Places denying Justification by the Law and Works of the Law since it is apparent he speaks of Justification as to Conscience and Future life and speaks of Moses Law as referring to Conscience and Future life which sense I now come to speak of that Law in Secondly The Law of Moses may be considered as to Conscience Conscience essentially respects the Future state and Life to come-concernments viz. as requiring Obedience with a promise of Future happiness and under the Peril of Future or Eternal death and also as Remitting and Pardoning sins as to Future misery Now in this high important sense this same Law I mean materially and in words the same must be considered both as a strict Law and a gracious Law or Gospel What is a Law but a signification of the Rector's will any way whatsoever obliging the Subjects to Obedience by promising rewards to the Obedient and threatning punishment to the Disobedient Now in this very Law in this high sense there are significations of his Will both of an Original strict Law constituting Eternal or Future death due to every Transgressor and of a Remedying-law promising Pardon to Transgressors upon Repentance and sincere Obedience even as in the Temporal consideration of the Law already spoken of there was a Law requiring the Offender's blood upon his failing in the least in it else there could have been no Pardon of him as to violent death upon a Sacrifice if the Law had not threatned death to him and also there was the Remedying-law of Pardon upon a Sacrifice So here this consideration This very Law given in the same words at Sinai did Reveal and Signifie these formally-distinct Laws First A strict exacting of Obedience all their lives to all that he commanded under the peril of Future death or wrath to come else as I have made apparent before there could be no Pardon as to wrath to come or Satisfaction by Christ for wrath to come due by this Law as to such sins And in this strict sence the Apostle Paul useth the word Law in the most of those places in Dispute which the Author chiefly insists on to reconcile them to St. James viz. the 3d. and 4th Chapter to the Romans and Gal. 3. v. 10 11 12 13. And in this sense the Law was no Type or Shaddow nor to vanish away but stands in Force unto this day Secondly Also it did Reveal that though they should sometimes during their life which is enough for Condemnation by this Law in the first sense fail in obedience to it yet their condition should not be hopeless the Punishment made due to them by this Law should be pardoned and they should yet enjoy the promised Future life upon condition they did Repent and sincerely love and serve God endeavouring Obedience to all his Laws Moral Judicial and Ceremonial with the prevailing design and bent of their Souls Now in this sense the Law of Moses was no Type or Shaddow but the very Gospel the Word of Faith which the Apostles Preached Rom. 10. 6 7 8. And in this sense David takes the Law in most of his Encomiums of it and in this sense Justification and Salvation are not denied to it or the Works of it by the Apostle to them that lived under this Dispensation nor to us by it For it yet continues the same for substance having the same Sanction and Condition or Precept in the general viz. That if we sinners repent and sincerely obey all his Commands he will be our God to Bless us to Justifie and Save us from all our sins Though many of the former particular Precepts are ceased and some new ones added and the whole Dispensation more intelligible and clear It is apparent that the Law of Moses though it was given designedly as to the end of the Revelation of it as a Covenant of Grace and Pardon even for the Salvation of sinners and not for their Destruction yet it was given subserviently still as to the same end of Salvation also to Reveal the Law in its utmost exacting Rigour For though an Original strict Law may really be and so may be Revealed without a Remedying-Law yet it is a plain impossibility to Reveal however so as Offenders should be sensible of pardon and favour in it a Remedying-Law of Pardon as this from Mount Sinai mainly as to the design of it was without Revealing and making known the strict Original-Law For without knowing what the Law in its Rigor requires from us and what it threatens to them that fail in the least we cannot be thankful for Pardon offered on the Gospel-terms of Sincerity nor know we stand in need of Pardon so we be but sincere Neither can this Author possibly reconcilably to his Principles as you will see tell us how Pardon is either needful to one or possibly consistent with performing the Gospel-condition since he maintains That sincere imperfect Obedience or the Gospel-condition is all that any Law of God so much as requires Thus you see my Judgment concerning the Law of Moses And that I suppose that Threat Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things written had these four significations or did notifie these four distinct Sanctions with their distinct Conditions 1st Every one shall be punished with a violent Temporal death or such death shall be due to him that observeth not every External Precept 2ly Every one shall remedilesly be punished with the foresaid death that offendeth in the great Instances exempted from Pardon or in other faults and observeth not the Sacrifices appointed for the Expiation of them 3ly Future Death or Wrath to come shall be due to every one that obeyeth not every Command both Internal and External 4ly This Future-death shall remedilesly befal every such Offender that shall not repent of his sins and sincerely endeavour obedience to every Command Internal and External And to the like extensive Import mutatis mutandis that Promise The man that doth them shall live in or by them may and ought to be Interpreted Now you will see these four grand Mistakes which I have here spoken to causing the failings of his whole Discourse in determining what the Apostle Paul means by Works and by the Law in denying Justification by Works and by the Law which Discourse I shall now propound to your View Transcribing some of it Verbatim yea all that is Argumentative in it without leaving out any thing in the least material and telling you when I leave out any thing that is not but may seem material Which I thus begin The Author having before made it apparent that though Faith in some other passages of the Apostle doth mean one particular Grace yet in those Speeches where he speaks of Justification by it in opposition to Works he means by Faith all required to Salvation the obedience of Faith He tells us Chap. 6. pag. 98. That the Apostle doth not exclude all Works from Justification but Works of the Law of
