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
Gospel-condition the whole duty required for Salvation or the obedience of Faith And I judg thus much of it which is near one third part of the Book highly worth the Reading of any that have any other apprehensions of the meaning of James or that are not satisfied that the Apostle Paul by Faith means the whole necessary duty of a Christian But * Quantum mutatus ab illo Hectore qui redit exuvias indutus Achillis now when he begins at the 6th Chapter of the second Dissertation to tell positively what the Apostle Paul means by excluding Works of the Law from Justification and what he means by Works and by the Law The sense he fastens on the Apostle is quite remote from his meaning and would not only make the whole discourse of the Apostle about denying Justification by works a vain useless Speculation but also would bring in such intolerable Opinions as these following at least by evident consequence viz. First That no man sins while he lives a truly Christian life sincerely obedient to the Law and so needeth no pardon or Christ's satisfaction for such failings as are consistent with true Christianity Secondly That there is no such thing as pardon of sin possible as to Eternal punishment or punishment after this Life neither did Christ satisfie for the breach of any Law as to any Eternal punishment or punishment after this Life but onely for Temporal Not that I affirm that the Author holds this Opinion for it is apparent he holds the contrary but this follows by undeniable consequence from his discourse though he see it not but will deny this consequence Thirdly That there is no possible Argument against Popish perfection or meriting so far as to need no pardon from those passages in Pauls Epistles that deny Justification by Works but meerly such a vain useless Speculation as this That good Works done without knowledg of or respect to a future recompence of reward do not merit and works done by one that hath in no sense any ability to do them do not merit These four things following seem apparently to be the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the first great Mistakes and the occasion of all his * Yea these also seem to be the causes of the mistakes of many other very learned Authoâ—s much of his Judgment in the paâ—ticulars here endeavoured to be Rectified other mistakes of the Apostle Pauls sense in denying Justification by Works 1. His denying that there is any such thing as any Law of God setting the Gospel it self aside made with Mankind to this Tenour or Purport That he that doth not every thing that God requires of him whatsoever whether by the Light of Nature or the Writings of the Old and New Testament shall be subject to Eternal misery or misery after this Life and if men do all that God requires of them by any way making his will known they shall be eternally Happy or Happy after this Life but he thinks There is no Law of God that threatens future misery or promises future happiness but only the Gospel it self which is reveaed in the Old and New Testament And that any Law threatning future misery I mean after this Life or promising future Happiness is the Gospel it self whereby men alwayes were and are justified and saved Now to prove against this and that we must hold a Law threatning future and Eternal misery to all sinners and that all are condemned and none justified by this Law and that this Law is distinct and quite different from the Gospel let these things be considered 1. If there be no Law distinct from the Gospel threatning future misery or misery after this Life then Christ never satisfied for the future misery that was threatned to any never died to free any from the wrath to come from the eternal or future Curse of any such Law but only from a temporal Curse or Curse of this Life The consequence is apparent because he knows not what he says that should affirm that Christ was made under the Gospel to free us from the Curse of the Gospel for the Gospel either threatens nothing as many hold but I judg them to err or which is apparent it threatens nothing except to them that perform not its condition viz. To them that Believe not and Repent not in this Life and it is certain Christ died not to Redeem finally Impenitent Unbelievers Christ's Satisfaction was made to the Law and not to the Gospel to free them that perform not the condition of the Law viz. perfect Obedience but not to free them that perform not the condition of the Gospel There was indeed a satisfaction made to the Law that God might with Justice and Honour with safety to the Law make this Act of Oblivion this Law of Grace the Gospel Therefore surely that first Original-Law did threaten eternal death to sinners and not meerly Temporal punishment else there cannot possibly be any satisfaction for sin as to Eternal punishment at all because the first Law to which the satisfaction was made did not threaten