the pardon is only as to the first Law and Breach of it for there is no pardon as to this second Law and Breach of it for if he do not read which is the condition of the second Law there is no pardon for his failing therein So that if the first Law never threatned Eternal death there can be no pardon as to Eternal death And which maketh it still apparent is this Pardon must be by some Law else it may be Forbearance or Reprieve but no Pardon and no Law can possibly in any case whatsoever afford pardon of Offences against it self it is a contradiction to say it may For to answer an objection that may be in your mind suppose a Law made threatning the Offenders only conditionally as threatning death except a man abjure the Realm or pay a sum of Money in this case if the person either abjure or pay the Money here is no pardoning any thing the Law threatned for the Law never threatned his death absolutely So that you see there cannot possibly be pardon of a transgression from the Law it self but only from another Law a Remedying Law or Act of Oblivion Therefore the Gospel which is an Act of Pardon or Oblivion for those that are guilty of the breach of another Law cannot possibly pardon an offence against it self which is failing in the performing the condition of it by dying in Unbelief For any that will affirm pardon in the failing in the condition of this Act of Oblivion he must affirm some new Law made for a Remedying Law to one cast by the Gospel to this effect That if men die impenitent they shall be saved provided they or others for them perform the condition while they are in an other world which the Papists affirm something a kin to Now if the Gospel afford no pardon to them that perform not its condition as it is impossible it should and no Law else threatens Eternal death there cannot possibly be any pardon of sin as to Eternal death So that you see whatsoever this Author saith to the contrary we must hold a Law threatning Eternal death or Wrath to come which Christ hath undergone a punishment for the satisfaction of distinct from the Gospel or the Law of Grace that was founded upon the account of this satisfaction and that all are condemned by this Law and that as to Future and Eternal concernments and that none are Justified by it Which if the Author had considered he would surely have told us better than he hath done what the Apostle meant by the Law and works of the Law which he denies Justification by Yea and you must hold that this Law threatning wrath to come to every Offender is yet in force and not Abrogated by the Gospel yea and that it threatens men that do perform the Gospel-condition as really as others I shall not deny that such a Law seiseth upon mens being sinners as to the Promissary part as a promise made to a man if he shall work all such a week doth cease after he hath failed the first day but it is actually in Force still with its penalty requiring perfect Obedience and not only sincere which I thus prove First Else we must say that no man sins or transgresseth this Law so he do but perform the Gospel condition so he be but in the main a sincere Christian and consequently that no sincere Christian needs Christs satisfaction or pardon for such sins as are consistent with Gospel sincerity which is an Opinion which I almost dread to mention though the Author seems very confident in it for he maintains pag. 108. 112. That so men do but chiefly mind the best things do but observe the main Precepts of the Law no Law whatsoever requires any more of them and also holds that men after * I cannot tell whether he mean after Conversion or after the meer Preaching of the Gospel to â—hem but however I will â—onstrue it to the best sense Conversion or receiving the Gospel for any disability on them to the contrary may and for any evidence we have in the Scripture to the contrary do live such lives as not to sin any sin that deserves or is by any Law threatned so much as conditionally with Eternal death and so it follows consequently as any one sees that they need no pardon or the Blood of Christ for such sins as to Eternal punishment though yet he grants but yet any one may see with some reluctancy That pag. 117. All do sometime or other of their lives commit some either sin or sins that deserves Eternal punishment and consequently needs pardon and the Blood of Christ Now if it be true that he saith that No Law of God requires any more than that men keep the main substantials of it and make Religion their business then he may safely affirm that they do not need pardon by the Blood of Christ for any so much as temporal punishment as to those failings that are consistent with true Christianity I grant the Gospel requires no more for our Justification and Salvation than such sincere imperfect indeavours as he mentions but I cannot enough express my dislike of saying No Law doth require any more Secondly If the Law was abrogated by Christs satisfaction and the Gospel as to its requiring perfect Obedience under a threatning of the penalty of Eternal death of those that continue performing the Gospel-condition Then we must not say that Christ died to obtain the pardon of those sins that are consistent with Gospel-sincerity but died to prevent them from being Sins and Transgressions of the Law that would otherwise have been sins or to prevent such sins from legally desâ—â—ving or being threatned with Eternal wrath and so to prevent them from being pardoned by his Blood as to Eternal wrath Secondly Another great Mistake that causeth his other Errors as any one may perceive that reads his Book is this That he doth not understand or doth not consider the difference between an Original Law with a Remedying Law or conditional Act of Oblivion distinct from the Original Law and a Law that threatens a transgressour of it only conditionally I shall make my meaning appear by an Instance which he brings of an Original Law and a Remedying Law though I confess he brings it not under that notion but speaks somthing not right concerning it and especially he is widely mistaken in making that the chief yea the only Law of Moses that the Apostle speaks against Justification by in those places where he speaks against Justification by the works of the Law though yet I do think that the Apostle had in some places a main respect to this Law of Sacrifices now to be mentioned as Acts 13. 38 39. Heb. 7. 11. 19. Chap. 9. v. 8. 18. Chap. 10. v. 1. c. The Instance is this Page 121 122. where he rightly tells us That God did make a Law that concerned the Jews as a
