said properly to be owing to any man though working most perfectly and also from the meer strength of Nature Neither could that be ascribed to the first man if he had stood in Innocency and had never violated the Divine Covenant with any sin for the reward of Eternal life being Infinite exceeds infinitely the works of any Creature Therefore it is most certain that these words of the Apostle But to him that worketh the reward is not reckoned of Grace but of Debt are not to be understood absolutely and simply but comparatively So that the Apostle signifies that the reward is not given to him that worketh on that manner as I have expressed out of such meer and pure Grace as to one that believeth that is to one working from Faith Therefore this is the sense of the words If the reward of Eternal life should be given by God to him that worketh that is that obeys God and worketh righteousness by his native strength without the Grace of God That may really seem as it were to be given as of debt and there would be to one working at least some shew of boasting But when the reward is imputed to him that doth not work but believeth that is who works nothing of himself but from Faith and after his believing of God graciously revealing himself Here appears Divine Grace illustriously boasting is excluded all merit is cast off Yea here is seen double Grace of God 1. That he works in a man the obedience of Faith by his Grace preceding all Merits of his and also that he imputeth for Righteousness the same obedience to a man which he wrought in him and Crowning it with a great Reward no otherwise than if the man had performed it of himself Whereas this Author pretends that the stress of the Apostles Argument in Rom. 4. leans upon this viz. That if men should do things they have in no sense any ability to do and that in sensu composito while they have no ability to do them If men should do that by their native strength which they have no strength to do this would Merit or have some shew of Merit As if Abraham had believed before God had promised had believed without a Testimony or Revelation or had obeyed before he had any ability to obey this would have Merited or have had some shew of Merit But God promised first before Abraham believed and afforded him strength and all things naturally necessary to produce obedience before he obeyed and so there was no Merit in his Faith and Obedience I confess I am dubious whether I should grant this to be true or not or if I should grant it true whether I should deny any such Suppositions may be allowed in Argumentation since it would require many words exactly to determine this Logical dispute and would also require more Logical acuteness than he or I in these disputes seem to make use of or is fit in this Controversie to trouble the Reader with But to be short I will grant but it shall be only conditionally That this would Merit or have a shew of Merit because it would be to do what God gave him no ability to do yea it would be to do what all generally grant that the Diety cannot do viz. a formal Impossibility But I will grant it as I said only conditionally viz. on condition that he will grant the contrary follows from the same Supposition viz. That if a man should do what he hath no ability to do it would have no Merit or no shew of Merit because it would be so far from Merit that it would be an absurd irrational and foolish act it would be so far from any shew of Merit that it could no way be commendable And because some may think strange of such a conditional concession let it be considered that from a naturally impossible Supposition as this of his is contradictory Consequences may equally follow as I could make appear in almost any Instance Take these Si scirem me mortuum esse essem mortuus And Si scirem me mortuum esse non essem mortuus If I truly knew I was not I should not be And if I truly knew I was not I should be So Si bestia intelligeret esset homo Si bestia intelligeret non esset homo Therefore what Irreverence is it at the least for this Author to fasten such an Argument on the Apostle as that either nothing can be concluded from it or the contrary may equally be concluded from it e. g. If Abraham had been Justified by Works that is according to this Author by doing such works as he had in no sense any power to do he might glory or he had Merited when it might as well at least be concluded he could not have gloried he could not have Merited But yet to prevent the Antinomian Extreme who use to say we must not so much as Suppose things or Argue from Suppositions though only Morally impossible remember I put in the word Naturally saying Suppositions Naturally impossible For it is apparent there may be rational Arguing from a Hypothetical proposition which is not Naturally impossible but only Morally As for Example in such Speeches as these If a man not Elected or to whom God did not Decree to give converting Grace should Believe and Repent he should be Saved If a man accustomed to do evil should do well he should be Saved If a man had turned from sin to God before God converted him it would have prevented many sad Thoughts of Heart Yea this may so evidently be supposed that men's Hearts may and do reproach them that they did not turn to God before God did actually turn them or did give them such Grace as would actually prevail with them because before God did thus turn them or give them the Grace of Conversion they had the Natural ability to Convert and turn to God and only their Moral-Impotency which is voluntary Wickedness hindred them else it would not have been their duty so to turn or their sin not to turn So Paul saith If an Angel of Heâ—ven should Preach any other Gospel he should be accursed And Christ said John 8. 