest of the Book His whole first Dissertation concerning the sense of the Apostle James in affirming Justification by Works as a condition is Acute Solid and Cogent yea and so is all generally in his second Dissertation to the 5th Chap. and part of it he spending those Chapters in discovering the weakness and falsehood of the attempts of many designing to reconcile such places and in proving the Apostle Paul means not one single virtue by Faith but the whole
1. and of Heavenly things Heb. 9. 28. of the same in another sense Law 's promises of future Heavenly happiness to perfect Obedience and was much suited to put them in mind of the great Concernments of the same Law as pertaining to Conscience and the future Life 2. Still keeping to Temporal Concerns This amazingly-strict Law as to Temporal punishment may be considered as given with or comprehending in it a Remedying-Law as to these Temporal severities viz. As affording pardon upon Sacrifice as to these threatned Destructions for the most Transgressions not for all as one may be apt to wish for Type-sake for the community must not be sundamentally prejudiced to make a Type more full by pardoning all offences as to Temporal punishment upon sacrifice And so this Political Temporal-Law was I will not say the Gospel it self for it was not but if I may speak a little Gospel in reality a Law of Pardon as to the Temporal punishment threatned and a Shadow or * I doubt not but the Book of the Law in the Temporal sense I am now upon being sprinkled with blood was a pattern of the Laws in the Eternal sense I shall after speak of being sprinkled with a better sacrifice and that the Law in this last sense was one of those healy things spoken of Heb. 9. 19. 23. Though the Heavenlâ— things mentioned do most immediatelâ— denote the more clear Dispensation of the Gospel then in being when those words were written pattern or Representation of its own materially considered Gospel favour in admitting Transgressors of it to favour as to its Obligation to Future and Eternal punishment by pardon upon the account of a great Satisfaction to come which such sacrifices Typified Now it is apparent that the Law and Covenant or Testament of Moses is often taken in the New Testament in this sense viz. For the Law under this consideration so far as it threatned only what might be remitted by Sacrifice or threatned what was denied by it to be remitted upon Sacrifice Yea no man can possibly give any rational account of the meaning of the Author to the Hebrews in the places where he speaks of the Law but by affirming he takes it in this sense as Chap. 7. 8 9 10. For the Law only in this sense was Typical and not at all Typical but the reallity in the sense I shall after speak of it in He shews the Law made nothing perfect as to Conscience or future Concernments and that Sacrifices did not Expiate any further than as to the purifying of the Flesh that they might come into the Congregation and to the taking off of Temporal guilt and Punishment but not as to Eternal or Future-life punishment or coming to the Congregation in Heaven and also shews that they were a commemoration 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of Sins as to Conscience and the Future punishment but not an Expiation Heb. 10. 3 4. And that they did so far viz. as to Temporal punishment and being excluded the Congregation really Expiate being offered in the offender's stead And else indeed they could not have been Typical of the great Expiation if they were not Expiations as to some things themselves no more than the Brazen-Serpent could have been a Type of Christ's Healing or Saving if it had never healed any So the Law of Moses is taken also Acts 13. 39. By him all that believe are justified from all things from which you could not be justified by the Law of Moses That is from all such great Crimes as Idolatry Murder c. for which there was no pardon in the Law of Moses taken in this sense but such were to die without mercy no Sacrifice being appointed or accepted in their stead Though yet there was pardon for such by the Law of Moses taken in the sense I shall speak of it in viz. In the sense wherein it was the Gospel made in the Blood of Christ and in the sense wherein David was yea and all others were Justified and Saved by it For it is apparent that a man might go to Heaven upon true Repentance by that Law taken in the consideration I shall ere long speak of it in that Temporal death without mercy Heb. 10. 28. was due to by that Law no Expiation being allowed for his sin he sinning contemptuously or presumptuously or with a high hand in the sense of those words Numb 15. 30. which are Heb. 10. 28. interpreted by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He that contemptuously sinned against or set-at-nought Moses Law i. e. in some stubborn and vain-glorious way or he committing Idolatry Adultery or Murder or some other particular Crime excluded as Blasphemy Witchcraft Cursing or Smiting his Father or Mother defiling the Sabbath or being a stubborn and rebellious Son As for Instance David was pardoned and went to Heaven and he never offered Sacrifice for those his Crimes for there was none appointed or admitted in such case for he was by that Law in the sense in hand to Die without mercy and should have been put to Death had there been any Superiour Authority on Earth to do it except some Prophet had come from God who being chief Rector could dispense with his own Laws to tell such Authothority that God had pardoned him as to Temporal punishment or God had some way notified he would not have the Law executed on him And it is also apparent that a man might be guilty of no Fault threatned by the Law in this sense but what was fully Expiated by his Sacrifices as to Temporal violent Death and Exclusion from Society and yet go to Hell being no true Penitent or sincere Servant of God Because all the Crimes that a man might possibly be only guilty of might be Expiable and newly Expiated by Sacrifice so far as their Sacrifices could expiate though he never truly repented It was only in some few cases of Injustice that there was Confession to the party and Restitution to the party wronged required else this Sacrifice was not accepted to Remission as to Temporal guilt Lev. 5. 5. Chap. 6. 2 3 4 5. I would have spoken more largely and particularly of the Law under this Consideration and have given an accouâ—â— here why the Apostles sometimes take it only in this sense which I suppose I shall do some-where upon occasion before I have done but I am sensible I am something out of my way in speaking so largely here as I have done And now I have thus spoken I can make little more than this use of it should I keep strictly to speaking of the places of the Apostle in dispute than to lay it quite or almost aside and to make it appear that the Author had done well unless he had spoken more exactly of it to have done so and to wish every one would do so viz. would lay it aside for interrupting them when speaking or thinking of the Apostle Pauls meaning in most of the places in dispute viz.