sinned before the knowledg of the Gospel and because of those sins to have been guilty of Eternal death and so yet to be guilty unless the Grace and Mercy of the Gospel should Relieve us we are plainly Lyars and basely ingrateful toward the Gospel and that Truth which we profess What need of many words John himself is a manifest * Why may not both Speeches be true Or why may not the latter Speech as well be Expounded by the former I could shew that these words were spoken against such as pretended Perfection and that Grotius's interpretation is not right but that would require too many words It is a shorter way to refer you to other Scriptures speaking in the Present tense Jam. 3. 2. In many things we offend all He puts himself into the number and saith not we have offended Eccles 7. 20. There is not a just man upon the Earth that doth good and sinneth not 1 Kings 8. 46. There is no man that sins not If it should be replyed Such are not properly sins I shall ere long answer that Interpreter of himself when afterwards he Expounds not by we sin in the Praesent tense but we have sinned in the Praeter tense that which before he had said viz. We have no sin But let us return to Paul It appears from what we have spoken that this is the Sum of the first Hypothesis the Apostle's Argument leans on viz. That both Jews and Gentiles if you consider the far greatest part of them were plainly under the dominion of sin enslaved Pag. 119. to most filthy Vices And they who were the best and most holy of either Nation had not so ordered their life but at some time they had faln into some sins or at least into some †But they all according to his great Argument could have lived without all these sins or without that grievous sin worthy of Death and consequently so as to have no need of Pardon or Christs death to free them from Eternal deâ—th else no Law could require them to live free from such sin and consequently would be guiltless in committing that Act and not need pardon for it and consequently not need pardon or Christs death at all one more hainous sin and worthy of death And so all both Jews and Gentiles without difference and without acception were guilty before God Rom. 3. 19. were obnoxious to Divine wrath and Eternal death Thus he verbatim His great Argument against the ordinary Interpretation of the words of the Apostle Paul viz. That no Law of God requires any more than a man can do which I grant to be true but not in his sense in the sense that he useth it will do strange feats By the same Argument that he proves that God doth not require his people to be free from their dayly failings viz. Because no man cloathed with flesh can live without such he may prove that any man for any Impotency on him to the contrary may be free from standing in need of Pardon or the Blood of Christ thus Whosoever can live free from any great sins deserving or threatned with Eternal death can live without need of pardon or Christs satisfaction But all men can live free from any great sins deserving or threatned with Eternal death Ergo. The consequence is apparent He may prove his Minor thus If there was any man that could not live without any great sin threatned with Eternal death then he is not bound no Law requires him to live without such sin But the Law of God requires him to live without such sin Ergo. Yea And he might produce Aquinas and others affirming that though a man may live a little while without Venialsin though yet not long yet he may live without Mortal sin all his life Yea this Argument will as well prove the Heathen may live perfect and without sin as any else If they do what they can do what they can do And it is a contradiction he saith to say otherwise The consequence he may prove still thus That no Law requires any man to do more than he can As for such words Properly sins Improperly sins Less properly sins sins not deserving Eternal death and then sometime again saying no Law requires a man to live without them It is such slippery Discourse off and on That I can but ask Questions to have him clear his meaning in Answering and such Questions I would ask a man speaking obscurely about Venial-sins amongst which some reckon Fornication Are these Things or Entities that are consistent with truth of Grace or Sincerity those peccata quotidianae incursionis as they are commonly called forbidden by any Law of God or not If you shall say as Lombard Aquinas Bellarmine that they are not then they are not Transgressions of the Law are not sins at all and no punishment whatsoever can be due to or deserved by them being no faults and a man is perfect notwithstanding them Bellarmine saith There is no way possible to maintain the Catholick Doctrine of mans ability perfectly to keep the Law but by denying venial-Venial-sins to be forbidden by the Law Lib. 4. de Justif Chap. 14. Again may a sincere Christian seriously ask Pardon for these sins of dayly Incursion Then they are Sins and Transgressions of a Law or they could not be pardoned neither could Christ be a Sacrifice for them and then they are threatned with and deserve Eternal death for a man cannot with understanding ask pardon for that punishment which God cannot in Justice inflict There can be no Pardon but of Grace and Mercy and Favour and whatsoever God doth of Grace and Favour He might justly not have done it and so might in strict Justice not have pardoned but have condemned us for these Shall a man be condemned for these except he repent of his other sins Aquinas and Bellarmine maintain that men should be punished with Eternal death for their Venial-sins that do not they say deserve death Eternal except they repent Then they do deserve Eternal death for He may not so much as punish a man except he repent for those things which do not deserve the Punishment for he may not do unjustly though men do not repent Will any say though they be not contra legem against the Law yet they are prâ—â—ter besides the Law as many say concerning Venial-sins I would only say What do you mean Do you mean that they are neither commanded to commit those sins of dayly Incursion nor forbidden then they are as some say the Ceremonies are meerly things indifferent If they be not meerly indifferent will you say that the abstaining from such things is commendable though not commanded And so say as this Author rightly tells us the Pharisaical Jews held that those Commands that required Spiritual and inward Holiness as the Tenth Command were not Commands but Counsels If so then the abstaining from such Sins is a work of Super-erogation And then indeed
the 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