55. If I should say I know him not I should be a lyar like to you And these are rationally allowable Suppositions because an Angel in Heaven hath and Christ on Earth had the Natural power to Speak or Teach falshood though yet joyned with such a Morally insuperable holy rectitude of Will that they could not obtain of themselves so to Speak or Teach And this is not like doing what they have not the Natural ability to do And the contrary doth not here follow from these Suppositions For you cannot say If a confirmed Angel from Heaven should Teach errour he should not be accursed or if Christ should have denied he knew God he would not have been a Lyaâ— which yet might have been said if this had been To do what they had not
my Discourse of Natural and Moral Impotency to force the Explaining of such words and also consider what would be answered to them I judg that one great cause of Doctor Hammond's mistakes under debate as well as of this Author's was chiefly their want of distinct Notions about Natural and Moral Impotency as appears by their affirming as both of them do and the Doctor particularly pag. 86. that It is a direct contradiction to hold a Power in one sense and a want of Power in another sense to the same Act to hold That a man hath a Moral impotency to do what he hath a Natural power to do And consequently also his not distinguishing between Natural and Moral Irresistibility It is also apparent that another great â—ause of his mistakes is his forgetting or not considering that men are Universally wicked else he would not supâ—ose it Irrational to hold as he doth pag. 36. and 38. that no one man that hâ—d power enough to obey the Gospel sufficient to render him Inexcusable in not obeying it as I think all have that have the Gospel and are not Natural Fools did ever obey the Gospel without the addition of some further Supereffluence of Grace to make him Willing of Unwilling Now if this be not to forget or deny that all men are wicked so wicked that their Enmity and Aversation of will to Good will never be overcome but by the Grace of the Holy Ghost I know not what is And I grant that except men were Universally wicked it would be Irrational to suppose that of such Multitudes none should obey without such Grace But I think I have said enough in my Discourse of Natural and Moral Impotency to shew the Danger and Inconsistency of such Opinions as these Letters of the Doctor 's are written to maintain though I living obscurely had not seen those Letters when I wrote that Discourse And if yet any intelligent man shall satisfie me that I have not said enough there to this end or that there is any thing said in those Leters that needeth a more particular answer I may probably say more For my great Aversation to such Principles will much encline me upon an easie call to oppose the Prevalency of them till I shall see some sitter man of our own Church and Language where they prevail as I doubt not but there are many whose Abilities and Circumstances make them far more fit willing to undertake it and save the Labour of my weak Endeavours But now to attend the Author after this large Digression who still goes on to give the meaning of Rom. 4. The Apostle also in this his Argumentation considereth the former state and condition of the Person viz. of Abraham to whom this Faith was imputed for Righteousness He was ungodly and guilty of grievous sins and therefore the Apostle saith Emphatically that Abraham believed in him who justifieth one ungodly By that implying that Abraham before the Divine vocation was so far from deserving any thing from God by any good Works that on the contrary he was guilty of the greatest sins So that the Mercy of God was wonderful both that he had revealed himself in so singular a way to so great a sinner and had called him to his Service And also that he not only blessed with the Pardon of his great sins but also rewarded with the greatest Rewards Abraham believing him revealing himself to him But you will say What was this Impiety of Abraham before he was called I answer Idolatry the greatest of Impieties as the Scripture it self plainly testifies Joshu 24. 2 3. c. where God saith in the plural Number That the Fathers of the Hebrews served other Gods And he expresses whom he means Thareh the Father of Abraham and the Father of Nachor so that he puts those three the Father with the Children in the same Predicament Also after he had said they served other gods he adds And he took your Father Abraham ver 3. evidently denoting that this is commemorated amongst the kindnesses to the Israelites that when their Ancestors viz. the Grand-Father of Israel both by his Father and Mother Abraham and Nahor living with their Father in Chaldea worshipped other gods God of his meer Mercy without any merit of his took Abraham and gave to him a Heir and an Inheritance Also the Apostle seems in these words of justifying the ungodly by a tacit indeed but yet by a strong Argument to check the Arrogancy of the Jews who did abhor the Sinful and Idolatrous Gentiles Gal. 2. 