such as he was before his calling but James considers him as now being already favoured with Grace and Divine Vocation One denies his Justification by works done before Faith the other ascribes his Justification to his works proceeding from Faith And so there is no contradiction here between the Apostles This is if I may borrow a phrase from * Referente Origene lib. 6. Celsus like casting Lots what to say to Reconcile the Apostles And this is the common Evasion of the Papists when an Argument is brought against them from such passages in Pauls Epistles to prove that no man is Justified by the Merit of Works or perfect Obedience Further It is notoriously false that Paul here considers Abraham as he was before the Divine calling and his believing For First He speaks expresly of him as believing and having such a strong Faith as overcame great Oppositions and of his being Justified by such Faith Secondly He proves that when he Believed and Obeyed he was not Justified by Works in the sense wherein he excludes his Justification by Works viz. by perfect Obedience or Jewish Observations or Meritorious Works Thirdly He as equally excludes Works done after Faith as before viz. such works as he excludes Fourthly The Apostle brings this Circumstance to prove he was not Justified by Works viz. That he was Justified before Circumcision ver 16. which he could not have done had he in speaking of him considered him as he was before the Divine Call so as to deny his Justification by works done before it For had this been his meaning to deny his Justification only by such works done in his estate of Heathenism it would rather have furthered this denial and have added force to it by way of Argument could he have shewed that Abraham's Justification was not till after his Circumcision and Receiving the Seal of the Covenant Fifthly The Pharisaical-Jews which the Apostle there opposeth would not be sure pretend that Abraham was Justified while he lived in Heathenish courses before the Divine Call that the Apostle should need to oppose it Yea it was their Interest if they would maintain their first Opinion of Excluding the Uncircumcised Gentiles from Salvation and Justification to Plead though false that Abraham was not Justified till Circumcised or which is true that he was not Justified while he lived in Heathenish courses as they might pretend though falsly the Uncircumcised Converted Gentiles did But for the true meaning of this whole Chapter since I would not needlesly repeat the same thing See my short Discourse of the Apostle Paul's meaning Thus I have set before you all considerable that our Author saith concerning the only two Arguments that he tells us the Apostle Paul maketh use of against Justification by the Law and Works that concern the whole Body of the Mosaic-Law containing in it as he saith the Moral-Law He next proceeds viz. Chap. 14. to tell us how the Apostle opposeth the Ritual and Ceremonial-Law but he spends but few Lines about it saying there is no dispute about that among Christians Chapter 15. is spent in Citing out of some Authors some sayings of the Jews in Defence of the Power of Free-will without the Grace of the Spirit which he speaks against though many of them may be capable of no ill Construction possibly meaning no more than that men have the natural Power of Free-will without which they cannot be men or guilty of sin from common Providence And not that the Will is not Morally insuperably wicked without Grace Chapter 16. He well shews out of Jewish Authors that it was a common errour amongst them to think they perfectly obeyed the Law and did all it required if they didbut some few External things thinking those Precepts that required Inward-Holiness and Heart-Obedience were only Counsel and not Commands and so in stead of bringing up their Lives to the Law they maintained such Opinions as brought the Law down to their Lives as that it required no more than an External partial Obedience But I cannot but wonder at his Corollary which he draws hence and makes use of as an Argument against others which is this Pag. 318. Hence it is manifest that they do widely Err from the Scope of the Apostle that hold that he disputes against perfect Obedience to the Law as a defended and received Opinion amongst the Jews for it is manifest out of what I have said that they were so far from this perswasion that they were content to stand still within the bounds of too Imperfect Obedience Is this Author serious Let me ask a few Questions seriously Whether is it more likely that this Author should maintain Perfection in this Life and that a man may be Justified by the Law without the Gospel and Pardon that holds there is not any Law of God that requires more than Christians that are sincere ordinarily perform Or he that holds that God is so Holy and his Law so Exact that though he believes God will accept his weak Endeavours yet thinks he falls short every day in many things so as to need Pardon and the Blood of Christ for such failings Whether is a Protestant that holds he falls short of his Duty in every thing or a Papist that holds that God's Law requires so little that he can super-erogate and do more than God requires likelier to hold Perfection Whether is a man that holds that God's Law requires him to Love and Serve God with all his Heart and Soul and Strength likelier to hold Perfection in this Life or a man that holds that Luke-warmness is no sin As a great Doctor * Doctor Taylors Ret. of Prayer Serm. 5. pag. 46. doth in these words There is but one thing in the world that God hates beside Sin and that is Indifferency and Luke-warmness which although it hath not in it the direct Nature of Sin yet it hath this Testimony from God that it is Loathsome and Abominable And excepting this thing alone God never said so of any thing in the New-Testament but what was a direct Breach of a Commandment This Author takes much pains pag. 327. c. to prove that the Church of England in the Eleventh Article of Religion by these words viz. We are accounted Righteous before God only for the Merit of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ by Faith and not for our own works or deservings Wherefore That we are Justified by Faith only is a most wholsome Doctrine and very full of Comfort I say by these words doth not attribute any Efficacy or Dignity to Faith more than to other Virtues in the business of Justification Now I dislike not this attempt at all and so shall say nothing here To conclude The Reader may hence see how Improbable that is which he tells us in his Epistle Dedicatory to the Reverend Lord Bishop of Glocester saying He did nothing in puttâ—ng out this Book but having fâ—â—â—t consulted him and that it was put out with his Aid or Assistance auspâ—ciâ—s And that the Bishop read deliberaâ—â—ly every Chapter of either Dissertation and approved them with his Vote and adorned them with his Praises Some of this Book is indeed commendable and his Lordship might commend that But it may be observed that we have only this Author's word for this over-high Commendation of his Book and every part of it Who also cannot but be suspected to have had great Temptation to pretend it to gain Repute to his Opinion by so great a Name of so Reverend a Prelate and Learned a Writer FINIS
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
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
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
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.