Places denying Justification by the Law and Works of the Law since it is apparent he speaks of Justification as to Conscience and Future life and speaks of Moses Law as referring to Conscience and Future life which sense I now come to speak of that Law in Secondly The Law of Moses may be considered as to Conscience Conscience essentially respects the Future state and Life to come-concernments viz. as requiring Obedience with a promise of Future happiness and under the Peril of Future or Eternal death and also as Remitting and Pardoning sins as to Future misery Now in this high important sense this same Law I mean materially and in words the same must be considered both as a strict Law and a gracious Law or Gospel What is a Law but a signification of the Rector's will any way whatsoever obliging the Subjects to Obedience by promising rewards to the Obedient and threatning punishment to the Disobedient Now in this very Law in this high sense there are significations of his Will both of an Original strict Law constituting Eternal or Future death due to every Transgressor and of a remedying-Remedying-law promising Pardon to Transgressors upon Repentance and sincere Obedience even as in the Temporal consideration of the Law already spoken of there was a Law requiring the Offender's blood upon his failing in the least in it else there could have been no Pardon of him as to violent death upon a Sacrifice if the Law had not threatned death to him and also there was the remedying-Remedying-law of Pardon upon a Sacrifice So here this consideration This very Law given in the same words at Sinai did Reveal and Signifie these formally-distinct Laws First A strict exacting of Obedience all their lives to all that he commanded under the peril of Future death or wrath to come else as I have made apparent before there could be no Pardon as to wrath to come or Satisfaction by Christ for wrath to come due by this Law as to such sins And in this strict sence the Apostle Paul useth the word Law in the most of those places in Dispute which the Author chiefly insists on to reconcile them to St. James viz. the 3d. and 4th Chapter to the Romans and Gal. 3. v. 10 11 12 13. And in this sense the Law was no Type or Shaddow nor to vanish away but stands in Force unto this day Secondly Also it did Reveal that though they should sometimes during their life which is enough for Condemnation by this Law in the first sense fail in obedience to it yet their condition should not be hopeless the Punishment made due to them by this Law should be pardoned and they should yet enjoy the promised Future life upon condition they did Repent and sincerely love and serve God endeavouring Obedience to all his Laws Moral Judicial and Ceremonial with the prevailing design and bent of their Souls Now in this sense the Law of Moses was no Type or Shaddow but the very Gospel the Word of Faith which the Apostles Preached Rom. 10. 6 7 8. And in this sense David takes the Law in most of his Encomiums of it and in this sense Justification and Salvation are not denied to it or the Works of it by the Apostle to them that lived under this Dispensation nor to us by it For it yet continues the same for substance having the same Sanction and Condition or Precept in the general viz. That if we sinners repent and sincerely obey all his Commands he will be our God to Bless us to Justifie and Save us from all our sins Though many of the former particular Precepts are ceased and some new ones added and the whole Dispensation more intelligible and clear It is apparent that the Law of Moses though it was given designedly as to the end of the Revelation of it as a Covenant of Grace and Pardon even for the Salvation of sinners and not for their Destruction yet it was given subserviently still as to the same end of Salvation also to Reveal the Law in its utmost exacting Rigour For though an Original strict Law may really be and so may be Revealed without a Remedying-Law yet it is a plain impossibility to Reveal however so as Offenders should be sensible of pardon and favour in it a Remedying-Law of Pardon as this from Mount Sinai mainly as to the design of it was without Revealing and making known the strict Original-Law For without knowing what the Law in its Rigor requires from us and what it threatens to them that fail in the least we cannot be thankful for Pardon offered on the Gospel-terms of Sincerity nor know we stand in need of Pardon so we be but sincere Neither can this Author possibly reconcilably to his Principles as you will see tell us how Pardon is either needful to one or possibly consistent with performing the Gospel-condition since he maintains That sincere imperfect Obedience or the Gospel-condition is all that any Law of God so much as requires Thus you see my Judgment concerning the Law of Moses And that I suppose that Threat Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things written had these four significations or did notifie these four distinct Sanctions with their distinct Conditions 1st Every one shall be punished with a violent Temporal death or such death shall be due to him that observeth not every External Precept 2ly Every one shall remedilesly be punished with the foresaid death that offendeth in the great Instances exempted from Pardon or in other faults and observeth not the Sacrifices appointed for the Expiation of them 3ly Future Death or Wrath to come shall be due to every one that obeyeth not every Command both Internal and External 4ly This Future-death shall remedilesly befal every such Offender that shall not repent of his sins and sincerely endeavour obedience to every Command Internal and External And to the like extensive Import mutatis mutandis that Promise The man that doth them shall live in or by them may and ought to be Interpreted Now you will see these four grand Mistakes which I have here spoken to causing the failings of his whole Discourse in determining what the Apostle Paul means by Works and by the Law in denying Justification by Works and by the Law which Discourse I shall now propound to your View Transcribing some of it Verbatim yea all that is Argumentative in it without leaving out any thing in the least material and telling you when I leave out any thing that is not but may seem material Which I thus begin The Author having before made it apparent that though Faith in some other passages of the Apostle doth mean one particular Grace yet in those Speeches where he speaks of Justification by it in opposition to Works he means by Faith all required to Salvation the obedience of Faith He tells us Chap. 6. pag. 98. That the Apostle doth not exclude all Works from Justification but Works of the Law of