it Suppose a Law in force that every Felon shall be sold to work in the Galleys and the King's Son paid a great price and by this obtained of the King this conditional Act of Oblivion to be made that if such Offenders will serve his Son in the Wars they should be Acquitted but if they shrink from such Service they shall die Here indeed was a price paid to free them from being Gally-slaves but none paid to free them from Death because the first Original Law that was transgressed by their Felony did not threaten Death but only Slavery And you cannot say that the price was paid to free them from the Penalty of the Law of Grace or Act of Oblivion which doth threaten Death but the satisfaction was made to the first Law only though indeed the Act of Oblivion or Remedying Law was made upon the account of the price paid in satisfaction for the breach of the first Law 2. If there be no Law threatning wrath to come or future misery but only the Gospel it self then no man can be pardoned or can need pardon by the Gospel or the Bloud of Christ as to the wrath to come for the Gospel affords no pardon to its transgressors that is to men continuing to death in Impenitency and Unbelief The Gospel indeed affords pardon to transgressors of the Law yea and to transgressors of the Commands of the New Testament so far as they are transgressions of the Law and threatned by that general Law Cursed is he that doth not all any way revealed to be his duty provided they perform the Gospel-conditions but the Gospel affords no pardon at all to them that fall under its curse by not performing the Gospel-condition Suppose a Law made threatning every Felon with Death and suppose a conditional Act of Oblivion or Remedying Law made that if the Felon read he shall not die
them in Horeb They weakly trifle who here understand * Such an Interpretation is not so weak and trifling but had I no other evasion I would fly to it rather than affirm here as this Author doth a new Covenant on Gods part having quite different Precepts Promises and Threats a renewing of the Covenant made in Mount Sinai and do contradict the most plain words of the Text. Neither can the words of the Covenant made in Mount Sinai repeated and renewed in any sense be called the words of the Covenant which God made besides that he had made in Sinai Secondly It is expresly said * It is only said That he might be to them a God as he promised them meaning from Mount Sinai and also had sworn it before to Abraham c. as appears Lev. 26. 45 46. and from many other places Exod. 19. 5 6. Deut. 26. 15. 18 19. that this Covenant is altogether the same with that which God made and confirmed by Oath with the Israelites Ancestors to wit with Abraham Isaac and Jacob v. 12 13. which Covenant was the very Gospel something obscurely revealed as Paul saith Gal. 3. 16 17. Thirdly Paul cites some words of this Covenant as words of the * So Paul doth cite these words Lev. 26. 12. I will walk among you and will be your God and you shall be my people which words weâ—e spoken at Mount Sinai as appears by v. 46. as a Gospel-promise as indeed they were 2 Cor. 6. 16. and begins the following Chapter thus Having these Promises let us cleanse our selves c. Gospel-covenant which holds forth the Righteousness of Faith see Rom. 10. 6. c. compared with Deut. 30. 11. I am not ignorant that some determine these words to be accommodated to the Righteousness of Faith only by way allusion But I cannot believe them since Paul manifestly alledges these words as the very words of the Righteousness of Faith that is as the very words of the Gospel-covenant in which this Righteousness is revealed And that I may confess the truth I have always esteemed these Allusions to which some flie as to the holy Asylum or Sanctuary of their Ignorance for the most part to be nothing else then manifest abuses of the Holy Scripture Fourthly All the things contained in this Covenant do wonderfully fit or agree to the Gospel 1. As for the Precepts there are only commanded here * There are no particular Laws recited not so much as the Ten Commandments in these two chapters which he will have to contain this whole Covenant things belonging to Manners and which are in their own nature Honest there being no mention here made of those Rites whereof the whole Legal-covenant is almost full which being considered according to the words may seem childish and further the whole obedience which is here required may be †So may equally all Covenanted by the people at Mount Sinai or required of them by God referred to a sincere and diligent endeavour to obey God in all things Chap. 30. 10. 16. 20. 2. As for the Promises God here promises full Remission of all sins upon Repentance even of the most ‖ So he doth as fully from Mount Sinai Lev. 26. 40 41. heinous Cap. 30. 