command of loving God with all the Heart and Soul and Strength must be considered either strictly as I said at the beginning as a Law with it's penalty And so it requires the utmost of a mans natural Ability and no more not as much as an Angel's ability reaches to so that if he fails in the least degree of this he fails so much of love due to God by this Law and is under its curse It is essential to a Law as a Law that it require perfect Obedience to it self and to deny this would be to deny that every Law requires all that it doth require any thing short of this is not all the Law requires If a man do not love God in as high a degree as this law in this sense requires he is from under its Blessing and under its Curse and Condemnation and cannot possibly be Justified by this Law in this sense nor be pardoned by it for no Law can possibly pardon an offence against it self But he may be pardoned by another Law a Law of Grace In this strict sense no meer man in this life not Josiah himself ever loved God with his whole heart so highly as he ought so high as the Law in this sense required however me thinks he should not have pretended it of all the people of Israel in Asa's time but have sought some other sense at least for those words and that might have brought him to the sense I shall now speak of Secondly These words may be considered as the condition of the Remedying-Law made with them for the Merit of Christ then to come as taken with this Gospel lenity that if they love God with the prevailing bent of their Souls or above all other things they shall be pardoned escape the curse of the Law in its Rigour due And in this sense a man loves God with all his Heart and Soul as far as God by his Remedying-Law requires for his Salvation and so obeys the Law taken in this sense perfectly that is loves him so much as it requires as necessary to his Salvation that doth it thus prevailingly though he fail in the degrees he ought to love God by the strict Law and so needs pardon The meaning is not that Asa loved God as much as any Law required from him and so needed no pardon or Christ's satisfaction for failing in any degree of love due to or required by God But to proceed with the next words of the Author I will add this for a Conclusion to Pag 112. this Dispute This my Opinion of the possibility of fulfilling the Law so far as it ever was imposed by God upon men as a Law is not a new upstart Opinion but an Opinion approved by the common Vote of all the Antients who wrote before the Pelagian Controversie had muddied the Rivulets of the more pure and primitive Doctrine Yea and Austine himself though otherwise too hot in this unhappy Controversie did not doubt to confess that God commanded possible things and in this sense only what all particular Believers are able to fulfil Here he cites some Antients for this Opinion that God doth not require what men have no power Pag. 112 c. to do which takes up pag. 112 113 114. almost I grant it is apparent they did hold as I also do that God requires no more than men have the Natural power to do But yet I dare challenge any to name one accounted no Heretick that held this Opinion that follows by evident consequence from the Authors Opinion That every man for that follows by consequence or that every man by that measure of Grace which God communicates to him or is ready to communicate to him may for any Impotency in him to the contrary so live as not to fail in any thing the Law requires so far as to stand in need of pardon or Christs satisfaction for such failings Yea or this Opinion which he expresly holds as you will presently see more fully viz. That after the receiving of the Gospel or Conversion men may for any Impotency on them to the contrary so live as not to sin at all as not to fail at all in obedience to the Law or so as not to do any thing that deserves or is by any Law threatned with Eternal death He goes on From the things which we have Pag. 114. already spoken I suppose it to appear plain enough That the Law of Moses did not require most perfect Obedience that is all manner of sinlessness in the highest degree under the peril of Eternal death and so that the Apostle's Argument is not built upon that Supposition It remains that we consider by what Reason the Apostle proves his Conclusion Therefore I judg saving honour to better judgments this Argumentation of the Apostle to lean upon two foundations chiefly First That all both Jews and Gentiles were guilty of hainous sins and so obnoxious to Judgment and Divine anger this is hinted concerning the Jews chiefly and also of all who did seek Righteousness in the Law as I said before in my answer to the first Objection in that place Gal. 3. 10. But the same is largely demonstrated of all without difference Rom. 3. Where he charges many hainous sins both upon the Jews and Gentiles But that the Context of the whole place may be rightly understood two things are chiefly to be noted one belonging to the Accusation another to the Persons Accused First As for the Accusation it self it is to be Noted that it is not of any kind of sins but they are accused of sins more properly so called that is of hainous sins and worthy of Eternal death This is clearly manifest First out of the words by which the Position or Affirmation of the Apostle which was proved in the former Chapter and is in this Chapter further Demonstrated is expressed v. 9. We have before proved that both Jews and Gentiles are all under sin Where that Phrase to be under sin manifestly signifies to be under the dominion of sin or to be addicted to hainous sins whosoever is such a one is said by the Apostle to be sold under sin Chap. 7. 14. Secondly It is apparent out of the whole Context of the Apostle in which all the sins that are enumerated are of a more * The Apostle indeed doth instance in hainous sins and so the import of his Argument Rom. Chap. 1 2 3. seems this viz. If so be that sins scarce to be named were to be found frequently almost universally polluting even those learned Gentiles Chap. 1. 22. that excelled all other Geâ—tâ—les in knowledg where the study of Divine and humane Knowledg abounded and were great Professors of Wisdom And if amongst the Jews even in the best times the days of David horrid wickednesses were to be found very frequent so that even in a manner the whole body of the people were guilty of such hainous sins it may be well
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-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
people were to hear them and also to take heed how they heard and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees They were to embrace their Doctrine only so far as they sate in Moses Chair and taught Moses's Doctrine truly Sixthly Christ expresseth the saying opposed or added to by him in the very words of the Ten Commandments Therefore to say he speaks by way of Opposition and not of Addition would be to say he opposes the very Commandments Answer 1. He doth so only in one place of this Chapter viz. ver 27. Thou shalt not commit Adultery 2. Any one may yet perceive by his following Opposition what it is he meant by those words and what it is he opposed viz. Not the very Law or the true sense of the Law but that Exposition of the Law which laid the stress on the word commit as if it meant only commit with the outward Fact and forbad nothing else And it is apparent the Scribes and Pharisees so taught The Doctor giveth us another Argument taken from a saying of Saint John which carrieth so little evidence in my opinion that I would not have here set it down but that he seems to lay so great stress not only on this his Interpretation of Christs Words as being as he saith A foundation of a great and weighty Superstructure but also upon that Scripture as being as he saith a remarkable place to prove it The words are these 1 John 1. 