all that you do v. 10. You stand here this day all of you before the Lord your God your Captains your Elders your little Ones your Wives that you should enter into Covenant with the Lord thy God and into his Oath which the Lord maketh with thee this day that he may Establish thee to day for a people to himself that He may be unto thee a God as he hath sworn unto thy Fathers Abraham Isaac and Jacob i. e. to give their Seed this good Land And tells them If they forsake God and God bring on this Land the curse of the Covenant written in the Book of this Law and make it like Sodom and Gomorrah and men shall say What means the heat of this great Anger It shall be answered Because they have forsaken the Covenant of the Lord God of their Fathers which He made with their Fathers when he brought them out of the Land of Egypt that is which he made almost Forty years since with the Fathers of this Generation at Sinai v. 21 25. And He spends the next Chapter which the Author makes part of his New-covenant partly in telling them God would when cast out of their Land for their sins yet admit them again to it if they repent and turn as He told them before also what ever this Author saith of that admitting no Repentance as you may see apparent Lev. 26. 40 41 44 45 46. Yea this place of Leviticus which is said expresly to be spoken at Sinai v. 64. is rather more express for Repentance being accepted than this the Author so much insists on And partly in telling them that he hath told them plainly what the Laws of God are which if they observe they shall live and need not go beyond the Sea to enquire what they may do to be happy and partly in warning them to keep these Laws The whole contents of this Book of Deuteronomy to the end of this Thirtieth Chapter was not only spoken to the people within a Month before his Death which is apparent but it is very probable within a few of the first days of the Month the latter part of the Month being taken up with his writing it Chap. 31. 9. And giving a charge to the Priests and Levites and in his presenting himself with Joshuah before the Lord in the Tabernacle that God might give Joshuah a charge Chap. 31. 9 10 14 15. and in Speaking and Writing the Song called Moses Song and teaching the people it v. 22. And in blessing the people Chap. 33. And observe This Deuteronomy this Fare-well Speach of Moses all of it however to the 29th Chapter was when Moses had written it given to the Priests with a command that it should be Read in the hearing of the people met together every Seventh year as being very sutably Pen'd for their Instruction Chap. 31. 9 10 11 12 13. And it is commanded that when they should have a King that he shall in the beginning of his Reign Write out a Copy of this Book Chap. 17. 18. The last Chapter of this Book was added by some other than Moses as is apparent It 's likely by Joshuah You see now there is no colour to pretend that the Covenant spoken of Deut. 39. 1. means only that Chapter and the following much less that these Two Chapters only of all Moses writings have only Spiritual commands and Spiritual promises and give way and make Promises to Repentance For as for the Spirituality of the Laws in this Chapter it doth not Recite the Laws they were here engaged to obey not so much as the Ten Commandments whereof some are sure Spiritual commands and the sincere observing of them is certainly the condition of the Gospel but shew plainly This Covenant obliges them to keep all the Laws given at Mount Sinai And for the Promises and Threatnings they are expressed in as Terrene Expressions here as in most other places And as for this of Repentance see Lev. 26. 40. When they shall be in Ages to come almost destroyed with Judgments threatned for their sins if they shall confess their Iniquities and the Iniquities of their Fathers v. 41. And if their uncircumcised heart be humbled and they then accept the punishment of their Iniquities I will not cast them away but will remember their Land v. 45. I will for their sakes remember the Covenant of their Ancestors whom I brought forth out of the Land of Egypt that is This at Sinai for none other of their Ancestors were brought out of the Land of Egypt v. 46. These are the Statutes and Judgments and Laws which the Lord made between him and the children of Israel in Mount Sinai So Deut. 4. 29. If ye shall be scattered for your sins amongst the Heathen being driven out of your own Land and shall there serve other Gods of Wood and Stone If from thence thou shalt seek the Lord thy God thou shalt find him if thou seek him with all thy heart and with all thy soul v. 31. For the Lord thy God is a merciful God Exod. 34. 6. He proclaimed himself thus from Sinai The Lord the Lord gracious and merciful forgiving Iniquity Transgression and Sin c. As for Deuteronomy 29. 1. These are the words of the Covenant which the Lord commanded Moses to make with the Children of Israel in the Land of Moab beside the Covenant which he made with them in Horeb It seems apparent to me that this verse hath reference to the Laws and Precepts before Recited by Moses in his past Oration to the people and the meaning of the words is this These fore-Recited Commands are the Laws which the people covenanted to keep which covenanting of the people the Lord commanded Moses to require from them in the Land of Moab beside that covenanting which Moses required from the people in Horeb. Which I will make plain in Reciting these words again with the sense they are used in in other Scriptures These are the words that is the Laws or Precepts for so words is used apparently v. 9. and 2 Kings 23. 3. Deut. 27. 26. Exod. 24. 28. So also the Ten Commandments are called the Ten-words Deut. 4. 13. and Chap. 10. 4. And the Words Exod. 20. 1. of the Covenant By Covenant is here meant the peoples promise to obey the peoples actual Engagement so the word Covenant is used 2 Kings 12. 17. and Chap. 23. 3. and 2 Chro. 15. 12. which that is which Covenant which actual Promise not which words for that the Hebrew word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 used appropriately for making a Covenant will by no means bear So that it is an apparent Errour in the Septuagint to read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 refering to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The meaning is * I had written this before Mr. Pool's Elabâ—â—tate and useful Synopsis was published and upon â—eading the Criâ—icks and some others could find none concurring with me but now in his Book I find