1 2 3 4. which favour was never granted in the Legal covenant And further the Grace of the Holy Ghost whereby the hearts of men may be circumcised that they may love the Lord with all their hearts and souls is clearly promised v. 6. How far is this from the usual vein of Moses writings Fifthly That Covenant which Jeremiah foretold Jer. 31. 31 32. c. was a Gospel-covenant as all Christians grant and the Author to the Hebrews expresly teacheth Heb. 8. 8. Now all those things which the Prophet foretels of that Covenant do †Allusions being too much built on may be Illusions exactly answer to this Moabitish-covenant Jeremiah calls his Covenant a new Covenant altogether different from that which God plighted with the Ancestors of Israel going out of Egypt Moses saith the same of the Moabitish-covenant Jeremiah gives this cause why God would make a new Covenant viz. because they brake the Old wanting Gods powerful Grace The same reason Moses gives here of making this new Covenant Deut. 29. 4. Jeremiah's promised circumcision of heart so this That promised Remission of sins Jer. 31. 34. So this Deut. 30. 1 2 c. Jeremiah speaks of the clearness and facility of the Precepts which are contained in the New-covenant that they might know and obey them without much search and labour So doth Moses Deut. 30. 11 12. compared with Romans 10. 6. All these things seem very clear to me I have dwelt something long upon these things Both that it may be manifest hence that all things in the Mosaic-writings do not belong to the Mosaic-Covenant properly so called And to shew how necessary it is to restrain the old Law properly so called only to the Covenant made in Mount Sinai And also chiefly that the Wisdom of God might appear in dispencing the Covenant of Grace God had made that gracious Covenant with Abraham many years before the giving of the Law to which Covenant it afterwards pleased him to add another Covenant made up of many painful Rites and Ceremonies by which he might keep in their Duty that is restrain from the Idolatrous-worship of the Heathen the rude and carnal posterity of Abraham lately brought out of Aegypt and so too much addicted to Paganish Rites and Superstitions But the most wise God foreseeing that this People of a foolish or hard-heart obtusi pectoris would not understand his purpose after he had made this carnal Law He commanded Moses that he should promulgate a New-covenant to the Israelites or rather that he should renew that Old-covenant which he many years before had made with Abraham which did chiefly require spiritual Righteousness and was full of Grace and Mercy That from hence the Jews might know that the Abrahamatical-covenant was yet in force even after the Ritual-Law was made and also was to be accounted for the Covenant by which only their Salvation was to be attained see Gal. 3. 17. Who would not here cry out with the Apostle Oâ— the depth of the Riches and Wisdom and Knowledg of God! Since this here recited hath some dark shew of proof I shall before I go any further manifest that the Author is notoriously mistaken in affirming that the Covenant made in the Land of Moab was not the same for substance repeated with that made at Horeb or Mount Sinai but a Covenant having quite different Promises and Precepts the one carnal and earthly the other Spiritual and Heavenly and also in thinking that these two Chapters 29th and 30th comprehended the whole Covenant made in the Land of Moab Let these things be considered A Covenant in the strictest propriety of the Word is a mutual Engagement of Parties two at the least
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
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
Pardon as to Conscience and Future happiness upon repentance and sincere Obedience but the Jewish political Law And it is a palpable mistake though common to say otherwise Secondly The Reply That God intended Life and Death eternal by the words used in the promises and threats but the people could not so understand them though they used their utmost integrity and diligence Is already confuted For then they would have been excusable and it would not have been said they have Moses and the Prophets let them hear them c. And I have made it apparent the people did so understand them Thirdly It is irrational to reply as some We grant the ancient Jews did believe God would give Eternal life to the obedient but God never promised it to them Thus Socinus For first Then they were to blame to believe it if God never made any Notification of his Will that it should be so It was then an Irrational foolish act for them when tortured not to accept deliverance that they might obtain a better Resurrection Heb. 11. 