If one side promise his part is not a Covenant except both do So that that transaction between God and the people at Sinai was properly a Covenant Exod. 19. 3 4 5 6 7 8. though God had not yet told the People what Laws he would require Obedience to in particular for Moses come's with a message to the people from God and tells them that if they will obey his Voice and keep his Covenant i. e. his Law they should be a peculiar Treasure unto him and a Kingdom of Priests that is He would be their God to bless them if they would be his people to obey him This was Gods Promise in this Covenant the people give this answer unanimously We consent we will obey God in all his Commands be they what they will though they were not told yet what his Commands should be But this though a Covenant was but in order to the great Solemnization of this Covenant which was Exod. 24. 3 4 5 6 7 8. Where having given the Moral-Law the Ten Commandments and some Judicial and Ceremonial Laws Moses comes down from God and relates them to the people And the people answered All that the Lord hath spoken We will do meaning all that he hath or shall speak for the addition of new commands did not make so many New-covenants Well Now God hath promised on his part to be their God if they will obey his Law Moses writeth these Laws that are rehearsed in the 20 21 22 23 chapters and consecrateth some young men to offer Sacrifice for Aaron and his Sons were not separated till the year after He made the people confirm their Covenant by Sacrifices as we do by Sacraments He read the Book of the Covenant that is the Book comprehending the Laws fore-mentioned and he sprinkles the Blood of the Sacrifices on the people and saith Behold the Blood of the Covenant which God hath made with you concerning all these Words that is all these Commands Thus the word is used most properly of such a Transaction God hath engaged himself to bless them if they would serve him and they have engaged themselves to serve him Sometimes the word Covenant is used for the Promise of one of the Parties only as Gods conditional Promises that if we will in sincerity Love Serve and Obey him he will be our God to bless us This is not a Covenant in the strictest sense but a conditional Promise yet is so called frequently in Scripture because it is Gods part of the Covenant yea all God's part of the Covenant of Grace and all that he Seals or Promises and when we do in sincerity promise our part these together make it actually a Covenant He engaged actually to bless us and we to serve him Yea if we promise only hypocritically yet we are engaged so as we are guilty of Covenant-breaking though God is not engaged by his conditional Promise we not being real in performing the condition So our promising engaging to obey may be called our Covenant because it is our part of the Covenant and all required of us is so to engage and be real in it But most frequently in Scripture the Laws of God the Precepts themselves are called the Covenant being the Laws that God hath made Promises to the obedience of and that the people by their engagement are bound to observe Deut. 4. 13. Sometimes the word is used in other senses as for an absolute Promise as that of destroying the World no more with a Flood but these significations before named are all that I shall have occasion to make use of Now to make it appear that the Promises and Precepts of the Covenant made in Mount Sinai and the Land of Moab were the same Consider This Book of Deuteronomium signifying the second Law is so called as all agree because it contains a repetition of the Laws formerly promulgated almost all of them were made at Mount Sinai above thirty nine years before this Deuteronomium this Repetition of the Law was Spoken or Written The occasion of which Repetition of the Law which may well be called the Prophet Moses's Fare-wel Sermon was as follows That actual Covenanting that was made at Mount Sinai or Horeb was in the first year yea within two months after they came out of Aegypt Exod. 19. 1. And all the people that were Twenty years old at their numbering which was in the second year after their coming out of Egypt are now dead for their murmuring except Caleb and Joshuah and Moses and so there was great need to cause this new Generation of people to enter actually into Covenant to keep Gods Laws which Joshuah caused them to do again after at less than half that distance of time The appointed time of the end of the forty years drew near for the peoples entering the good Land and Moses must not bring them thither nor enter himself Now Moses well knowing all these things and that his departure was at hand for he died within a Month after his beginning this Repetition of the Law to the people for he began it the first day of the Eleventh Month in the Fortieth year and died in the end of that Month for the people mourned for him Thirty dayes viz. the whole Month after Deut. 1. 3. and Chap. 34. 8. compared I say Moses foreknowing this and earnestly desiring to tye the people that he was about to leave fast to God and his Laws he begins in the hearing of the people in the Land of Moab a Month before he died Deut. 1. 3. 5. to take an effectual course to inform them in the knowledg of God's Laws and to engage them to Obedience by reciting and Summing up the Transactions of God towards them in the Wilderness and all the Laws Moral Judicial and Ceremonial yet leaving out for the most part those Judicial and Ceremonial commands that concerned the Priests Office or were not of ordinary Practice and adds some commands especially concerning things to be done by them when they come into the Promised Land And affectionately exhorts them to obey these commands with all their Heart and Soul ever and anon intermixing discourses of the Blessings would come on them by their obedience and Miseries by disobedience This is the Sum of his Discourse to this Chap. 29. He that shall think that all the Promises and Threats in this Book hitherto do only mundum sonare are only Temporal sure a vail is upon his Eyes and Heart in reading the Old Testament And then in this Chap. 29. Having thus far prepared them to do what they do knowingly and affectionately He engages them in a Covenant even with an Oath which was more than was done in Sinai to keep all these Laws He begins his Prologue to this actual Engagement as at Sinai with these words You have seen v. 2. v. 9. keep therefore the words of this Covenant that is the commands that I have repeated unto you that you may prosper in