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 * political- †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
command of loving God with all the Heart and Soul and Strength must be considered either strictly as I said at the beginning as a Law with it's penalty And so it requires the utmost of a mans natural Ability and no more not as much as an Angel's ability reaches to so that if he fails in the least degree of this he fails so much of love due to God by this Law and is under its curse It is essential to a Law as a Law that it require perfect Obedience to it self and to deny this would be to deny that every Law requires all that it doth require any thing short of this is not all the Law requires If a man do not love God in as high a degree as this law in this sense requires he is from under its Blessing and under its Curse and Condemnation and cannot possibly be Justified by this Law in this sense nor be pardoned by it for no Law can possibly pardon an offence against it self But he may be pardoned by another Law a Law of Grace In this strict sense no meer man in this life not Josiah himself ever loved God with his whole heart so highly as he ought so high as the Law in this sense required however me thinks he should not have pretended it of all the people of Israel in Asa's time but have sought some other sense at least for those words and that might have brought him to the sense I shall now speak of Secondly These words may be considered as the condition of the Remedying-Law made with them for the Merit of Christ then to come as taken with this Gospel lenity that if they love God with the prevailing bent of their Souls or above all other things they shall be pardoned escape the curse of the Law in its Rigour due And in this sense a man loves God with all his Heart and Soul as far as God by his Remedying-Law requires for his Salvation and so obeys the Law taken in this sense perfectly that is loves him so much as it requires as necessary to his Salvation that doth it thus prevailingly though he fail in the degrees he ought to love God by the strict Law and so needs pardon The meaning is not that Asa loved God as much as any Law required from him and so needed no pardon or Christ's satisfaction for failing in any degree of love due to or required by God But to proceed with the next words of the Author I will add this for a Conclusion to Pag 112. this Dispute This my Opinion of the possibility of fulfilling the Law so far as it ever was imposed by God upon men as a Law is not a new upstart Opinion but an Opinion approved by the common Vote of all the Antients who wrote before the Pelagian Controversie had muddied the Rivulets of the more pure and primitive Doctrine Yea and Austine himself though otherwise too hot in this unhappy Controversie did not doubt to confess that God commanded possible things and in this sense only what all particular Believers are able to fulfil Here he cites some Antients for this Opinion that God doth not require what men have no power Pag. 112 c. to do which takes up pag. 112 113 114. almost I grant it is apparent they did hold as I also do that God requires no more than men have the Natural power to do But yet I dare challenge any to name one accounted no Heretick that held this Opinion that follows by evident consequence from the Authors Opinion That every man for that follows by consequence or that every man by that measure of Grace which God communicates to him or is ready to communicate to him may for any Impotency in him to the contrary so live as not to fail in any thing the Law requires so far as to stand in need of pardon or Christs satisfaction for such failings Yea or this Opinion which he expresly holds as you will presently see more fully viz. That after the receiving of the Gospel or Conversion men may for any Impotency on them to the contrary so live as not to sin at all as not to fail at all in obedience to the Law or so as not to do any thing that deserves or is by any Law threatned with Eternal death He goes on From the things which we have Pag. 114. already spoken I suppose it to appear plain enough That the Law of Moses did not require most perfect Obedience that is all manner of sinlessness in the highest degree under the peril of Eternal death and so that the Apostle's Argument is not built upon that Supposition It remains that we consider by what Reason the Apostle proves his Conclusion Therefore I judg saving honour to better judgments this Argumentation of the Apostle to lean upon two foundations chiefly First That all both Jews and Gentiles were guilty of hainous sins and so obnoxious to Judgment and Divine anger this is hinted concerning the Jews chiefly and also of all who did seek Righteousness in the Law as I said before in my answer to the first Objection in that place Gal. 3. 10. But the same is largely demonstrated of all without difference Rom. 3. Where he charges many hainous sins both upon the Jews and Gentiles But that the Context of the whole place may be rightly understood two things are chiefly to be noted one belonging to the Accusation another to the Persons Accused First As for the Accusation it self it is to be Noted that it is not of any kind of sins but they are accused of sins more properly so called that is of hainous sins and worthy of Eternal death This is clearly manifest First out of the words by which the Position or Affirmation of the Apostle which was proved in the former Chapter and is in this Chapter further Demonstrated is expressed v. 9. We have before proved that both Jews and Gentiles are all under sin Where that Phrase to be under sin manifestly signifies to be under the dominion of sin or to be addicted to hainous sins whosoever is such a one is said by the Apostle to be sold under sin Chap. 7. 14. Secondly It is apparent out of the whole Context of the Apostle in which all the sins that are enumerated are of a more * The Apostle indeed doth instance in hainous sins and so the import of his Argument Rom. Chap. 1 2 3. seems this viz. If so be that sins scarce to be named were to be found frequently almost universally polluting even those learned Gentiles Chap. 1. 22. that excelled all other Geâ—tâ—les in knowledg where the study of Divine and humane Knowledg abounded and were great Professors of Wisdom And if amongst the Jews even in the best times the days of David horrid wickednesses were to be found very frequent so that even in a manner the whole body of the people were guilty of such hainous sins it may be well
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