35. Secondly We read they believed and embraced the Promises of Future-life happiness So that they had such Promises Heb. 11. and there was no more in their Faith than in the Divine promise no more in their Subjective than in their Objective faith than in the Revelation Thirdly This is to affirm that if they did well in thus believing That they gave God what was none of his own gave to God what they had no power or ability from him to do in believing what God never said and hoping for what God had never promised This would be To Supererogate in Faith and Hope if it was but well done of them But to avoid such Supererogation we must say that such doing would not have been acceptable to God but a foolish sinful irrational act As it would be in a man now to believe and hope that if he serve God here he shall have a fair House built in the Moon to dwell in for ever when God hath made no Revelation or Promise of any such thing Fourthly The most rational and probable reply possible of them that deny Life-to-come Promises in the Old Testament-Writings would be this though apparently false and I know not of any that use it That the Jews before Christ had such Promises of Future-life happiness and so were obliged to Piety but they were revealed only by the light of Nature and Providence and not in the Scriptures And that the Jews erred in looking for Eternal life from the Scriptures For the Old Testament Scriptures were only written for the Common-wealth Temporal-Law and to typifie Soul and Conscience-concernments but did not so far intermedle with Conscience-concernments as to threaten Future misery to any sin or to promise Eternal or Future happiness on any Terms whatsoever But 1. I have proved they had such Promises in the Scriptures 2. They had need of their Reason and Faculties and of the Light and Law of Nature and of all helps they had to understand these things in their Scripture as we have also yet to understand the Writings both of the Old and New Testament 3 I do hold and could prove it apparently from the Scripture That there were and are some discoveries by the Light of Nature and Works of Providence not only of the strict Original-law making Future misery due to every sin and Future happiness to perfect Obedience But also of the Gospel or Law of Grace viz. that God was placable and that there was place for Repentance and that God would receive sinners to Future favour and happiness by pardoning their sins upon Repentance and sincere Obedience It is apparent The Heathens did ordinarily maintain this and without doubt it was not their Errour And this they might gather from their beholding the present goodness of God to them notwithstanding their incorrigibleness in great sins in giving them Rain and fruitful Seasons and filling their Hearts with Food and Gladness Yea they had so much Light as to make them Inexcusable and Condemnable in not Repenting which could not be if there was no Notification of his Will to receive them to Future-life favour upon Repentance but rather as some hold were bound to believe that there was no forgiveness with him no Future reward or happiness Notified by such goodness of God in his Providence to men that were sinners and did need Repentance Though I think the Scripture offers us ground to believe That this way of Revelation enough for their Condemnation did not yet through their own wickedness effectually prevail to turn any man throughly from sin to God or to cause such Repentance to Life as in its own Nature it dictated any man I mean that had no more or further Revelation from God Now if they had such Discoveries these are as properly Promises of a Future-life and threatnings of Future-death as those written Fourthly It is apparent that there was more cleer and convincing Discoveries of Future-life happiness to the Obedient and miseries to the Disobedient in the Old Testament-Scriptures than in the Law of Nature and Book of Providence The Law was given that the Offence might abound and doth not only discover Duties and Sins known by the light of Nature more cleerly but the great danger of sin and happiness that comes by obedience more convincingly yea this discovers the Future-life happiness so much the more cleerly that the Discoveries made to the Heathen of this was no discovery comparatively which is implied at least in those words Aliens from the Covenants of Promise without hope And those words they have Moses and the Prophets c. teach us that there they were taught Future misery due to sinners and Future happiness to the Obedient as convincingly as if one rose from the dead to tell them of them The Apostle Paul also speaketh of the written Law and therefore of the Old Testament-Law as the norma judicii as the rule of the Future judgment to them that lived under it Rom. 2. 12. As many as have sinned without Law meaning written Law shall perish without Law And as many as have sinned in the Law shall be judged by the Law viz. at the Future judgment as appears by the following words Judged that is Justified or Condemned at the last day by the Law which could not be if the Law promised no Future-life or threatned no Future-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