15. though Converted to the true God by Faith in Christ and Repentance and new Obedience And would by no means admit them to the favour of Justification unless approved by a long and continued working or at least purg'd by Circumcision and Sacrifices For the Apostle shews in these words that Abraham their Father and so they in him was called in the same manner from Idolatry and the worship of false Gods And was immediately after his belief of the Promises and Obedience given to the Divine vocation yea before he was Circumcised as is a little-after shewed accepted of God Who would not here admire the divine wit of the Apostle Furthermore this belongs to all Justified since there is none that is not guilty of hainous sins before Grace received so who doth not need Pardon and Divine Remission Which the Apostle well proves by a Testimony out of David ver 6 7 8. And afterward the Apostle passes to the Controversie concerning Circumcision ver 9. The Author here indeed giveth the true sense of many verses in this Chapter Rom. 4. But the fault is he faineth the Apostle to bring them in Desultorily or as Ropes of Sand without any coherence as when he saith The Apostle also considereth the former state of Abraham whereas the Apostle in this Chapter brings it in Argumentatively and had the Author given a right Interpretation of the Verses before he might readily have seen how this of Abrahams being ungodly comes in most rationally to prove that Abraham was not Justified by Works but by Righteousness Imputed to him and that his Justification was of Grace and not of Debt So whereas he tells us that the Apostle doth afterward viz. verse 9. pass to the controversie of Circumcision there is no passing to a new Controversie but the Apostle there draweth an Argument from that that Abraham was Justified upon his Believing and Obeying God before he was Circumcised to prove that Abraham was not Justified by Works in the sense wherein he opposes his Justification by Works as I have else-where made apparent Now he comes to give us the Result of his thoughts how his sense of this Chapter tends to Reconcile the two Apostles Hence there cleerly shines forth an Agreement between James and Paul when from the same Example of Abraham one concludes that a man is Justified without Works the other by Works viz. Paul considers Abraham according to the Flesh
such as he was before his calling but James considers him as now being already favoured with Grace and Divine Vocation One denies his Justification by works done before Faith the other ascribes his Justification to his works proceeding from Faith And so there is no contradiction here between the Apostles This is if I may borrow a phrase from * Referente Origene lib. 6. Celsus like casting Lots what to say to Reconcile the Apostles And this is the common Evasion of the Papists when an Argument is brought against them from such passages in Pauls Epistles to prove that no man is Justified by the Merit of Works or perfect Obedience Further It is notoriously false that Paul here considers Abraham as he was before the Divine calling and his believing For First He speaks expresly of him as believing and having such a strong Faith as overcame great Oppositions and of his being Justified by such Faith Secondly He proves that when he Believed and Obeyed he was not Justified by Works in the sense wherein he excludes his Justification by Works viz. by perfect Obedience or Jewish Observations or Meritorious Works Thirdly He as equally excludes Works done after Faith as before viz. such works as he excludes Fourthly The Apostle brings this Circumstance to prove he was not Justified by Works viz. That he was Justified before Circumcision ver 16. which he could not have done had he in speaking of him considered him as he was before the Divine Call so as to deny his Justification by works done before it For had this been his meaning to deny his Justification only by such works done in his estate of Heathenism it would rather have furthered this denial and have added force to it by way of Argument could he have shewed that Abraham's Justification was not till after his Circumcision and Receiving the Seal of the Covenant Fifthly The Pharisaical-Jews which the Apostle there opposeth would not be sure pretend that Abraham was Justified while he lived in Heathenish courses before the Divine Call that the Apostle should need to oppose it Yea it was their Interest if they would maintain their first Opinion of Excluding the Uncircumcised Gentiles from Salvation and Justification to Plead though false that Abraham was not Justified till Circumcised or which is true that he was not Justified while he lived in Heathenish courses as they might pretend though falsly the Uncircumcised Converted Gentiles did But for the true meaning of this whole Chapter since I would not needlesly repeat the same thing See my short Discourse of the Apostle Paul's meaning Thus I have set before you all considerable that our Author saith concerning the only two Arguments that he tells us the Apostle Paul maketh use of against Justification by the Law and Works that concern the whole Body of the Mosaic-Law containing in it as he saith the Moral-Law He next proceeds viz. Chap. 14. to tell us how the Apostle opposeth the Ritual and Ceremonial-Law but he spends but few Lines about it saying there is no dispute about that among Christians Chapter 15. is