5. God is Light and in him is no darkness at all The meaning whereof he saith is this That God is Light and in him is no Darkness at all in respect of his Law and Commandments the rule of mens lives and implies that these had before viz. Christ's teaching some indulgence for some sins and where they had not so yet they had some mixture of Imperfection but now they have none they had before some Vacuities in them which are now filled up by Christ Answer 1. I see no evidence or probability that this is the meaning of these words 2. We read The Law of the Lord is perfect i. e. without Imperfection and is Light i. e. without darkness and this was spoken of the Law before Christs Teaching 3. I cannot understand the consistency of these words That the Law and Commandments the Rule of mens lives had before Indulgence for some sins If no Law forbad them they were not sins or if it did not forbid them under the penalty of Future-death then they were not sins For I have I suppose made it appear it threatned Future death to all sins and else none were pardoned those sins as to Future death because they did need no such Pardon 4. Nor can I understand the words following That where the Law the Rule of mens lives did not allow Indulgence for some sins yet it had some mixture of Imperfection I cannot imagine how this appears for none will surely say it appears in this that it did not require some thing the Law now requires as Baptisme and the Lords Supper for that will no more prove the Law imperfect then then that the Law of God is now imperfect in not requiring circumcision whereas the Law did then as it doth now require all to obey whatsoever he should any way whatsoever command them and that under the penalty of Future-death 5. You may see by what hath been said That the Law not as referring to Conscience and Future-life but as the Jewish Common-wealth Law did allow or indulge some things that is so far as not to threaten violent death to them at all and so in this Common-wealth sense did not forbid such Practises at all which yet the Law in the most Important and Conscience sense did forbid and so were sins threatned with Future-death As for example The putting away a Wife for any cause and Heart-murther and Heart-adultery Also I have made apparent that the Scribes and Pharisees the Jewish Doctors taught and it was an Opinion ordinarily received amongst the Jews in the days of Christ and his Apostles that if men were but justi ad legem that is righteous so far as to be free from such things as Temporal death was by the Law of the Land remedilesly threatned to and had offered Sacrifice for such as the Law allowed it for they were either as righteous as any Law of God in the utmost rigour required them to be or however at the least as righteous as the Law of God in the indulgent Gospel-sense required them as necessary to their Future salvation And that Christ opposeth in this Chapter the common Jewish conceit taught by their Doctors And without doubt there was no Jew ever saved by that Law of Moses taken in the Gospel-sense as all good men that lived under it were that did not more than was required by that Law in the strictest sense as the Law of the Land threatning violent death to be Executed by the Magistrate As for example that did not love and fear God and endeavour inward Holiness and the repressing of the inward sins which the Law in the Political sense required not And again All saved by that Law did far less than was required by that Law as the Original strict Law under the penalty of Future-death For all saved were pardoned as to Future-death as to some Heart-sins which could not be if such sins were not Threatned with Future-death Now upon this false foundation viz. That the Law of God as to Conscience required no more than it required as the Law of the Land was without doubt built that Interpretation of the 18. ver of Psal 66. given by the Ancient famous Rabbi David Kimchi who upon the words which are these If I regard iniquity with my heart the Lord will not hear me gives this as the meaning viz. Though I shall see Iniquity in my heart which I am forward to execute in fact Though God do see it yet he will not hear it meaning he will not impute it to me for sin For God doth not charge a wicked Thought for a wicked Act except only a wicked Thought against the Faith and true Religion so as to worship Idols For this such Doctors did hold to be sin threatned with Future punishment though it proceeded not to the Fact but not any other wicked Thought or Intention And it seems apparent the Apostle Paul took the Law in this Vulgar sense when he saith Phil. 3. 6. He had been a Pharisee and touching the righteousness which is of the Law blameless That is he had lived without fault so far as the Law required in that sense wherein the most Jews then and he himself formerly being so taught by his Master Gamaliel understood it viz. in this external Political sense And though he had formerly accounted that perfect Obedience to the Law or however all required to his salvation yet now he looketh upon such Righteousness as insignificant as to Future salvation and understood the Law was truly
Spiritual and required more yea more necessarily for salvation even Internal Piety and so could not have spoken after that manner of his Righteousness according to the Law in the true important sense of the Law And hence it comes to pass since the Law was used by most of the Jews in those days in this external Political and Ritual sense That the Author to the Hebrews doth almost I think altogether constantly use this word the Law in this sense but confutes their erronious Opinion that held that in this sense it availed to Salvation in a Future-life and shews it in this sense made none perfect as to Conscience or Future-life concern's but only as it threatned violent death and exclusion from Society so the Sacrifices for Expiation reached not to Expiate sins as to Future-life concerns but only to free from the Temporal punishment of Death and Exclusion from the Congregation And hence also it comes to pass that the Apostle Paul often useth the word the Law in this Political sense Though it is apparent he doth not so when he denies Justification by the Law as to Future-life by reason of mens sinfulness as it is apparent he doth in those places that seem opposite to St. James And this Author also confess it For mans sinfulness could not possibly be any reason why men were not Justified as to Future-life by the Law in that Political sense wherein it neither promised Future-life nor threatned Future death You must observe diligently as you desire to understand the Apostle Paul in many places that he often passes from the Conscience strict sense of the Law opposed to the Gospel to the Common-wealth sense of the Law as Gal. 3. and often runs them together as Rom. 7. using the word sometime in one of the senses and intermixing passages that agree to it in the other which I could give you I think a satisfying account of and would indeavour by reciting the particular places but that I am sensible I speak more largely than is suitable for such a short Discourse as I intend Now to draw to a conclusion of this long Digression designed to help you to understand many Scriptures Since so many took the Law in this low sense as requiring so short an obedience and foolishly promised themselves that Eternal happiness in the observance of it so far which it never promised them It is no wonder that you find so many extenuating Expressions of it in this sense Not that any such Expressions