or War in any case though it was not unlawful by the Law of Nature or the Moral Law Secondly The Fathers give these two reasons for this their Opinion 1. Because Christ under the Gospel gives either higher or plainer Promises than he did before 2. Because he gives more grace now to perform them viz. the Commandments than before he had done The Law given by Moses was a Carnal Law that is weak not accompanied with strength to perform what it requires but the Gospel of Christ the Administration of the Spirit i. e. a means to Administer the Spirit to our hearts to enable us to do what he commands us to do As for the first Reason said to be the Fathers 1. I cannot see it's Cogency 2. The Heathens knew by the Light of Nature that Heart-adultery and Murther and that taking Gods Name in vain in Swearing customarily or Lusoriously or Idle were sins surely then the Jews had Light enough to make them inexcusable in these things before Christ's Sermon in the Mount and so such were sins in them And for Answer to the second Argument I can neither understand the Cogency nor the Consistency of it First It is apparent to me that men are not one jot the less obliged by the Law because of God's not giving them Grace to obey it because I do not think that giving the Natural ability to Obey is to be called giving Grace or an effect of Grace but of Justice so as men could not in Justice be obliged to obey the Law without it Secondly The Law of the Ten Commandments for that is it the Doctor speaks of and only pretends Christs addition to was not in the true Conscience-sense a Carnal Law but a Spiritual Rom. 7. Thirdly If the Jews had no strength to perform what this Law required it must be granted that they were not obliged by the Law to avoid Heart-sins and Thought-sins Fourthly Methinks this undo's all to give this as a Reason why the Jews were not forbidden such Inward-sins as are under Dispute viz. Because they had no ability to perform what the Law commanded For it is to grant the Law did command them to abstain from such things which this Argument is brought to prove it did not forbid till Christ made that Addition Thirdly The word Translated fulfil ver 17. Think not that I am come to destroy the Law or the Prophets I am not come to destroy but to fulfil them signifies to perfect and fill-up that which was imperfect before I Answer It cannot be denied but the word is used in divers significations But setting aside what other things may be opposed to that sense of the Word I shall only say this The surest way to know the sense of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to fulfil in this place is by the word here opposed to it which is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to dissolve or destroy the Law Now it is apparent that by Destroying is meant Enervating and Evacuating the Obligation of the Law by a too favourable Exposition which is called in the Verse following breaking the Commandment and teaching men so to do Therefore by the word fulfil must be meant to assert and maintain it's strictness and obligation to vindicate it from such evacuating Expositions The meaning of the Verse is Think not c. i. e. You will be deceived if you shall suppose that I am come to Teach as your Doctors that are in the greatest Repute do who make it their great business to gratifie you in making the Law to be of very little extent so as not to forbid Heart-sins but to alow those and many evil practices I am not come thus to dissolve the Law but to fulfil i. e. to vindicate it to it 's true sense from such Evacuating glosses Fourthly That these words you have heard signifies you have been taught out of the Books of Moses and It hath been said by them of old time should be read according as the Margent also of our Bibles translates them it hath been said to them of old time that is to the Jews your Ancestors by Moses Answer 1. The words may be read either it hath been said to them of old or by them of old without any inconvenience or alteration of the sense for if said by them of old then be sure to them of old and if it was said to the Ancients then by the Ancients 2. The meaning seems to be These Expositions of the Law have been taught you with a pretence of their †Calv. in Loc. Antiquity as being taught the Ancients by the Ancients i. e. that is some Generations since by Rabbie's 3. But that the meaning should be These things were taught you by Moses in the Ten Commandments But I now either add or oppose this Interpretation to what was the true former meaning seems wonderfully unlikely by this to say no more That this is not the usual phrase of Christ or his Apostles in citing Scripture viz. you have heard it hath been said neither is this †Calv. in Loc. manner of Speech or any akin to it ever used in this sense and therefore seems to be a way of citing Traditional Expositions When Christ citeth Scripture he useth to say You have read Mat. 12. 35. Mark 12. 26 Luk. 10. 26. Not as here You have heard And he useth to say It is written Mat. 4. 