the grave for he shall receive me The Apostle Paul saith The Law is Holy Just aâ—d Good The Law is Spiritual but I am Carnal Call's it the Commandment that was unto Life and means Eternal life I delight in the Law of God after the inward man How unlike are these Encomium's to the reviling Language this Author gives to the whole Mosaic-Dispensation Thirdly If the Promises c. were only Carnal and Temporal and so men could not possibly be drawn to true Piety by them Then no man was bound to true Piety by that Law For no man is bound to natural Impossibilities Then it was not men's fault that they were not made truly Pious by that Law For it is naturally necessary as a Foundation of true Religion as to believe that God is so to believe that He is a Rewarder after this life of them that diligently seek him here Yea further If the Law as this Author saith was apt in it's own Nature to beget in men a sordid Temper and Minds alien from true Piety then the Jewish people were bound to have such Tempers and Minds alien from true Piety And if the Law did bind mens minds to earthly Profits and worldly Delights they did well in suffering themselves to be thus bound by it For they ought to yield to God's Laws Fourthly God would not have been angry with the people for not being wâ—ought to true Piety by the Law For they would have been fully excusable Fifthly No man would have been obliged to Future misery or wrath to come by that Law that had no threatning of Future misery and also Christ never bare any Future-life curse or any thing by way of Satisfaction as to a Future-life curse Nor could any be pardoned their Transgressions of the Law as to Future punishment when the Law threatned no Future Punishment Sixthly These Threats and Promises concerning a Future life were at least so plain as that people might understand them else what I have said equally follows viz. That no man was bound to true Piety by them nor could be justly Condemned for not being wrought to true Piety by them for they would be in such a case excusable No man is bound to know what he hath a natural Impotency to the knowing of None will say God can justly be angry at or condemn the Heathen for not knowing and understanding the Doctrine of Christ that they had not the means naturally necessary to understand Yea the Law of God was so plain that the simple Psal 19. even plain ordinary people that were no Rabbies and young men might with such helps as God afforded them understand it else they at least had been excusable and could not be condemned for not being truly Pious Seventhly The Jews ordinarily did believe the Law promised Future life and threatned Future misery as appears by all the old Jewish * Their Talmud naming three sorts of men that should have no portion in the World to come nameth them for one sort that shaâ—l say The Resurrection of the Dead is not taught by the Law In Sanhed Perch Helek Writings extant Yea the Sadduces were accounted by them as Hereticks or Atheists that denied Future happiness to the Obedient and misery to the Disobedient Targum Onkelos on Lev. 18. 5. paraphraseth the place thus If a man doth them he shall live in them with Eternal life Targum Jonathan thus Which if a man do he shall live with Eternal life and his portion shall be with the Righteous Search the Scriptures therein you seek to have Eternal life Acts 24. 14 15. I believe all things written in the Law and the Prophets and have hope toward God which they themselves allow that there shall be a Resurrection of the Dead both of the Just and Unjust The Sadduces errour in denying a Future life was occasioned as Christ tells us by their not understanding the Scriptures meaning the Old Testament then only written Mark 12. 24. which could not be said if the Scriptures revealed no such things Eighthly The Law had promises of Future-life Happiness Let any tell me What a promise of Future-life is if this be not one viz. A notification of Gods will to make them happy after this life that shall serve and obey Him Now it appears That this was signified to them Psal 31. 20. How great is thy Goodness which thou hast laid up for them that fear thee 1 Tim. 4. 8. Godliness hath the promise of this life and of that to come Where is the Promise of this life and that to come to be found It 's apparent he means in the Old Testament Tit. 1. 2. In hope of Eternal life which God that cannot lye promised 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 before ancient Times or many Ages since or Long since for so it should be Translated since it is not reconcilable to Truth or Sense to speak of Promises though true of Decree before the World began Ephes 2. 12. It is said of the Gentiles aliens to the Common-wealth of Israel that they were without hope that is of Future happiness being strangers to the Covenants of Promise which the Jews had Which at least implies 1. That the Jews had promises of a Future-lifehappiness 2. That they had clearer promises of a Future life than the Gentiles And 3. What they had more of this Hope was to be ascribed to the Covenant of Promise revealed in the Old Testament Rom. 9. 4. The Israelites had the Covenants the giving of the Law the Service of God and the Promises And else What advantage had the Jews in having the Oracles of God committed to them And wherein did God do more for them in giving them his Statutes and Judgments than for any other Nation Many in the world had greater Temporal Profits and Pleasures than however the most of the Jews in Canaan Luke 16. 28. Where to the Rich man in Hell desiring to have Lazarus sent to his Brethren to tell them of the Future misery of the wicked and the Future happiness of the Obedient it was answered They have Moses and the Prophets let them hear them and if they will not hear them neither would they be perswaded if one should rise from the dead which could not have been said if the Old Testament-Scriptures had revealed no such things Yea they would have been excusable in not being moved with Moses and the Prophets to seek Future-life and to escape Future-death if there was no such thing revealed so as they could understand it by the helps that were Ministred to them 2 Tim. 3. 15. Timothy from a Child by the help of his Mother and Grand-Mother understood the Scriptures of the Old Testament so far without doubt as was necessary to Salvation and then be sure so far as to know there was a Future reward promised to the Obedient which were able to make him wise unto Salvation and not meerly wise to attain a Temporal reward in this life ver 16. All