extenuate it as the Common-wealth Law for it was an excellent one imposed by the only Wise God and fitted to the temper of the Jewish people and to Typifie the great things But they extenuate it 1. As a way of Salvation for it promised no such thing made nothing perfect as to Conscience and Eternal life though observed with the greatest exactness 2. It is not extenuated as a shadow or resemblance Typical of the great things for it was a wonderful perfect Shadow and Type But it is extenuated as being but a Shadow which the the Jews would have to be the very substance the way of Salvation it self of the great concernments a poor and beggarly Rudiment or * I could I think give satisfying Reasons that thâ— Law in this sense only is by the Apostle called a School-master to teach the first beggarly Letters or Elements and so to ceaâ—e its imployment and not at all in the strict Conscience sense Element or rude first Draught or representation of the great Realities 3. As that which was but Temporary and to vanish away as this Typical Common-wealth Law was to do at the fuller Exhibition of the things it was but a Type of 4. This is called the Letter the very outward Letter of the Old Testament for the most part though yet frequently otherwise holding forth the Law in this Common-wealth sense with the rewards prosperity in Canaan and the threats Temporal death And in its being called the Letter it is opposed to the Internal and Spiritual meaning of that Law as it was the strict Law and the Gospel and to this cleerer Dispensation of both the Law and Gospel under Christ and called the Oldness of the Letter being the Old common way they had been taught by their Doctors and educated in For the Gospel and more Spiritual way of the Mosaic-Law was New and strange to them as you may perceive by John the Baptist's Doctrine of Repentance for the Remission of sins being rejected by the Pharisees as well as this cleer Dispensation under Christ though that was the true way of Salvation from the beginning ever since mans fall 5. The Law in this sense is said to kill and to be a Ministry of condemnation though not only in this sense I suppose but also in this sense taken in Conjunction with the strict Law of Works revealed in by and with this Law It is said to kill and condemn 1. Because this Law did condemn with Temporal violent death every one that did neglect any such external Work whatsoever But did not justifie to a prosperous life in Canaan any but they that observed every puntilio of it 2. Or rather since the Apostle useth sometimes to run the Law in the strictest sense exacting perfect Obedience and the Law in this Political sense together The Law may be said to condemn and to be a Ministry of condemnation because the Law did as the Original strict Law of Works in reality though not in their Opinion condemned every man that did not all whatsoever required yea that fail'd in obedience to any Internal command and did also condemn as to Conscience all External failings which they also held but did not quicken or revive or justifie any as to Future-life Not the Political Law through it's own weakness and default having no such Promises to any performances whatsoever Not the Law in the strict Conscience-sense through mans default because all are sinners 3. This Law taken still conjunctly may be said to condemn and kill men in another respect Taken politically it condemned men and killed them as to Eternal death by occasioning men or rather men taking occasion by it to go on in all Internal wickedness securely even to condemnation by the Law in a higher sense because the Law in this Political sense never forbad those sins that is did not forbid them with its penalty of violent death and they took occasion hence to think such inward Impiety was not forbidden by the Law in any sense nor such inward Piety required to their Salvation which may be the meaning of Rom. 7. 8 11. and so fell under Eternal condemnation through the neglect of such Piety It proved to them a Ministry of condemnation in the event through their own fault they abusing this â—itual Political dispensation against the end and aim of it 6. The Law also in this sense is said to be-get Bondage and Baseness and Servility of Spirit even disingenuous and unfilial Tempers
yet through their abuse of this Political Law making all that it required in this sense to be all required of them As for instance How is it possible but the Popish Doctrines believed should produce and foment such servility of Spirit that place all necessary to Salvation in Externals in the opus operatum in Penances and saying so many Prayers though by way of penalty and undergone by them as ingrateful Penances That teach it is no matter for loving God as some do expresly or Teach as generally they do which amounts to the same That Attrition is enough for Pardon and Salvation without contrition provided they have but the Priest's Absolution joyned to their Attrition explaining Attrition by trouble or affrightment for sin upon the account only of danger to our selves by it without any sorrow for sin as an offence of a good God So here we may without doubt say that they that understood the Law as requiring only such External Obedience without Love or any Internal and so did perform the External without any * Luke 11. 42. The Pharisees tithe Mint c. and pass ever Judgment and the love of God Observe this Love is called Faith Mat. 23 23. And by both Faith and Love is meant Internal worship love to God which makes his Commands for being grievous were void of filial ingenuous Dispositions Though I grant some Scriptures of the like import may possibly be aplicable to the whole Mosaic-Dispensation even as it was the Gospel as being a more servile and burthensom way by reason of the multitudes of the ritual commands which they were bound by it carefully to observe universally which had no Intrinsical goodness in them to command them to right reason and ingenuous lovers of God and Holiness But meerly the Authority of the Law-giver and so the motive to perform such could not but be comparatively to this Dispensation we live under more eminently from fear in good men as doing them because they must do them and not because the doing them was that which a gracious heart would chuse through Religion and love to Holiness to promote and increase Holiness the Image of God in his soul which may be said of almost all the Precepts under this present cleer Dispensation of the Gospel and so some such Speeches may be understood comparatively as I said before though I incline you see to Construe them positively and absolutely in the most places But now to conclude First There was a sense wherein the old Testament-Dispensation and Law of Moses was really or held out really the strict Law of Works as to Eternal concernments threatning Future death to every sin And the Apostle indeed excludes any from being Justified and affirms all to be condemned by it in this sense because all are sinners But this is not said to vanish away for it remains in force unto this day yea and for the substance of it will do so to all Eternity This is never affirmed to be Carnal but is Spiritual This indeed gives no life though it was a Law to life but that it gives none is not through its own want or default but through no mans performing the condition This was no Shadow or Type or beggarly Element Secondly There was a Sense yea and this was the chief Important sense wherein the Old Testament Dispensation or Law of Moses was the Remedying-Law or the Gospel-promising Pardon as to Future-life of all Transgressions of the Law in the strict sense upon Repentance and sincere Endeavour to obey all Gods Commands Internal and External