4 6 10. Luke 2. 23. and 10. 26. John 8. 17. Chap. 10. 38. Not as here It hath been said Fifthly In these words Except your righteousness exceed the righteousness of the Scribes and Pharisees that is which they think themselves obliged to and teach others that they are obliged to you cannot enter Sure Christ doth not pitch on the names of the Scribes and Pharisees as those that were the greatest Evacuators of the Law by their own hypocritical Practices or false Glosses in some particulars but as the most exact and learned Sect as those that sate in Moses Chair i. e. taught there truly the Doctrine of the Mosaical-Law in that manner as others were obliged to perform it Answer 1. Then Christ doth not bring in these Names here as he is wont to do for he useth to charge them with making void the Law through Traditions 2. It seems apparent he means by the Scribes and Pharisees the same that he doth by those that break the Commandments and teach others so to do 3. I grant they had generally the repute of the strictest Teachers and Livers as to External and less weighty matters of the Law but yet they generally are charged to make void the Law by their Lives and Doctrines as to Internal obedience and most weighty concernments Surely it is not all one as if he had said Except your righteousness exceed the righteousness of Moses Joshuah Samuel and David which they taught other and thought themselves and others obliged to you cannot enter which yet seems to be the Doctors meaning 4. The
the Internal defect Secondly Another defect of the Law or Mosaic-Dispensation is that it did not afford the Internal help of the Holy Spirit And it was indeed impossible that men should be brought to Spiritual righteousness or Holiness by that Law which neither gave nor promised any aid of the Spirit I will not speak much here in answer to this because I have said enough already either here or in another Discourse First This is not an Argument made use of as is here pretended Secondly If they had no ability to perform Spiritual righteousness without the Spirits help which was denied them they were not bound to perform such Spiritual obedience since no man is bound to Natural impossibilities Thirdly It is a weak manner of speaking though common to talk of it being a defect of a Law not giving ability to perform it no Law doth so not that to Adam or of Moses or of Christ for every Law supposeth Ability I mean the Natural ability to obey it or it could not oblige to Obedience and so could be no Law to such Fourthly This is to say that men could not sin without the Grace of the Holy Spirit to enable them For this Author grants as well he may that none are bound by any Law to do what they have no power to do But I have at large shewed in another Discourse the absurdity of this Opinion and that the gracious opperation of the Spirit and the effect of it is something that men can sin without And therefore that men have the Natural power to obey some other way and not from this though not the Moral but have this Moral power from this Grace of the Holy Spirit It cannot be pretended here that this Author means the Mosaic-Law afforded not the Spirit to free men from the Moral impotency of doing what they had the Natural power to do For this would be to overthrow the thing he is pleading for viz. The Impotency and and Insufficiency of the Law and Dispensation Since Moral-impotency is nothing else but voluntary wickedness it self and would be to grant there was no defect in the Mosaic-Law to Sanctifie or Justifie but it had all necessary naturally for these ends but only the men were in fault the men were so wicked they would not yield to and obey it and the Spirit did not actually make them willing of unwilling obedient of disobedient But I refer such as do not understand what I here say to my Discourse of Natural and Moral-impotency At last the Author comes having made as he supposeth apparent what the Apostle's Arguments were against Justification by the Law to shew more expresly what Works of the Law they only were that the Apostle excluded from Justification in these words and the following Whosoever shall understand these things which we have spoken viz. In the prosecution of this Argument of the Apostle he may easily see that the Works which Paul simply excludeth from Justification are such as are performed by men without Gospel-Grace by force of the mosaic-Mosaic-law or Law of Nature For the things by which Paul disputeth against the mosaic-Mosaic-Law do more strongly militate as we have noted somewhere viz. pag. 120. before recited against the Law of Nature Now this is an evident Consectary from what is before said The Apostle fighteth with this Argument chiefly against Justification by the Law of Moses or Nature that both these Laws are purely destitute of those helps by which a man may be drawn to true Holiness worthy of God and grateful to him It manifestly hence follows that only that