the Authour doth to say Any Law doth not require perfect Obedience for it is to say it doth not require all that it doth require We may indeed say the Gospel doth not require the perfect Obedience of another Law that is the whole condition of the Original Law which it was made to pardon our failure in because sincere Obedience only to that Original-Law was made the condition of it but it is impossible but the Gospel being a Law it is a Law of Grace commanding sincere obedience with a penalty of our otherwise not having the benefit offered by it I say it is impossible but that it should require perfect Obedience to what it doth require as it's condition whereon we shall attain the pardon offered by it and this condition is perfectly all that it doth require as a Remedying-Law or Act of Oblivion For if there be any thing that it doth not require of us so as we should lose the offered Pardon if we do not perform it this thing is not it's condition nor any part of it which is required that we might not so fall short Also as was demonstrated before No Law either doth or can remit any thing required by it self If a man fail in any thing required by the Gospel under the penalty of having no benefit by it he is Remediless Fourthly Another fundamental cause of his Mistake of the Apostle's sense is want of true notions about the Law of Moses which he thinks to be a Law that had only Temporal Promises and Threats and to be void of Spiritual and Internal commands and also that the Apostle only excludes it and its works from Justification Now because I know not of any that speak exactly and satisfactorily of the Law in the several Notions and Acceptations of it nor in all things * I mean not rightly only because not comprehensibly enough so as to include all the senses of it here to be mentioned rightly however not in my judgment which in this may possibly differ from all others I think it needful to speak here something largely and distinctly of it not to destroy the Author's Opinion about the Apostle's sense since that may be done in few words but that I may lay a foundation for the right understanding not only of the passages of the Apostles in debate but other passages also of this Apostle and of the Authour to the Hebrews respecting the Law where they take it in a different sense from that wherein it is mainly taken in the places now in dispute My thoughts are these The Law of Moses or Old Testament-dispensation may be considered as to Temporal respects only or as to Conscience or Life-to-come Concernments And first to speak of it as to Temporal concernments only it may in this respect be considered either strictly or as affording pardon 1. The Law of Moses may be considered as to Temporal respects in its utmost exacting Rigour I mean in its utmost Rigour threatning Temporal Punishments as Dearth or Barrenness to their Land and by that Calamity to the Community as also by Pestilence and Banishment out of their Land to be executed by God And as the Instrument of the Jewish Polity or Common-wealth for they had no other Temporal-Law of their Land threatning violent and untimely Death to all * It threatnâ—d as the Common-wealth-Law this violent death to every external visible Breach whether Omissiâ—n or Commâ—ssion of every express Law either Mâ—ral Judicial or Ceremâ—nial This appears plain enough â—y that Sanction Cursed is every one that continues not in all things c. The penalty was threatned to every Transgressâ—â— and what this penalty was appâ—aâ—s by its contrary the Life promised to the Obedient which all will grant to contain temporal Life But it most undeniably appeaâ—s by that of a Beast's blood being offered in stead of the offender's I do not think it threatned as the Câ—â—mâ—n-wealth-law this death to a breach in thought or will with us any visible I mean by this word that may bâ— seen or Externally perceived if any man was by to perceive it external Omâ—ssion or Câ—mmission nor to a not-express but only by remote consequence implied breach nor was the Magistrate bound to inflâ—ct death on the offender guilty of such sinful thoughts or desires or refusing to offer sacrifice for them though it some way came to his knowledg as by the parties confessing such inward sins to him and declaring his resolution not to â—ffer sacrifice for them Yea it seems apparent that none of their sacrifices were to be offered for such Internal sins Transgressors of it to be Executed by the Magistrate or if secret from him or in the Magistrate's neglect or default by God himself Lev. 20. 3 4 5. Yea and it enjoyned exclusion from Society and from the Congregation for pollutions Lev. 15. Numb 19. Which were at least most of them no sins though so called figuratively not being forbidden being generally altogether Involuntary and it might often be a man's duty to pollute himself as for Example by Burying the Dead Though yet it was a sin yea and might be a presumptuous sin in the sense of Numb 15. 30. to neglect wittingly the Expiation or Purgation in that case appointed and also to come into society till the Purgation finished This would take up too much time to speak more particularly exactly of I would speak more plain if possible let me Repeat it in other words which may be plainer to some understandings I say the Law may be considered in this External political sense viz. so far as the Offences might be Expiated by their Sacrifices or were excluded positively by it from being expiated by their Sacrifices for that Exclusion was meant only as to Temporal punishment taking no notice of the Future or Eternal In this sence it had only as Temporal punishments of Offenders so only Temporal promises of Peace or Prosperity or Long-Life in the Land of Canaan upon obedience to the Law and also had in this sense no Spiritual or Internal precepts Now the Law in this strict temporal sense wherein it threatned such calamities to every Offender was a shadow of things to come Punishments to come a Shadow and Commemoration of the same I mean materially the same Law 's * It was a strangely severe Common-wealthlaw even beyond Draco's Laws that for their severity were said to be writ in blood and this severity would even appear irrational and unaccountable unto us did we not consider its typicalness and representation of the great strictness of the same law in a higher sense cursing with eternal death every one not continuing in all c. And also did we not consider that it wâ—s given with a Râ—medâ—ing Law accâ—pting the blood of beasts in stead of a man's in most cases severe threatnings of Future punishments to every Transgression either External or Internal And a shadow or pattern of Good things to come Heb. 10.