The Apostle never speaks against the Law in this sense however no way except comparatively to this cleerer Dispensation but call's it the Promise the Righteousness of Faith which He and other Apostle's Preached The Promise which was Yea and Amen in Christ This is not said to vanish away but is made more clear in the Dispensation of of it under Christ This was no Shadow nor Type but the very Gospel or Law of Grace and Pardon it self The perfect Law of Grace converting the Soul and giving life to men converted This was the Law of Grace that Moses Samuel and David yea and the same for substance that Abraham was justified and saved by For it was this That if men did sincerely repent of their sins and believe Gods Testimonies and Love and Fear and Serve God and endeavour to do all God required of them without alowing themselves in any known sin they should be saved notwithstanding their sins and the Future punishment due to them by the Law in the strict sense And this is the substance of the Gospel or Law of Grace now If it should be asked How cometh it to pass that the Author to the Hebrews should use the words The Law of Moses first Covenant-Testament and Law in this Political and not in this Conscience-sense The account is easie Because his business in that Epistle was against those Judaizers that would impose it on Christians to comply so far with the Jews however to avoid Persecution For the Jews in those days were the chief Promoters of all their Persecutions as to keep the Law of Moses in the sense wherein it was now ceased and they were not to keep it Therefore he taketh no notice of the Law in the Conscience-sence wherein it was agreed by both or however known to be held by him to be incumbent on Christians for the substance of it but he in speaking against the Law of Moses means the Law of Moses in that sense wherein it was ceased being but a Shadow and shews that in this sense it had only Temporal promises and advantaged only to the purification of the Flesh and escaping Temporal calamities Now to reply it had also another sense would be true but nothing to the purpose since it had not in this sense wherein he opposed it I suppose you now see that it is far from Truth which this Author affirms viz. That the Apostle Paul charges the whole Mosaic-Dispensation with the defect of having no Promises of a Future-life I have taken liberty to speak largely of these things because I know of none that in my weak opinion do speak satisfactorily or truly of them And I have much confidence that none can give any true tollerable Interpretation of such Passages of the Apostle's used in Derogation to the Law without such Notions and Distinctions of the Law as I have here described and explained and also I hope that any one of ordinary abilities for such things may holding to these Notions of the Law give a rational and satisfactory account of the most Scriptures of such derogatory import And now to go on with the Words of the Author who having before told us that the Apostle's Argument against Justification by the Mosaic-Law was from the double defect of the whole Mosaic-Law or Dispensation to sanctifie men First from an External defect that it promised no Future-life Now he comes to speak of
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-law or Law of Nature For the things by which Paul disputeth against the 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
himself useth the word reckoned for reckned of Debt And therefore the word reckned doth not signifie reckned of Grace of it self Answ It is so apparent that any one may see it by perusing the place That these words Now to him that worketh the reward is reckned of Debt and not of Grace are an Argument to prove somthing said before as appears by the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Translated Now and do lean upon this implied Foundation to make them Argumentative viz. That so the word reckned cannot signifie when he saith God accounted it to him for Righteousness but signifies accounted it of Grace The Apostle's Argument is this If the reward had been given to Abraham for his Works as being a righteous man in the strict sense free from all sin or failing in obedience it would not have been said that God imputed Righteousness to him which implies his being destitute of it And he proves the consequence thus For to him that worketh that is that Meriteth or is Righteous by his own works the reward is accounted of Debt and not of Grace and so it leans upon this as being a thing apparent in it self that so the word Accounted cannot signifie but signifies accounted it of Grace and Favour imputedrighteousness to one not righteous like not imputing sin to one which implys the man a sinner And the Apostle in the following verse shews that it is all one as if it had been said Abraham believed God and upon his believing God did not impute sin to him And saith that if the Idolatrous unrighteous Gentiles believe as he did Righteousness shall be imputed to them or sin shall not be imputed to them Suppose we had read expresly these words Shimei repented or confessed his fault and David imputed it to him for Righteousness would it not have been all one as to say David did upon the Repentance or Confession of Shimei not impute sin to him And would it not be the same as to say David pardoned Shimei upon his Repentance or Confession and would not all these words imputed Righteousness imputed not Sin and Pardoned equally imply Shimei was a sinner or one unrighteous and consequently an Act of grace and savour in David so to do The Author having as you have seen given us his reason why he cannot be of their mind that say the word implys reckoned of Grace He in the next words tells us how the Apostle gathers out of that Scripture Abraham believed God and it was counted or imputed to him for Righteousness that the reward was not imputed to Abraham of Debt as a reward is given to Labourers but of Grace Thus I judg therefore that the Collection Pag. 265. of the Apostle whereby he infers out of that Citation That the Justification of Abraham was meerly Gratuitous doth not lean upon the naked signification of the word was Imputed But partly upon the nature of the thing which is said to be Imputed to Abraham for Righteousness and partly on the former state and quality of the person Abraham to whom it is said to be Imputed First The nature of the thing Pag. 266. The thing which is said to be Imputed to Abraham for Righteouâ—ness was Faith and Obedience springing from it Now the obedience of Faith doth exclude all Merit all together in its own Notion For the obedience of Faith supposeth a gracious Revelation of God first made to the Believer and so such Promises as do by their own excellency strongly excite a man believing them to perform that obedience to God by which as by the condition the good things Promised are to be attained and such Promises as do not only equal but far excel the whole labour though very great which is undertaken through the belief of them So it was plainly in the Example of Abraham He indeed believed God but first God had revealed himself to him in a gracious extraordinary manner Acts 7. 