spent in Citing out of some Authors some sayings of the Jews in Defence of the Power of Free-will without the Grace of the Spirit which he speaks against though many of them may be capable of no ill Construction possibly meaning no more than that men have the natural Power of Free-will without which they cannot be men or guilty of sin from common Providence And not that the Will is not Morally insuperably wicked without Grace Chapter 16. He well shews out of Jewish Authors that it was a common errour amongst them to think they perfectly obeyed the Law and did all it required if they didbut some few External things thinking those Precepts that required Inward-Holiness and Heart-Obedience were only Counsel and not Commands and so in stead of bringing up their Lives to the Law they maintained such Opinions as brought the Law down to their Lives as that it required no more than an External partial Obedience But I cannot but wonder at his Corollary which he draws hence and makes use of as an Argument against others which is this Pag. 318. Hence it is manifest that they do widely Err from the Scope of the Apostle that hold that he disputes against perfect Obedience to the Law as a defended and received Opinion amongst the Jews for it is manifest out of what I have said that they were so far from this perswasion that they were content to stand still within the bounds of too Imperfect Obedience Is this Author serious Let me ask a few Questions seriously Whether is it more likely that this Author should maintain Perfection in this Life and that a man may be Justified by the Law without the Gospel and Pardon that holds there is not any Law of God that requires more than Christians that are sincere ordinarily perform Or he that holds that God is so Holy and his Law so Exact that though he believes God will accept his weak Endeavours yet thinks he falls short every day in many things so as to need Pardon and the Blood of Christ for such failings Whether is a Protestant that holds he falls short of his Duty in every thing or a Papist that holds that God's Law requires so little that he can super-erogate and do more than God requires likelier to hold Perfection Whether is a man that holds that God's Law requires him to Love and Serve God with all his Heart and Soul and Strength likelier to hold Perfection in this Life or a man that holds that Luke-warmness is no sin As a great Doctor * Doctor Taylors Ret. of Prayer Serm. 5. pag. 46. doth in these words There is but one thing in the world that God hates beside Sin and that is Indifferency and Luke-warmness which although it hath not in it the direct Nature of Sin yet it hath this Testimony from God that it is Loathsome and Abominable And excepting this thing alone God never said so of any thing in the New-Testament but what was a direct Breach of a Commandment This Author takes much pains pag. 327. c. to prove that the Church of England in the Eleventh Article of Religion by these words viz. We are accounted Righteous before God only for the Merit of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ by Faith and not for our own works or deservings Wherefore That we are Justified by Faith only is a most wholsome Doctrine and very full of Comfort I say by these words doth not attribute any Efficacy or Dignity to Faith more than to other Virtues in the business of Justification Now I dislike not this attempt at all and so shall say nothing here To conclude The Reader may hence see how Improbable that is which he tells us in his Epistle Dedicatory to the Reverend Lord Bishop of Glocester saying He did nothing in puttâ—ng out this Book but having fâ—â—â—t consulted him and that it was put out with his Aid or Assistance auspâ—ciâ—s And that the Bishop read deliberaâ—â—ly every Chapter of either Dissertation and approved them with his Vote and adorned them with his Praises Some of this Book is indeed commendable and his Lordship might commend that But it may be observed that we have only this Author's word for this over-high Commendation of his Book and every part of it Who also cannot but be suspected to have had great Temptation to pretend it to gain Repute to his Opinion by so great a Name of so Reverend a Prelate and Learned a Writer FINIS
himself useth the word reckoned for reckned of Debt And therefore the word reckned doth not signifie reckned of Grace of it self Answ It is so apparent that any one may see it by perusing the place That these words Now to him that worketh the reward is reckned of Debt and not of Grace are an Argument to prove somthing said before as appears by the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Translated Now and do lean upon this implied Foundation to make them Argumentative viz. That so the word reckned cannot signifie when he saith God accounted it to him for Righteousness but signifies accounted it of Grace The Apostle's Argument is this If the reward had been given to Abraham for his Works as being a righteous man in the strict sense free from all sin or failing in obedience it would not have been said that God imputed Righteousness to him which implies his being destitute of it And he proves the consequence thus For to him that worketh that is that Meriteth or is Righteous by his own works the reward is accounted of Debt and not of Grace and so it leans upon this as being a thing apparent in it self that so the word Accounted cannot