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.
Moses and that in so doing in excluding them he doth also reject the corrupt Interpretations or Opinions which the Scribes and Pharisees had fastned on this Law or added to it And also that the Apostle though speaking little about it and on the bie doth implicitly affirm that Works done according to the Law of Nature and proceeding from the strength of Nature doth avail nothing to Salvation Chap. 7. He tells us what works of the Laws of Moses in these words pag. 101. This Law consists of two Parts viz. of Moral and Ritual Precepts The Apostle without doubt had respect to them both For that he speaks also of the Moral Precepts of the Law of Moses whatever some say to the contrary is too manifest out of his own words Rom. 3. 20. Wherefore by the Works of the Law shall no flesh be justified in his sight for by the Law is the knowledg of sin From whence it may be gathered that it is that Law by which is the knowledg of sin whose works he he excludes which without controversie is spoken of the Moral-Law written in the Decalogue For so the Apostle expounds himself Rom. 7. 7. citing that out of the Decalogue Thou shalt not Covet So Rom. 3. 31. Do we destroy the Law by Faith God forbid yea we establish the Law Now the Ceremonial-Law can scarce be said to be established by Faith The Law worketh wrath For where there is no Law there is no Transgression is chiefly true of the Moral-Law For almost all Transgressions are against the Moral-Law therefore the Dispute of the Apostle pertains also to the Works of the Moral-Law In the mean time I must add this that the Works of the Moral-Law are not simply excluded by Paul from Justification but only so far as they were prescribed in the Mosaic-Covenant and were made part of the condition annexed to this Covenant It is certain that no man could come to true Justification by the Mosaic-Covenant by Works of the Moral-Law though they were rightly yea and exactly performed according to the Rule of the Law because it promised no true Justification at all That is Justification joyned with Eternal-Life For that great Benefit comes only from the Covenant of Grace made in the Blood of the Mediator So that if you respect the Mosaic-Covenant even the works of the Moral-Law are together to be excluded from Justification and are indeed excluded by the Apostle I know you are at a loss about the Author's meaning what he means by this Mosaic-Covenant that no man could be justified by as to Future life though free all sin and perfectly obeying the Moral-Law because this Mosaic-Covenant promised no Justification as to Eternal life upon any terms whatsoever Now because you will not understand what he saith here on the two Arguments he brings in the next words which he pretends are only the Apostle's Arguments against Justification by this Mosaic-Covenant and that this is all the Law and Covenant that the Apostle proves against Justification by I will bring together here all that he saith to tell us what he means by the Mosaic-Covenant that there is no Justification by as he saith as to a Future life though there was as to this Life and you will see it apparent that he means by it only that Law or Laws which I before cited out of him by the name of an Original-Law and Remedying-Law which threatned a violent Temporal death to the Transgressors of the Law and promised upon offering a Sacrifice they should escape such violent Temporal death but promised nothing of Happiness in a Future life if they offered such Sacrifices or Pardon of those sins as to a Future life He apparently either means this Remedying-Law only or both together the Original-Law as it threatned a violent Temporal death and the Remedying-Law freeing from a violent Temporal death upon the death of a Beast And he thinks that the Law taken in such a sense as to threaten Eternal death or promise Eternal life was the Gospel it self and that Paul doth not dispute against being Justified by any such Law And that the Law given from Mount Sinai however had no Promises or Threats of a Future life not so much as obscure ones and he builds the sense he gives of the Apostle Paul upon this Foundation You have seen this passage already where he saith it promised no Eternal life-Justification to any whatsoever though Sinless and perfectly keeping the Law Pag. 208. The Promises and Threatnings of the Law were only Temporal and Earthly Pag. 210. And the Precepts did wonderfully accord with the Promises Pag. 212. He speaks largely to prove this The Apostle doth in many places tax this defect of the Mosaic-Law that it had no promise of a Future life And hither some refer that Text Rom. 8. 3. where it is said The Law was weak through the Flesh i. e. say they It contained only carnal Promises But I chuse rather the common Interpretation viz. of Flesh for Sin The 5th verse of the foregoing Chapter is more apposite where the Law is called Flesh for those words When we were in the Flesh must be expounded When we were under the Law as is manifest from the Antithesis which they have to Vers 6. and also from the scope of the whole Chapter And the Mosaic-Law seems to be called Flesh not only because the most of the Precepts were carnal only and External but also because the Promises with which this Law was enforced did not look beyond this Carnal life To the same sense Grotius expounds the words of the Apostle 2 Cor. 3. where he calls the Law a Ministry of Death because all its Promises were ended with Death without any hope of Restitution So v. 6. The Law of Moses is said to kill viz. as the same Grotius notes As the Hebrew word to make alive is used of him who did not kill a man Exod. 1. 17. Judg. 8. 19. So that is said to kill which leaves a man to die and doth not free from Death But that I may confess the truth I rather believe these Phrases to Kill and a Ministry of death to signifie something else viz. the written Law of Moses to make men Obnoxious to Divine anger and Eternal death if it be alone and destitute of the Spirit not through its †It is well he here grants it is through the default of the Man and not fâ—om the Law but this destroys his cause and He a few Lines after contradicts this own fault but through the infirmity of the Flesh The Apostle's words Gal. 3. 13. seem more clear The Law is not of Faith but he that doth them shall live in them That is the Law neither requires Faith neither doth it promise those things which require Faith or Belief properly so called which is the evidence of things not seen Heb. 11. 1. Rom. 8. 24. because it promises only good things of that sort which are things of Sense and
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