Scripture is profitable for Doctrine for instruction in Righteousness That the man of God i. e. a Minister may be perfect throughly instructed to every good work this is spoken of the Old Testament-Scripture Christ and his Apostles do Interpret the Life promised to the Obedient in the Law as reaching to Future life Lev. 18. 5. The man that doth these Commands shall live in them Ezek. 20. 11. I gave them my Statutes which if a man do he shall live in them Gal. 3. 12. The Apostle cites these words and by Life takes it as a thing granted that they meant Eternal life Also Rom. 7. 10. The Commandment that was unto life Mat. 19. 16 17. The young man asks What shall I do to inherit Eternal life Christ answers If thou wilt enter into life keep the Commandments Which shew that Life and Eternal life signifie the same Psal 16. ult Thou wilt shew me the way of life in thy presence is fulness of joy and at thy right hand are pleasures for evermore Life here also signifies the Future life There are frequent Promises That if they will keep his Commandments He will be their God The Apostle cites Lev. 26. Where it is said If you will walk in my Statutes and keep my Judgments and do them then I will be your God and you shall be my people Ver. 3. 12. Which was Gods part of the Covenant his Engagement made to the people at Mount Sinai as appears Ver. 46. Now the Apostle having cited this Promise amongst others 2 Cor. 6. 16. adds Having these Promises let us cleanse our selves c. Which shews That he understood these words of Gods being one's God to extend to Future happiness So Mat. 22. 31 32 33. Have you not read concerning the Resurrection of the Dead I am the God of Abraham and Isaac Now God is not the God of the Dead but of the Living So Mark 12. 26. By the words translated Resurrection of the dead in Mat. and Rising in Mark seems to be meant Immediately and Primarily only †See Doctor Hammonds Annotation Mat. 22. 31. well cleaâ—ing this subsisting and being in a Future-state after death And this was that which the Sadduces denied as well as other things consequential thereto and of less concernment to support this Opinion And this was a most wicked Tenent subverting virtually all Religion which cannot be said of an Opinion only denying the Resurrection of the Body provided a man did but hold a Future-state of being or subsistence of the Soul in happiness or misery according to a mans works in this life But such an erronious Opinion might possibly be held for any thing I can see to the contrary in those more dark times consistent with this foundation of true Religion that God is a Rewarder in a Future life of Obedience in this and Punisher of Disobedience And further I do not think that the Resurrection of the Body was so clearly delivered in the Old Testament as that one believing all the Books of it to be Divine might not yet hold it a disputable Point considering the difficulties that Oppugne it and the obscurity of the Scriptures affirming it Though none of competent understanding believing the New Testament can now doubt of it Now our Saviour's Argument drawn from these words I am the God of Abraham and of Isaac c. since this was spoken to Moses and therefore after Abraham and Isaac were dead is cogent to prove against the main foundational wicked Opinion of the Sadduces viz. That Abraham and Isaac were then in being and also in Being in happiness for had they been utterly extinct or in beeing but in no estate of happiness He could not have said I am the God but only at the most I was the God of Abraham He is not so much as the Sustainer as the God in such a low-sense of the dead viz. of men totally extinct but of the living viz. of men in actual being And He cannot be called the God which implies some wonderful great and infinite favour of men being indeed and subsisting after their death but being in misery and dead in the sense wherein the Law threatned Future death But only can be called a God to such men departed as are in being and also are in great happiness and so are alive in the sense the Law promised Future life Also Saint John Rev. 22. 3 4 7. citeth that very Scripture fore-mentioned viz. Lev. 26. 11 12. Where God promises from Mount Sinai that if they would obey his Voice he would be their God It appears He refers to this very Scripture by the foregoing words in both places of setting his Tabernacle amongst them And he interpreteth the meaning of those words of God's being one's God by expressions denoting Life-to-come happiness As wiping away all tears And death being no more ver 7. He that overcometh shall inherit all things and I will be his God And also the Author to the Hebrews Chap. 11. 14 15 16. explain's this phrase of God being one 's God All these dyed in the Faith not having received the Promises but having seen them afar off were perswaded of them and declared plainly by confessing themselves Pilgrims and Strangers that they sought a Country and that not meerly Canaan an earthly Country but a Heavenly Wherefore God is not ashamed to be called their God For he hath prepared for them a City meaning Heaven of which Canaan and Jerusalem were but Types Implying that if that phrase of being their God had meant no more than giving them temporal good things in Canaan it would have been a shamefully too high a word for so low a thing and that giving only such low things as temporal Mercies are would have been unworthy of that Appellation of God being their God So that God might have been ashamed of using so Emphatical a Speech in such a low signification But he is therefore not ashamed of so high a profession of Friendship as those words import since He builded for them a City not made with hands Eternal in the Heavens These following are the only colourable replys made by some or that can be made here that I can call to mind First It would be to no purpose to reply The Old Testament had no Promises or Threats of Life-to-come happiness or misery but it typified Promises and Threats of Life-to-come happiness or misery For first I suppose I have sufficiently proved it had Life-to-come Promises and Threats Secondly In the sense wherein it did typifie such Life-to-come good or evil things it had no Life-to-come Promises or Threats else it would typifie Promises of such Fâ—ture-good things in promising those Future-good things which would be ridiculous to affirm Thirdly In the sense wherein it did typifie Life-to-come things it was neither the strict Law of Works requiring perfect obedience under the penalty of Future misery and promising Future happiness thereon Nor the Law of Grace or the Gospel promising