signifie but signifies accounted it of Grace and Favour imputedrighteousness to one not righteous like not imputing sin to one which implys the man a sinner And the Apostle in the following verse shews that it is all one as if it had been said Abraham believed God and upon his believing God did not impute sin to him And saith that if the Idolatrous unrighteous Gentiles believe as he did Righteousness shall be imputed to them or sin shall not be imputed to them Suppose we had read expresly these words Shimei repented or confessed his fault and David imputed it to him for Righteousness would it not have been all one as to say David did upon the Repentance or Confession of Shimei not impute sin to him And would it not be the same as to say David pardoned Shimei upon his Repentance or Confession and would not all these words imputed Righteousness imputed not Sin and Pardoned equally imply Shimei was a sinner or one unrighteous and consequently an Act of grace and savour in David so to do The Author having as you have seen given us his reason why he cannot be of their mind that say the word implys reckoned of Grace He in the next words tells us how the Apostle gathers out of that Scripture Abraham believed God and it was counted or imputed to him for Righteousness that the reward was not imputed to Abraham of Debt as a reward is given to Labourers but of Grace Thus I judg therefore that the Collection Pag. 265. of the Apostle whereby he infers out of that Citation That the Justification of Abraham was meerly Gratuitous doth not lean upon the naked signification of the word was Imputed But partly upon the nature of the thing which is said to be Imputed to Abraham for Righteousness and partly on the former state and quality of the person Abraham to whom it is said to be Imputed First The nature of the thing Pag. 266. The thing which is said to be Imputed to Abraham for Righteouâ—ness was Faith and Obedience springing from it Now the obedience of Faith doth exclude all Merit all together in its own Notion For the obedience of Faith supposeth a gracious Revelation of God first made to the Believer and so such Promises as do by their own excellency strongly excite a man believing them to perform that obedience to God by which as by the condition the good things Promised are to be attained and such Promises as do not only equal but far excel the whole labour though very great which is undertaken through the belief of them So it was plainly in the Example of Abraham He indeed believed God but first God had revealed himself to him in a gracious extraordinary manner Acts 7. 2 3. He had obeyed the Divine command in calling him to a long perilous Journey but God had added Wings to his Journey promising such huge good things which might even fill a decriped old man with youthful strength and might animate him to bear any trouble cheerfully Whatsoever therefore Abraham did worthy of praise he ought to ascribe it to the gracious Revelation and the liberal Promises made to him by God of his meer Mercy therefore there was no occasion for Abraham to glory No Merit The Apostle seems to have respect to this ver 5. where when that which was denied of one working viz. the reward to be given him of Grace * This is his mistake and not the Apostle's was to have been repeated in the following Opposition and to have been affirmed of one believing thus but to a man believing the reward is reckned of Grace But the Apostle doth quite otherwise saith he to one believing his faith is imputed for righteousness as if he should say upon that very account that his faith is imputed for righteousness his Justification is meerly gracious since Faith in it self sounds forth Grace and excludes Merit Here now I must but as on the Pag. 267. bie a little dwell upon the words of the Apostle ver 4. To him that worketh the reward is not reckned of Grace but of Debt Which place that it may be the better understood two things are to be enquired 1. What the word working signifies 2. What the word Debt signifies For the first He that worketh denoteth him that worketh of himself and by his own strength being assisted with no Divine aids For he that worketh by the Grace of God he doth not so much work as the Grace of God in him 1 Cor. 15. 10. Gal. 2. 20. And the Context of the place confirms this For beside that the Apostle as we have seen doth professedly dispute of the works of Abraham which he performed according to the flesh in the beginning of the Chapter That is also chiefly to be observed that he that worketh is opposed to him that believeth that is that from the belief of the Divine Promises and so whose works are to be ascribed to the Divine Grace which stirred him up to work with most great and liberal Promises also adding a great efficacy of his Spirit which also is received only after and by Faith Now in the second place to speak of these words of Debt no reason permits that they should be taken rigidly * There is all reason to take words strictly and properly when it can be done and not to fly to this Authors expression it may seem as it were of Debt And had this Author given the true sense of this Chapter he might have taken the words strictly thus If of perfect obedience to the Law then of Debt and not of Grace meaning by Grace Forgiveness and if of meritorious Works then of Debt and not of Grace in any sense strictly For the reward of Eternal life cannot be