Pâ—scaâ—or interpreting the words beside the Covenant thus Praeter actionem illam qua foedus fuit pactum which can mean nothing but the peoples Engagement which actual promise of the people the Lord commanded Moses to make with the children of Israel that is which the Lord commanded Moses to cause the children of Israel to make for so this phrase and word is expresly used Josh 24. 25. Joshuah made a Covenant with the people that day that is caused the people to promise obedience to the Lords Commands that day The like sense the word hath so far as concerns the Covenanting of the people 2 Kings 11. 17. in the Land of Moab beside the Covenant that is beside their actual promising which Moses made with them that is caused them to make at Horeb or Sinai But suppose this Verse should have reference only to the following Verses in this Chapter and the following his meaning can only be These are the words whereby he engaged the people in a Covenant distinct from the words whereby Moses engaged them in a Covenant to the Lord formerly We find Joshuah a little before his death again engaging the people in a Covenant to obey Gods Commandments and useth Words and Exhortations different from these in this Chapter in engaging them Suppose we had read such words as these viz. These are the words of the Covenant which Joshuah made with the people besides the Covenant which Moses made with them at Mount Sinai and in the Land of Moab This might import that it was a distinct Engaging of the people from the other two but not that it was another Covenant of God having other Promises and Commands and Threats We find the people in Nehemiah's time Nehem. 10. 29. entering into a Covenant But it was into the Mount Sinai-Covenant It was to walk in God's Law which was given by Moses and we may see there it was also to observe Ceremonial and Judicial commands It seems they had not observed this New-covenant of this Authors in these two Chapters of Deuteronomy Object But may not this whole Book of Deuteronomy being spoken in the Land of Moab comprehend a new Gospel-Covenant distinct from the Old at Sinai and so that be serviceable to reconcile those passages of the Apostle Paul in dispute the Author's way Answ No For the Apostle Paul cites Gal. 3. two Passages out of this Book for words of the Law And again There are by far more Promises and Threatnings in this Book expressed in a Carnal Temporal and Terrence stile than in all the Law of Moses beside in Exodus Leviti Numb I am sensible this Ignis fatuus hath led me out of my designed way for I designed here only to bring in those Passages together without any reflection upon them where the Author tells us what he supposes the Apostle Paul means by the Law which he disputes against Justification by and by the Works of even a Law that either hath or at least in the sense the Apostle opposeth Justification by it hath neither Spiritual-promises nor Threatnings nor Precepts There is only one place more and that is pag. 122 123. where he explains the Apostle's meaning by the Law but because I have been long in Reciting these and that wâ—ll methodically be brought in in another place I shall bring it in there and so shall return now to the place where I left off viz. At the end of pag. 102. and shall begin at the top of pag. 103. where he tells us The Apostle useth two Arguments against Justification by Works which two Arguments this Author only prosecutes and so largely that the Setting down and Proving and Explaining these takes up almost two third parts of his whole Book Take his own words Pag 103. The Arguments whereby Paul opposes the Law may be divided into two sorts one into those which belong to the whole Mosaic-Covenant the other into those Arguments which chiefly respect the Ceremonial Law This latter sort of Arguments which chiefly respect the Ceremonial-Law he leaves till near the end of his Book and then spends but few Lines about them as not being as he saith controverted by Christians The Arguments of this first sort whereby the Apostle fights are especially two and those are taken from a double defect of the Mosaic-Covenant viz. From the want both of pardoning Grace and of helping Grace The first Argument of the Apostle respecting the Mosaic-Covenant is drawn from the defect of Pardoning-grace or Remission of sins which that Covenant wanted Where the Apostle shews the Universal guilt as well of the Jews as of the Gentiles and that all are guilty of those sins that there is no true and perfect Remission to be hoped for by this Law It is clear that this is the scope of Paul in the third Chapter of the Epistle to the Romans For there after a long Catalogue of sins charged both on the Jews and Gentiles by the Law v. 10. c. At length ver 20. he inferrs this conclusion Wherefore by the works of the Law shall no flesh be justified in his sight viz. in the sight of God And also the things which the Apostle disputes in the 3d. Chap. of Gal. are to be referred the same way where he proves also by this Reason That all who are under the Law are under a Curse because it is written Cursed is every one that shall not continue in all things written in the Law to do them v. 10. But here I am sensible that upon the very Threshold I am cast upon a great difficulty For it may be doubted here whether this Argumentation of the Apostle doth not lean upon this Foundation that he determines The Mosaic-Law as it was given to the Jews was a Law requiring Obedience wholly perfect and so impossible to be performed and also whether the Apostle conclude that upon this account all men are sinners by this Law and by and for their sins guilty of eternal Death and Malediction and so that no man can be Justified by this Law Thus indeed the most think affirming that the Law of Moses did oblige if not absolutely yet †Conditionally is no good word here For though we may properly say Men shall perish for their sins conditionally except they repent for this is no more than to say the Law that threatens death absolutely shall be executed except they repent yet we must not say that the Law threatens death conditionally except they repent but we must hold it threatens death absolutely repent or repent not and that the Gospel is a distinct Law a Remedying-Law For if God threatned death by the Law only conditionally except they perform the Gospel-condition it would follow that no man is pardoned that performs the Gospel condition it would also quite destroy Christs Satisfaction Though I know many mean well that use such speeches and however far better than the Author that denies any such Law-threat either absolute or conditional conditionally