Pardon as to Conscience and Future happiness upon repentance and sincere Obedience but the Jewish political Law And it is a palpable mistake though common to say otherwise Secondly The Reply That God intended Life and Death eternal by the words used in the promises and threats but the people could not so understand them though they used their utmost integrity and diligence Is already confuted For then they would have been excusable and it would not have been said they have Moses and the Prophets let them hear them c. And I have made it apparent the people did so understand them Thirdly It is irrational to reply as some We grant the ancient Jews did believe God would give Eternal life to the obedient but God never promised it to them Thus Socinus For first Then they were to blame to believe it if God never made any Notification of his Will that it should be so It was then an Irrational foolish act for them when tortured not to accept deliverance that they might obtain a better Resurrection Heb. 11. 35. Secondly We read they believed and embraced the Promises of Future-life happiness So that they had such Promises Heb. 11. and there was no more in their Faith than in the Divine promise no more in their Subjective than in their Objective faith than in the Revelation Thirdly This is to affirm that if they did well in thus believing That they gave God what was none of his own gave to God what they had no power or ability from him to do in believing what God never said and hoping for what God had never promised This would be To Supererogate in Faith and Hope if it was but well done of them But to avoid such Supererogation we must say that such doing would not have been acceptable to God but a foolish sinful irrational act As it would be in a man now to believe and hope that if he serve God here he shall have a fair House built in the Moon to dwell in for ever when God hath made no Revelation or Promise of any such thing Fourthly The most rational and probable reply possible of them that deny Life-to-come Promises in the Old Testament-Writings would be this though apparently false and I know not of any that use it That the Jews before Christ had such Promises of Future-life happiness and so were obliged to Piety but they were revealed only by the light of Nature and Providence and not in the Scriptures And that the Jews erred in looking for Eternal life from the Scriptures For the Old Testament Scriptures were only written for the Common-wealth Temporal-Law and to typifie Soul and Conscience-concernments but did not so far intermedle with Conscience-concernments as to threaten Future misery to any sin or to promise Eternal or Future happiness on any Terms whatsoever But 1. I have proved they had such Promises in the Scriptures 2. They had need of their Reason and Faculties and of the Light and Law of Nature and of all helps they had to understand these things in their Scripture as we have also yet to understand the Writings both of the Old and New Testament 3 I do hold and could prove it apparently from the Scripture That there were and are some discoveries by the Light of Nature and Works of Providence not only of the strict Original-law making Future misery due to every sin and Future happiness to perfect Obedience But also of the Gospel or Law of Grace viz. that God was placable and that there was place for Repentance and that God would receive sinners to Future favour and happiness by pardoning their sins upon Repentance and sincere Obedience It is apparent The Heathens did ordinarily maintain this and without doubt it was not their Errour And this they might gather from their beholding the present goodness of God to them notwithstanding their incorrigibleness in great sins in giving them Rain and fruitful Seasons and filling their Hearts with Food and Gladness Yea they had so much Light as to make them Inexcusable and Condemnable in not Repenting which could not be if there was no Notification of his Will to receive them to Future-life favour upon Repentance but rather as some hold were bound to believe that there was no forgiveness with him no Future reward or happiness Notified by such goodness of God in his Providence to men that were sinners and did need Repentance Though I think the Scripture offers us ground to believe That this way of Revelation enough for their Condemnation did not yet through their own wickedness effectually prevail to turn any man throughly from sin to God or to cause such Repentance to Life as in its own Nature it dictated any man I mean that had no more or further Revelation from God Now if they had such Discoveries these are as properly Promises of a Future-life and threatnings of Future-death as those written Fourthly It is apparent that there was more cleer and convincing Discoveries of Future-life happiness to the Obedient and miseries to the Disobedient in the Old Testament-Scriptures than in the Law of Nature and Book of Providence The Law was given that the Offence might abound and doth not only discover Duties and Sins known by the light of Nature more cleerly but the great danger of sin and happiness that comes by obedience more convincingly yea this discovers the Future-life happiness so much the more cleerly that the Discoveries made to the Heathen of this was no discovery comparatively which is implied at least in those words Aliens from the Covenants of Promise without hope And those words they have Moses and the Prophets c. teach us that there they were taught Future misery due to sinners and Future happiness to the Obedient as convincingly as if one rose from the dead to tell them of them The Apostle Paul also speaketh of the written Law and therefore of the Old Testament-Law as the norma judicii as the rule of the Future judgment to them that lived under it Rom. 2. 12. As many as have sinned without Law meaning written Law shall perish without Law And as many as have sinned in the Law shall be judged by the Law viz. at the Future judgment as appears by the following words Judged that is Justified or Condemned at the last day by the Law which could not be if the Law promised no Future-life or threatned no future-Future-death Also by the Law he means the Law of Moses as appears by the following words ver 17. Thou art called a Jew and restest in the Law and by the words until the Law And until Moses being used as equivalent terms by this Apostle Rom. 5. 13 14. compared Fifthly It would be in vain for any to reply here as the Author of the Book called Friendly Debate doth who having said Part 1. pag. 26. That the difference between the two Covenants is this That the old Covenant made with the Jews had Temporal promises But the Gospel Eternal