Holiness and those Works are excluded by the Apostle from Justification which proceed from a mans weak ability ab infirmitate humana who is in the state of the Law or Nature First Then no man was bound to true Holiness acceptable to God by the Law of Moses or the Law of Nature and consequently no man did sin in not performing Obedience acceptable to God since it was this defect of these Laws neither of them either promising Future reward or affording ability to perform true Godliness Secondly I cannot understand how this is consistent with what this Author saith pag. 116. before recited where he affirmeth that Some Heathens did sincerely and heartily love and follow Virtue and Righteousness so far as it was known to them Unless he will say that no Virtue and Righteousness pleasing to God was known to them which would be to make his concession insignificant or that these Heathens did super-erogate or did more than they had ability to do or than the Law of Nature required from them Thirdly This is to say that the Apostle hath Copiously and Elaborately proved only these two things viz. 1. That there is no Justification by good Works performed by men provided there be no promise of Future reward made to them or at least provided men to perform them without respect to Future recompence of reward And 2. That no man is Justified by doing such Works as men have in no sense any ability to do Now can any imagine that any of the Jews Pharisaical Teachers taught them that they might be Justified by such Works If it shall be replied No For their Teachers taught them that they might be Justified by the Works of the Law of Moses or Nature which Works really had no promise of a Future-life reward and they had really no ability to perform these Works But their Pharisaical Teachers taught them That such Works of the Law of Moses had a promise of Future-life reward and that they had ability to do such Works I shall let many things pass that I might here rejoyn to shew the Inconsistency of this Reply with the whole discourse of the Apostle yea and with the Argument he strives to fasten on the Apostle And also to shew how improbable it is that men should fancy themselves to have or believe others telling them they have power to do things they have an Impotency to do taking Impotency as this Author apparently doth for the proper natural Impotency distinct from wickedness for a cannot distinct from a will not For it is not ordinary for Multitudes to fancy this nor to believe them that should tell them so nor for any but wonderfully weak and fanciful men Though I know it is too common for men to have better thoughts of themselves than they should in reference to their Morals and so to think they are not so wicked as they are and that they have no Moral-Impotency which is wicked Obstinacy to the doing those good things they have the Natural power to do I say letting these things pass And also letting pass what I could say to prove that the Apostle would never have contradicted these Opinions viz. That men might have been Justified had they done all the Law of Moses or Nature required of them so as only wicked wilfulness which is the Moral-Impotency hindred them because neither those nor any other Laws
whatsoever required more than men have the Natural ability to do And also passing by his mentioning of it as a defect in Moses Law and the Law of Nature that they gave no ability to perform what they required Whereas every Law supposeth ability to obey it or it could not be a Law or Obligatory and therefore no Law giveeth or promiseth the proper Ability to obey it self I say setting these things aside I shall only mind you how Inconsistent with themselves as well as with one another both these Arguments are which he pretends are the Apostles two main if not only Arguments against Justification by Works of the Law of Moses I have shewed before in speaking to it the Inconsistency of the first Argument with it self which he saith leaneth on two Foundations viz. 1. That all men are guilty of great sins so that they cannot be Justified as to Conscience by the Law of Moses 2. That the Law of Moses promised no Justification as to Conscience on any terms whatsoever whereas one of these can only possibly be a reason why they were not Justified by the Law of Moses For if that Law promised no Justification on any terms whatsoever then their being sinners can be no reason why they were not Justified by that Law And again if their sins were the reason why they were not Justified by the Law of Moses then the Law did promise Justification to them on condition of their being free from such sins So this second Argument which he ascribes to the Apostle viz. That none could be Justified by the Law of Moses because of two Internal defects of the Law which are that it had no promise of Future-life Justification and that they had no ability to do the things it required for their Future-life Justification