viz. unless they fled to the Gospel-covenant all those to whom it belonged and that under the peril of Eternal death to most absolute obedience that is such as comprehends all manner of sinlesness yea and that perpetually and did forbid all Imperfection Inadvertency and Infirmity through the whole course of their lives But I cannot be perswaded to the opinion of these for Reasons which I shall presently give In the mean while that you may more rightly understand the state of this Controversie keep this exactly in your mind that these two things do widely differ viz. A man to be accounted by God unworthy of the reward of Righteousness and Eternal life And a man to be accounted of God worthy to be punished with the punishment of Eternal death For the first For a man to be judged unworthy of Eternal Life it sufficeth that he is not altogether Sinless for God may and that righteously deny him the reward of Eternal Life for the least Imperfection For God might deny that infinite Gift of Eternal Life to a man obeying perfectly if such a one could be found because it is a free Gift and cannot be due to the Merit of any Creature But for that last That one should be accounted by God worthy of the punishment of Eternal death it is necessarily required that he did not perform that Obedience which he could perform Hence it follows that no man can righteously be adjudged guilty of Eternal death for the defect of perfect Righteousness since this Righteousness is simply impossible to a man in this Life And it is manifest that the Apostle in the Dispute of which we speak doth prove all Jews and Gentiles without difference for not obeying the Law not only to be unworthy of the reward of Eternal life but obnoxious to Divine anger and Eternal death That every mouth might be stopped Rom. 3. 19. that is that all Jews and Gentiles may be without excuse Rom. 1. 20. and 2. 1. And what is more unlikely that I may use here the words of Episcopius that the Apostle would charge men to be guilty of Death and Condemnation for violating or not keeping a Law which he judged it impossible for them to keep Neither is it likely that Paul had any Adversaries but what would grant that no man could keep the Law so exactly as not to offend in the least and so no man to be justified in that sense by the Law And who would not also object to him that men were ill accused to be guilty of Punishment when it is certain they could not avoid the fault The foundation of all here said is this That it is repugnant to Divine Justice that any should be bound to Impossibilities Pag 106. especially under the peril of Eternal death He here make 's out That that-usual pretence of some is very absurd that men have lost their power to do what God requires of them and so God may justly require what they cannot now do which I grant and have elsewhere proved to be so absurd as no way to answer that difficulty He thus proceeds And to come to the Mosaic-Law it is far more unlikely that it was a Law requiring perfect Obedience Which that I may make manifest It is diligently to be observed that the Old Law as Grotius de Satisf cap. 10. noteth may be considered * This â—â—numeration is not near large â—â—ough nor any thing to the puâ—pose two ways as having a double relation or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 First Carnally and according to the Letter as it was an Instrument of the Government of the Jewish Polity or the Common-wealth Secondly Spiritually as having a shadow of good things to come Heb. 10. 1. Now in this last 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Habitude since the Law was nothing else but the * The Law as it had a shadow of good things to come was not the Gospel it self Again so far as it was an Instrument of the Jewish Polity it was a shadow of good things to come And so far as it was the Law of Grace the Gospel of Salvation it Typified nothing Gospel it self shadowed with or shadowed under Types no man in his right wits will say it was a a Law requiring perfect obedience viz. In that sense wherein the Law was meant in this Controversie to require perfect Obedience It remains therefore to be affirmed that the Law of Moses required perfect Obedience under the former consideration viz. As the Instrument of the Jewish Government But to affirm this would be wonderfully * †It did threaten death in this consideration to the least failing in this Political-Law absurd Because First Because we read expresly that God by * It was not by that Law formally considered but by the Remedying-Law different from it that Law commanded Sacrifices by which the offences which were not done in contempt of the Law and with a high Hand were expiated as may be seen Num. 15. from the 22d to the 29th v. Now * The just contrary is true For there can be no pardon of the want of perfect obedience but where perfect obedience is required where any pardon of sin is granted there the requiring of Perfect-bedience cannot have place For these are inconsistent Secondly The Mosaic-Law was so far from requiring Perfect-obedience from the Jews that it is too manifest that some things were in that Law * The doing things permitted by a Law is no breach of that particular Law nor hinders a man from perfectly obeying that Law permitted to them for the hardness of their hearts which things cannot be excused from being sin as Polygamy and Licence of divorcing for leight causes Deut. 24. 1. and compared with Mat. 19. 3. c. I conclude therefore that since by the Mosaic-Law carnally considered many sins were remitted to the Jews and some things which at least to us Christians are accounted sins were expresly permitted It ought to be granted without controversie that this Law so considered did by no means require perfect and exact Obedience Yet there are not wanting Arguments by which some endeavour to prove this Hypothesis to be true and that thence Paul gathered the impossibility of Justification by the Mosaic-Law We will weigh these Arguments exactly to try if they have any thing of Solidity which ought to prejudice so plain a truth They bring two chiefly Their first Argument is taken from that place fore-alleadg'd by me Pag. 108. viz. Gal. 3. 10. As many as are of the works of the Law are under a Curse For it is written Cursed is every one that doth not continue in all things c. Where say they it is manifest that the Apostle gathers the Impossibility of Justification by the mosaic-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
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