cordibus non minus quam manibus oculis loquutas est Reus erit judicio Hoc membrum confirmat quâ—d diximus vitium illud reprehendi quod lex Dei quae regendis animis tradita fuit in Politiam conversa erat Calv. in Loc. Doctors hence gathered and taught the people by this Argument that none else was threatned by the Law with Future punishment And so that the Commandment reached no further than to prohibit the External act under a Future penalty and that such speeches as Thou shalt not hate thy Brother in thy heart And Be not hasty in thy spirit to be angry Anger resteth in the bosome of Fools Eccles 7. 9. were but Counsels Now ver 22. Christ teacheth them the true meaning of the Law and since their Rabbies used the word the Judgment to signifie Future punishment he doth so too But I say unto you that he that is angry with his brother without a cause though his anger do not proceed so far as to kill him nor to any outward Expression is yet guilty of Murder in the sense of the Law and so obnoxious to the Future death signified by you to be due to the External act and meant by the Word the Judgment in the former Speech which primarily signifies putting to death with the Sword And he that shall proceed so much further in causless anger as to use only some lesser words of reproach as Racha shall be yet in danger of a greater punishment in the Future-life shall be in danger of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Council of the Jerusalem-Court of Seventy that is of a severer Future-death answerable to the Punishment which used to be inflicted by the Sanhedrim which word came from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 who ordinarily punished Offenders with stoning to death But whosoever shall though not kill his Brother yet proceed so far in wrath as to say thou fool i. e. to use the most Villifying and Approbrious expressions shall be punished hereafter with death * Christ's Speech could proceed no fuâ—ther in keeping to the Metaphor expresssing Future punishment by Jewish courts since no other but the two fore-mentioned inflicted the punishment of death And though it may be Objected that one of these Couâ—ts also put to death by burning however in two cases viz of a Priests daughter committing whoredom Lev. 21 9. And of a man lying with his Wives Mother Lev. 20. 14. Yet these were it is probable crimes seldom hapning so that the ordinary punishment of the highest Court was as it is commonly agreed Stoning And however this would no way have served to have carried on the begun Metaphor which expressed the Gradation of punishments by several Courts since this was a punishment by the same Court and rarely used Now since the Court of Judicature is put in this speech to signifie immediately the punishment of the Court it was most consentaneous to rational Speech to signifie by it the ordinary punishment of the Court And so he expresses the third Degree of Future punishment due to the third and greatest Offence mentioned by him by a burning to death in Tophet that was often used by the Jews to express Future punishment answerable to the being put to death with fire in the Valley of Hinnom which was a more cruel death than by the Sword or Stoning and the meaning of it well known to the Jews though no judicial death and used often by them and sometimes by the Scripture to signifie Future torments And the word should have been thus Translated viz. Shall be in danger of the fire of the Valley of Hinnom or Tophet For as it is Translated it is apt to minister a doubt to the Vulgar as if the two former sort of offences were not by Christ accounted to be threatned with Hell whereas had it been Translated according to the Words it would have been more easie and occasioned no such doubt the Judgment the Council the fire of Hinnom all equally signifying Future death and punishment and only here used to denote Degrees of punishment in Hell Yea and Christ here assigns as great a Future punishment to the least offence viz. Anger as they did to actual Murther Now it will appear to you no great unlikelyhood that the Jewish Doctors gave such a loose Interpretation of the Law if you consider that it is a growing Opinion at this day taught by some of our own Doctors as well as by Socinus that no more was commanded to the Jews however not under the penalty of Future death but only such External obedience And if perhaps there were any Commands in the Old Testament-Scriptures requiring such Internal obedience as is required by Christ in his Sermon on the Mount they were glimmerings of the Gospel and not Universally commanded to all under threat of Eternal punishment but only recommended to them that will do what is best Pract. Cat. pag. 141. Though now since Christs Sermon in the Mount they are acknowledged to be Commands which not to do is a sin and not only Counsels of Perfection which to do is to do better pag. 142. But Doctor Taylor if I can understand him holds that now no Law threatens Hell to the neglect of them but that they are yet Counsels left to a man's choice Unum Neces pag. 48 49. You may find this Opinion maintained by many who pretend that Christ's oppositions Mat. 5. to what hath been said by others were however in several of those sayings referring to the Ten Commandments really Additions to the Law and not vindications of the right true sense of it against false Flesh-pleasing expositions And that the Law till Christ made those Additions to it in his Sermon in the Mount did not as a Law require any however not with any Threat of Future punishment to abstain from Heart-Adultery or Heart-Murder provided it proceeded not to the External fact Now I look upon my self as bound here to answer the Arguments for that Opinion viz. That that is a true notion of the Jewish Law as referring to Conscience and the Future life-state For if this be so All that I here speak thus largely and make apparent chiefly from this Chapter which you will at last I hope see the necessity of for the Interpreting many Scriptures of the New Testament that speak derogatory to the Law will fall to the ground The strongest Arguments by which they prove their Opinion are such as these Pract. Catech. pag. 136. First The most of the Fathers especially of the Greeks before St. Austines time so held Answ 1. I could easily I think make it appear that the most of them held the contrary 2. The most of the Citations produced may be made appear either not to prove that to be their Opinion but are capable of another Construction or they might be forced to that Exposition to maintain now-acknowledged Errours frequent in those days as that it is unlawful under the Gospel to Swear