2 3. He had obeyed the Divine command in calling him to a long perilous Journey but God had added Wings to his Journey promising such huge good things which might even fill a decriped old man with youthful strength and might animate him to bear any trouble cheerfully Whatsoever therefore Abraham did worthy of praise he ought to ascribe it to the gracious Revelation and the liberal Promises made to him by God of his meer Mercy therefore there was no occasion for Abraham to glory No Merit The Apostle seems to have respect to this ver 5. where when that which was denied of one working viz. the reward to be given him of Grace * This is his mistake and not the Apostle's was to have been repeated in the following Opposition and to have been affirmed of one believing thus but to a man believing the reward is reckned of Grace But the Apostle doth quite otherwise saith he to one believing his faith is imputed for righteousness as if he should say upon that very account that his faith is imputed for righteousness his Justification is meerly gracious since Faith in it self sounds forth Grace and excludes Merit Here now I must but as on the Pag. 267. bie a little dwell upon the words of the Apostle ver 4. To him that worketh the reward is not reckned of Grace but of Debt Which place that it may be the better understood two things are to be enquired 1. What the word working signifies 2. What the word Debt signifies For the first He that worketh denoteth him that worketh of himself and by his own strength being assisted with no Divine aids For he that worketh by the Grace of God he doth not so much work as the Grace of God in him 1 Cor. 15. 10. Gal. 2. 20. And the Context of the place confirms this For beside that the Apostle as we have seen doth professedly dispute of the works of Abraham which he performed according to the flesh in the beginning of the Chapter That is also chiefly to be observed that he that worketh is opposed to him that believeth that is that from the belief of the Divine Promises and so whose works are to be ascribed to the Divine Grace which stirred him up to work with most great and liberal Promises also adding a great efficacy of his Spirit which also is received only after and by Faith Now in the second place to speak of these words of Debt no reason permits that they should be taken rigidly * There is all reason to take words strictly and properly when it can be done and not to fly to this Authors expression it may seem as it were of Debt And had this Author given the true sense of this Chapter he might have taken the words strictly thus If of perfect obedience to the Law then of Debt and not of Grace meaning by Grace Forgiveness and if of meritorious Works then of Debt and not of Grace in any sense strictly For the reward of Eternal life cannot be
said properly to be owing to any man though working most perfectly and also from the meer strength of Nature Neither could that be ascribed to the first man if he had stood in Innocency and had never violated the Divine Covenant with any sin for the reward of Eternal life being Infinite exceeds infinitely the works of any Creature Therefore it is most certain that these words of the Apostle But to him that worketh the reward is not reckoned of Grace but of Debt are not to be understood absolutely and simply but comparatively So that the Apostle signifies that the reward is not given to him that worketh on that manner as I have expressed out of such meer and pure Grace as to one that believeth that is to one working from Faith Therefore this is the sense of the words If the reward of Eternal life should be given by God to him that worketh that is that obeys God and worketh righteousness by his native strength without the Grace of God That may really seem as it were to be given as of debt and there would be to one working at least some shew of boasting But when the reward is imputed to him that doth not work but believeth that is who works nothing of himself but from Faith and after his believing of God graciously revealing himself Here appears Divine Grace illustriously boasting is excluded all merit is cast off Yea here is seen double Grace of God 1. That he works in a man the obedience of Faith by his Grace preceding all Merits of his and also that he imputeth for Righteousness the same obedience to a man which he wrought in him and Crowning it with a great Reward no otherwise than if the man had performed it of himself Whereas this Author pretends that the stress of the Apostles Argument in Rom. 4. leans upon this viz. That if men should do things they have in no sense any ability to do and that in sensu composito while they have no ability to do them If men should do that by their native strength which they have no strength to do this would Merit or have some shew of Merit As if Abraham had believed before God had promised had believed without a Testimony or Revelation or had obeyed before he had any ability to obey this would have Merited or have had some shew of Merit But God promised first before Abraham believed and afforded him strength and all things naturally necessary to produce obedience before he obeyed and so there was no Merit in his Faith and Obedience I confess I am dubious whether I should grant this to be true or not or if I should grant it true whether I should deny any such Suppositions may be allowed in Argumentation since it would require many words exactly to determine this Logical dispute and would also require more Logical acuteness than he or I in these disputes seem to make use of or is fit in this Controversie to trouble the Reader with But to be short I will grant but it shall be only conditionally That this would Merit or have a shew of Merit because it would be to do what God gave him no ability to do yea it would be to do what all generally grant that the Diety cannot do viz. a formal Impossibility But I will grant it as I said only conditionally viz. on condition that he will grant the contrary follows from the same Supposition viz. That if a man should do what he hath no ability to do it would have no Merit or no shew of Merit because it would be so far from Merit that it would be an absurd irrational and foolish act it would be so far from any shew of Merit that it could no way be commendable And because some may think strange of such a conditional concession let it be considered that from a naturally impossible Supposition as this of his is contradictory Consequences may equally follow as I could make appear in almost any Instance Take these Si scirem me mortuum esse essem mortuus And Si scirem me mortuum esse non essem mortuus If I truly knew I was not I should not be And if I truly knew I was not I should be So Si bestia intelligeret esset homo Si bestia intelligeret non esset homo Therefore what Irreverence is it at the least for this Author to fasten such an Argument on the Apostle as that either nothing can be concluded from it or the contrary may equally be concluded from it e. g. If Abraham had been Justified by Works that is according to this Author by doing such works as he had in no sense any power to do he might glory or he had Merited when it might as well at least be concluded he could not have gloried he could not have Merited But yet to prevent the Antinomian Extreme who use to say we must not so much as Suppose things or Argue from Suppositions though only Morally impossible remember I put in the word Naturally saying Suppositions Naturally impossible For it is apparent there may be rational Arguing from a Hypothetical proposition which is not Naturally impossible but only Morally As for Example in such Speeches as these If a man not Elected or to whom God did not Decree to give converting Grace should Believe and Repent he should be Saved If a man accustomed to do evil should do well he should be Saved If a man had turned from sin to God before God converted him it would have prevented many sad Thoughts of Heart Yea this may so evidently be supposed that men's Hearts may and do reproach them that they did not turn to God before God did actually turn them or did give them such Grace as would actually prevail with them because before God did thus turn them or give them the Grace of Conversion they had the Natural ability to Convert and turn to God and only their Moral-Impotency which is voluntary Wickedness hindred them else it would not have been their duty so to turn or their sin not to turn So Paul saith If an Angel of Heâ—ven should Preach any other Gospel he should be accursed And Christ said John 8. 55. If I should say I know him not I should be a lyar like to you And these are rationally allowable Suppositions because an Angel in Heaven hath and Christ on Earth had the Natural power to Speak or Teach falshood though yet joyned with such a Morally insuperable holy rectitude of Will that they could not obtain of themselves so to Speak or Teach And this is not like doing what they have not the Natural ability to do And the contrary doth not here follow from these Suppositions For you cannot say If a confirmed Angel from Heaven should Teach errour he should not be accursed or if Christ should have denied he knew God he would not have been a Lyaâ— which yet might have been said if this had been To do what they had not