Moses Where the Apostle seems to affirm two things viz. Not only that Spiritual Remission of Sins which the Law granted not at all was Preached through Jesus But that every Believer should be Justified by him from all sins from which no man could so much as carnally be Justified by the Law of Moses Hitherto concerning the first Argument of the Apostle He might have said Hitherto of all that hath any shew that he saith of the Apostle's meaning And I will add hitherto I have translated him since I begun with his Argument almost at least verbatim But in going forward will bind my self to do it no further since this first Argument is all the Arguments he brings that can with any fairness be pretended to be the Apostle's Argument to exclude Justification by the Law and works of the Law I will relate the substance of his other Arguments which is all he pretends to be the Apostle's and the relating and expatiating upon which takes up the rest of his Book almost wholly I will also relate all such Passages as have any considerable shew to support his Exposition of the Apostles words in such places as this Book is Written to Reconcile to Saint James The other Argument of the Apostle which equally hath respect to the whole Law whereby the Apostle clearly proves the Impossibility of Justification by the Mosaic-Law is taken from another defect of this Covenant from the defect of Helping or Auxiliary Grace even as the Old Law indulged no full and perfect pardon to past sins so neither did it supply sufficient aid for the avoiding of Future sins The Apostle is much in this Argument shewing the Law was very Infirm in it self and plainly destitute of strength whereby miserable men might be drawn from the dominion of sin and from an inveterate Custom of sinning to true and saving Righteousness or Holiness First This Argument from a disability of the Law to sanctifie men suppose it true which is indeed true of the Law as the Common-wealth-Law but not when the Law is used in the sense wherein it was the Gospel or Law of Grace for then this Disability can only be affirmed at the most comparatively to this clear Dispensation since Christ and consequently that Sanctification must be by some Grace and Favour of the Spirit would by no means prove Justification to be of Gospel Grace or Favour or by Pardon For suppose that God should by his Spirit take some effectual course to preserve a man wholly free from sin this Sanctification of a man would be free and of Grace and Favour but not his Justification but that would be of Works and the Law in the strictest sense of it so as not to be of the Gospel or of Mercy and Pardon The Sanctification of the humane Nature of Christ was of Grace and Favour and by special Dispensation but his Justification was of Debt by the Law and of Justice in the strictest sense and not of Grace or Mercy or Pardon or by Imputation of Righteousness to one unrighteous Secondly The Apostle doth not anywhere to my remembrance though it may have a true meaning in a very remote sense much less in any of the places propounded to be reconciled to St. James make use of this Argument That Sanctification is of Grace and Mercy therefore Justification is so and not of Works or Debt So that whether it be a good Argument or no it is not the Apostle's Argument Thirdly The Author seems now in the prosecution of this Argument not to keep Justification or Sanctification or the grace and favour of Justification and Sanctification distinct as he hath done hitherto one being the working a real change I mean real in opposition to a Law or relative change in the Soul and consisting in the favour of Converting a man The other being a Law-Act and consisting in acquitting or absolving a man from an Accusation He seems to forget that he had pag. 8 9. well and convincingly confuted the Opinion of Grotius who herein Symbolizing with the Papists affirm's that the Apostle Paul by Justification means not in a Law-sense absolution from sin but Sanctification or Purging from Vices whereas there is not one place where the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to justifie is used where it so signifies except Rev. 22. 11. He that is righteous 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 let him be further justified still And concerning this place the Author saith it is probable and it is also affirmed by Grotius himself that it should be there read according to some antient Manuscripts 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 let him do righteousness still Now as I said this Author seems to forget this in the whole prosecution of this Argument as for Example when pag. 253. he will have the meaning of those words Tit. 3. v. 7. That being justified freely by his Grace to be that being enabled by the Grace of the Holy Ghost to do those things to which Justification is promised Which is in effect to say being justified by the Grace of Sanctification or being justified by the gracious operation of the Holy Ghost in Sanctifying Which also is an Interpretation alien from the meaning of those words The meaning whereof is as may appear to any perusing the words foregoing That having the Gospel-condition wrought in us by the operation of the Holy Ghost being Regenerated we might be justified by his Grace that is by his Grace in Pardoning not by the gracious Operation of the Spirit in Sanctifying For though the Grace and Favour of Sanctifying be ascribed frequently to the Spirit as it 's peculiar operation yet not the grace and favour of Justification but is peculiarly ascribed to God the Father as Judg and Rector being a Law-Act It is GOD that justifieth who is he that condemneth The Law had a defect of strength to Sanctifie men Why Because it wanted External help necessary to work true Sanctification and Internal help necessary to work true Sanctification It wanted an External help necessary to work true Sanctification viz. it wanted a promise of Eternal life to encourage men to obey it It wanted an Internal help necessary to work Sanctification because it wanted the Gift of the Holy Ghost First As to the first It wanted this External help to work true Sanctification in that the Promises and Threatnings of this Law wherein the strength of every Law lies were only Temporal and Earthly and men might easily contemn these Those Earthly good things would not much move the mind of an intelligent man Yea the Law of Moses upon that account that it contained only Earthly Promises and Threats was in it's own Nature apt to beget in men a base and sordid Temper yea a Temper plainly alien from true Piety The chief parts of Piety are the denying of self bearing the Cross dayly Prayer Meditation on the Life-to-come and a moderate and a sober use of the good things of this Life But how could it be that
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