yet through their abuse of this Political Law making all that it required in this sense to be all required of them As for instance How is it possible but the Popish Doctrines believed should produce and foment such servility of Spirit that place all necessary to Salvation in Externals in the opus operatum in Penances and saying so many Prayers though by way of penalty and undergone by them as ingrateful Penances That teach it is no matter for loving God as some do expresly or Teach as generally they do which amounts to the same That Attrition is enough for Pardon and Salvation without contrition provided they have but the Priest's Absolution joyned to their Attrition explaining Attrition by trouble or affrightment for sin upon the account only of danger to our selves by it without any sorrow for sin as an offence of a good God So here we may without doubt say that they that understood the Law as requiring only such External Obedience without Love or any Internal and so did perform the External without any * Luke 11. 42. The Pharisees tithe Mint c. and pass ever Judgment and the love of God Observe this Love is called Faith Mat. 23 23. And by both Faith and Love is meant Internal worship love to God which makes his Commands for being grievous were void of filial ingenuous Dispositions Though I grant some Scriptures of the like import may possibly be aplicable to the whole Mosaic-Dispensation even as it was the Gospel as being a more servile and burthensom way by reason of the multitudes of the ritual commands which they were bound by it carefully to observe universally which had no Intrinsical goodness in them to command them to right reason and ingenuous lovers of God and Holiness But meerly the Authority of the Law-giver and so the motive to perform such could not but be comparatively to this Dispensation we live under more eminently from fear in good men as doing them because they must do them and not because the doing them was that which a gracious heart would chuse through Religion and love to Holiness to promote and increase Holiness the Image of God in his soul which may be said of almost all the Precepts under this present cleer Dispensation of the Gospel and so some such Speeches may be understood comparatively as I said before though I incline you see to Construe them positively and absolutely in the most places But now to conclude First There was a sense wherein the old Testament-Dispensation and Law of Moses was really or held out really the strict Law of Works as to Eternal concernments threatning Future death to every sin And the Apostle indeed excludes any from being Justified and affirms all to be condemned by it in this sense because all are sinners But this is not said to vanish away for it remains in force unto this day yea and for the substance of it will do so to all Eternity This is never affirmed to be Carnal but is Spiritual This indeed gives no life though it was a Law to life but that it gives none is not through its own want or default but through no mans performing the condition This was no Shadow or Type or beggarly Element Secondly There was a Sense yea and this was the chief Important sense wherein the Old Testament Dispensation or Law of Moses was the Remedying-Law or the Gospel-promising Pardon as to Future-life of all Transgressions of the Law in the strict sense upon Repentance and sincere Endeavour to obey all Gods Commands Internal and External The Apostle never speaks against the Law in this sense however no way except comparatively to this cleerer Dispensation but call's it the Promise the Righteousness of Faith which He and other Apostle's Preached The Promise which was Yea and Amen in Christ This is not said to vanish away but is made more clear in the Dispensation of of it under Christ This was no Shadow nor Type but the very Gospel or Law of Grace and Pardon it self The perfect Law of Grace converting the Soul and giving life to men converted This was the Law of Grace that Moses Samuel and David yea and the same for substance that Abraham was justified and saved by For it was this That if men did sincerely repent of their sins and believe Gods Testimonies and Love and Fear and Serve God and endeavour to do all God required of them without alowing themselves in any known sin they should be saved notwithstanding their sins and the Future punishment due to them by the Law in the strict sense And this is the substance of the Gospel or Law of Grace now If it should be asked How cometh it to pass that the Author to the Hebrews should use the words The Law of Moses first Covenant-Testament and Law in this Political and not in this Conscience-sense The account is easie Because his business in that Epistle was against those Judaizers that would impose it on Christians to comply so far with the Jews however to avoid Persecution For the Jews in those days were the chief Promoters of all their Persecutions as to keep the Law of Moses in the sense wherein it was now ceased and they were not to keep it Therefore he taketh no notice of the Law in the Conscience-sence wherein it was agreed by both or however known to be held by him to be incumbent on Christians for the substance of it but he in speaking against the Law of Moses means the Law of Moses in that sense wherein it was ceased being but a Shadow and shews that in this sense it had only Temporal promises and advantaged only to the purification of the Flesh and escaping Temporal calamities Now to reply it had also another sense would be true but nothing to the purpose since it had not in this sense wherein he opposed it I suppose you now see that it is far from Truth which this Author affirms viz. That the Apostle Paul charges the whole Mosaic-Dispensation with the defect of having no Promises of a Future-life I have taken liberty to speak largely of these things because I know of none that in my weak opinion do speak satisfactorily or truly of them And I have much confidence that none can give any true tollerable Interpretation of such Passages of the Apostle's used in Derogation to the Law without such Notions and Distinctions of the Law as I have here described and explained and also I hope that any one of ordinary abilities for such things may holding to these Notions of the Law give a rational and satisfactory account of the most Scriptures of such derogatory import And now to go on with the Words of the Author who having before told us that the Apostle's Argument against Justification by the Mosaic-Law was from the double defect of the whole Mosaic-Law or Dispensation to sanctifie men First from an External defect that it promised no Future-life Now he comes to speak of