labours with the same 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For if they had no ability to do the things it required for their Future-life Justification then their disability was the only cause of their not being Justified by that Law and not the Laws not promising it And again if the Laws not promising it was the reason why they could not attain Future-life Justification by that Law then their disability to perform what it required could be no cause of their not being Justified by it If any should reply their disability was the cause why they could not perform true Piety which true Piety was required by some other Law for their Future-life Justification Setting aside the Illogicalness and Incoherency of Discourse which this would fasten on the Apostle in many particulars I will only ask one so replying By what Law was true Piety required of them This Author tells us by the consequence though possibly not expresly it was not required by the Law of Moses or Nature neither of them as he saith promising Future happiness and both being purely destitute of those helps whereby men might be drawn to true Piety and consequently by his Argument none were bound to true Piety by them If it shall be answered according to this Author and some others that true Piety was only required by the Gospel I have said enough against this already in shewing this Opinion would inevitably destroy Christs satisfaction for any though Partial or Temporary defect of true Piety I shall further ask Had the Jews under the Law of Moses this Gospel that required true Piety Or had they it not If they had not this Gospel either they then had ability to perform the true Piety required or had not If they had ability to perform it then they had no need of this Law of Moses to promise Future-life Justification or to give them ability for true Piety If they had no ability to perform true Piety which the Gospel required of them This is to say the Gospel required of the Jews what they had in no sense any ability to do which this Author denies as well he may taking Ability in the strictest sense any Law of God to require Yet this Author here forgetting himself I suppose hath run himself into such straits in affirming the Jews could not perform true Piety without the Spirit and that this Spirit was denied them which is to say they could not at all perform true Piety That he must grant this of the Gospel or some Law that it required what they had in no sense any ability to do which without doubt is false or he must deny that God required any true Piety of them by any Law whatsoever which Evasion I suppose he will not make use of From the whole Series of the Apostles Disputation it is made manifest that he only rejects such works from Justification which if admitted may seem to yield to men matter of glorying and boasting themselves before God Rom. 3. 27. and 4. 2. Ephes 2. 9. And who doth not see that that can only be spoken of Works which men do by their own ability without the help of Grace For it is manifest that the Works which men perform through the assistance of Grace are owing to God and their glory redounds to Him as the highest and chiefest Author These good Works which we perform are not so much our Works as the Works of God himself in us And no man can rightly boast of that thing which he ows to God I shall ere long take notice of this Pag. 271. Since Abraham in the 4th Chapter to the Romans is considered by Paul as the Father of the Faithful and the great Exemplar of the Justification of all justified ones It is impossible but the speech of the Apostle concerning his Justification should give great light to this whole Dispute concerning Justification This is well observed therefore I shall diligently attend to this This Author begins to give largely the meaning of the first Verses of the fourth to the Romans pag. 264. which speak of Abraham's Justification And proceeds well for substance to ver 3. only he affirms that these words according to the flesh in the first Verse and by the Law in the second Verse which he grants do both signifie the same thing do signifie Works done by a mans own power that is without a promise of Future reward and without the help of Gods Spirit which I see no evidence of but have told you my thoughts that these words signifie perfect and unsinning Obedience or meritorious Works But now ver 3. For what saith the Scripture Abraham believed God and it was accounted or imputed to him for Righteousness Here saith he well This Citation of Scripture is brought to prove the words in the verse before viz. That Abraham in the business of Justification had nothing to boast of before God And the Apostle gathereth it thus That the reward was imputed to Abraham not of debt as a reward useth to be given to workers but of meer Grace And therefore Abraham had no cause to boast before God of any thing in the matter of his Justification Thus far well He goes