my Discourse of Natural and Moral Impotency to force the Explaining of such words and also consider what would be answered to them I judg that one great cause of Doctor Hammond's mistakes under debate as well as of this Author's was chiefly their want of distinct Notions about Natural and Moral Impotency as appears by their affirming as both of them do and the Doctor particularly pag. 86. that It is a direct contradiction to hold a Power in one sense and a want of Power in another sense to the same Act to hold That a man hath a Moral impotency to do what he hath a Natural power to do And consequently also his not distinguishing between Natural and Moral Irresistibility It is also apparent that another great â—ause of his mistakes is his forgetting or not considering that men are Universally wicked else he would not supâ—ose it Irrational to hold as he doth pag. 36. and 38. that no one man that hâ—d power enough to obey the Gospel sufficient to render him Inexcusable in not obeying it as I think all have that have the Gospel and are not Natural Fools did ever obey the Gospel without the addition of some further Supereffluence of Grace to make him Willing of Unwilling Now if this be not to forget or deny that all men are wicked so wicked that their Enmity and Aversation of will to Good will never be overcome but by the Grace of the Holy Ghost I know not what is And I grant that except men were Universally wicked it would be Irrational to suppose that of such Multitudes none should obey without such Grace But I think I have said enough in my Discourse of Natural and Moral Impotency to shew the Danger and Inconsistency of such Opinions as these Letters of the Doctor 's are written to maintain though I living obscurely had not seen those Letters when I wrote that Discourse And if yet any intelligent man shall satisfie me that I have not said enough there to this end or that there is any thing said in those Leters that needeth a more particular answer I may probably say more For my great Aversation to such Principles will much encline me upon an easie call to oppose the Prevalency of them till I shall see some sitter man of our own Church and Language where they prevail as I doubt not but there are many whose Abilities and Circumstances make them far more fit willing to undertake it and save the Labour of my weak Endeavours But now to attend the Author after this large Digression who still goes on to give the meaning of Rom. 4. The Apostle also in this his Argumentation considereth the former state and condition of the Person viz. of Abraham to whom this Faith was imputed for Righteousness He was ungodly and guilty of grievous sins and therefore the Apostle saith Emphatically that Abraham believed in him who justifieth one ungodly By that implying that Abraham before the Divine vocation was so far from deserving any thing from God by any good Works that on the contrary he was guilty of the greatest sins So that the Mercy of God was wonderful both that he had revealed himself in so singular a way to so great a sinner and had called him to his Service And also that he not only blessed with the Pardon of his great sins but also rewarded with the greatest Rewards Abraham believing him revealing himself to him But you will say What was this Impiety of Abraham before he was called I answer Idolatry the greatest of Impieties as the Scripture it self plainly testifies Joshu 24. 2 3. c. where God saith in the plural Number That the Fathers of the Hebrews served other Gods And he expresses whom he means Thareh the Father of Abraham and the Father of Nachor so that he puts those three the Father with the Children in the same Predicament Also after he had said they served other gods he adds And he took your Father Abraham ver 3. evidently denoting that this is commemorated amongst the kindnesses to the Israelites that when their Ancestors viz. the Grand-Father of Israel both by his Father and Mother Abraham and Nahor living with their Father in Chaldea worshipped other gods God of his meer Mercy without any merit of his took Abraham and gave to him a Heir and an Inheritance Also the Apostle seems in these words of justifying the ungodly by a tacit indeed but yet by a strong Argument to check the Arrogancy of the Jews who did abhor the Sinful and Idolatrous Gentiles Gal. 2. 15. though Converted to the true God by Faith in Christ and Repentance and new Obedience And would by no means admit them to the favour of Justification unless approved by a long and continued working or at least purg'd by Circumcision and Sacrifices For the Apostle shews in these words that Abraham their Father and so they in him was called in the same manner from Idolatry and the worship of false Gods And was immediately after his belief of the Promises and Obedience given to the Divine vocation yea before he was Circumcised as is a little-after shewed accepted of God Who would not here admire the divine wit of the Apostle Furthermore this belongs to all Justified since there is none that is not guilty of hainous sins before Grace received so who doth not need Pardon and Divine Remission Which the Apostle well proves by a Testimony out of David ver 6 7 8. And afterward the Apostle passes to the Controversie concerning Circumcision ver 9. The Author here indeed giveth the true sense of many verses in this Chapter Rom. 4. But the fault is he faineth the Apostle to bring them in Desultorily or as Ropes of Sand without any coherence as when he saith The Apostle also considereth the former state of Abraham whereas the Apostle in this Chapter brings it in Argumentatively and had the Author given a right Interpretation of the Verses before he might readily have seen how this of Abrahams being ungodly comes in most rationally to prove that Abraham was not Justified by Works but by Righteousness Imputed to him and that his Justification was of Grace and not of Debt So whereas he tells us that the Apostle doth afterward viz. verse 9. pass to the controversie of Circumcision there is no passing to a new Controversie but the Apostle there draweth an Argument from that that Abraham was Justified upon his Believing and Obeying God before he was Circumcised to prove that Abraham was not Justified by Works in the sense wherein he opposes his Justification by Works as I have else-where made apparent Now he comes to give us the Result of his thoughts how his sense of this Chapter tends to Reconcile the two Apostles Hence there cleerly shines forth an Agreement between James and Paul when from the same Example of Abraham one concludes that a man is Justified without Works the other by Works viz. Paul considers Abraham according to the Flesh