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-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-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
a Beast in Sacrifice and bring it not to the door of the Tabernacle Blood shall be imputed to that man he hath shed Blood and he shall be cut off from among the people That is he shall be accounted in Law a Murtherer Murther shall be Imputed to him viz. He shall in judgment of Law be accounted a Murtherer so far that the same punishment shall be due to him and Inflicted on him that would have been due if he had committed Murther not that he had in reality or was esteemed in reality to have shed Humane blood Philemon vers 18 19. where there is a word near akin to this but not altogether the same If he have wronged or oweth thee any thing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Impute it Account it to me I will pay it Not that he did owe it or had wronged him or that he would have him count that in reality he had wronged him or ought it to him but require it of me I put my self into that state in reference to Law as if I did owe it or had wronged thee Secondly Consider these following Scriptures where these words are used in the favourable Rewarding-sense 2 Tim. 4. 16. I pray God this viz. fault may not be imputed or accounted to them That is I pray it may be pardoned that it may be accounted as if it had not been committed not that he pray's God to think really that they never committed the fault which would be to admit an errour into his understanding but that he would graciously pardon it and consequently no more punish it than if he judged it not committed Numb 18. 27 30. This your Heave-offering shall be accounted or imputed to you as the Corn of the Threshing-floor That is whereas the people are commanded to offer their Tithes and their first-Fruits to God or they cannot without Sin and a Curse enjoy the rest Now saith he to the Levites If you pay this part the giving of this shall by Gods favour be available in Law to your benefit and comfort in freeing you from a Curse in imploying all the rest to your own use as if you had given such Tithes and First-fruits of your own Husbandry as the people do Not that God would account it really the Corn of their own Threshing-floor the First-fruits of their own Husbandry Rom. 5. 13. Where a different word is used but next a-kin to this Sin is not imputed where there is no Law That is could one suppose per possibile vel impossibile that there should be sin committed by a man without a Law it would not be Imputed he would not be guilty obliged to suffer would not be treated as an Offender Rom. 4. 11. That Righteousness might be imputed to them viz. the Gentiles also That is That though they be sinners and so have not Innocence and Righteousness in reality yet it shall upon their becoming Christians be Imputed to them Rom. 2. 26. If the uncircumcised keep the righteousness of the Law his uncircumcision shall be accounted for circumcision That is though a man be not Circumcised and so be one that you much despise yet if he live holily he shall be respected by God to all intents and purposes as if he had been Circumcised Rom. 4. 8. cited out of Psal 32. Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute iniquity implying there is iniquity but he will pardon it and not impute it Interpreted by that his sin forgiven therefore it Implys there is sin but not Imputed Not that God accounts he never committed it These words are also used in the Scriptures following but are used in something a different sense from the words fore cited because as you may observe they are not capable of being Translated by the word Impute as these above mentioned all are viz. Job 33. 10. Chap. 19. 11. Chap. 13. 24. He counteth me for his enemy Gen. 31. 15. Are we not accounted of him strangers Job 19. 15. My Maidens accounted me for a stranger Hos 8. 12. I have written to them the wonderful things of my Law but they were accounted strange things Psal 44. 22. cited Rom. 8. 36. We are accounted as sheep for the slaughter Now this may apparently be said of these Scriptures that either the word signifies a meer Thinking a meer immanent Act of the Understanding without any thing of favour or disfavour as one may Interpret some of these places or if not they apparently imply as any may perceive upon considering the places that the thing was not so in reality as accounted It would be too high in me to say I am certain upon so little pains as I have taken to examine these are all yet I am very confident these are all the places of Scripture where the Hebrew or Greek words are used in any sense distinct from a meer immanent Act of the Understanding except that of Phineas executing Judgement and it was accounted to him for Righteousness and the same words repeated again by this Apostle and by Saint James which are plain to this sence and the two Scriptures which this Author cites that I shall now take notice of This Author refers us only to two Scriptures where the words do not signifie meer thinking to prove that the words are used for accounting according to Justice and not Grace or according to the reality of things But they both of them prove evidently against that which he produceth them to prove The first is that saying of Shimei 2 Sam. 19. 19. Let not the King impute iniquity to me neither do thou remember what thy servant did perversly Here saith he Imputation of sin is of Justice and not of Grace Answ He forgets there is a Negation in this Speech It is not let my Lord impute iniquity to me But let not my Lord impute iniquity Now not to impute Iniquity is the very same thing with imputing Righteousness as the Apostle shews in this Chapter ver 6 8. compared Imputing Righteousness without Works that is without a mans being Righteous and not imputing Iniquity where there is Iniquity are the same Shimei's meaning is though I have committed a great fault and in truth am guilty and unrighteous in this respect yet impute Righteousness to me through Grace by pardon as to this fault or do not impute Iniquity to me put me into that state in reference to Punishment for this fault as if I was Righteous or Innocent as to this fault as if the fault had never been committed He did not mean do thou really account I never did that fault or do thou in Justice and not in Favour not impute sin to me The other Scripture which he brings is as manifest against him as this is which is this viz. ver 4. the very next verse after this Abraham believed and it was accounted to him for Righteousness Now to him that worketh the reward is reckoned of debt and and not of Grace Here saith he the Apostle