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
this phrase continue in all things should signifie most Perfect-obedience or quite sinlesness since such Obedience is impossible to man encompassed with Flesh neither doth it seem consentaneous to Divine equity that any one for the defect of it should be obnoxious to Eternal Malediction Therefore the sense of the Testemony cited is this That every man is Accursed that is is Execrable and Obnoxious to the Punishment threatned by the Law who doth not do and observe perseveringly * Is not this perfect obedience to a Law to do all the Law requires to be done all those things which the Law prescribeth to be observed And he is reputed to do all things who doth not err from the end of the Law who keeps safe the essenal parts of the Law or as others speak who keeps all those Precepts of the Law which contain the substance of Life of which sort are all those Commands which are expressed by Moses in the Curses Deut. 27. In a word who admits nothing into himself knowingly and wittingly against the Law of God although he fails in something either out of Ignorance or Inadvertency That place Jam. 2. 10. being Twin-brother to this gives great light to this place Whosoever keeps the whole Law and yet offends in one point is guilty of all That is is obnoxious to the Punishment threatned to the Transgressors of the Law v. 10. For he that said Do not commit Adultery said also Do not kill c. Here he giveth the true and ordinary Interpretation of this place so largely as to take up pag. 109. and half pag. 110. which is this He that knowingly allows himself in the knowing Transgression of any one Law is as far from Salvation as if he kept none for such a one doth not act sincerely in Obedience to any Law since all Divine Laws have the same Author and Authority Therefore he that knowingly neglects one Law doth not keep other Laws because of Gods Authority in Commanding or because of Gods Command but because he hath not that list through Temptation to break them for if he had as much list through Temptation to break them such a one would break the other Laws He goes on But one may perhaps reply Grant it let that place of James be so expounded Pag. 110. yet the same Interpretation will by no means agree to the Apostle's scope in that place of the Epistle to the Galatians For since the Apostle doth prove all who are of the Law to be under a Curse only by this reason because it is written Cursed is every one that doth not continue in all things c. he doth manifestly hint that no man can continue in all things or that the Law doth require such perfect obedience as none can perform Answer I altogether deny that to be hinted or implyed in the Apostle's Argument Which that it may be made apparent I will reduce it to a Syllogistical form Thus He is accursed who doth not continue in all thing which the Law commands But whosoever are of the works of the Law do not continue in all those things Ergo They that are of the works of the Law are under a Curse The Apostle speaks expresly of Pag 111. those who are of the works of the Law v. 10. That is who seek Righteousness in the Law being ignorant of or despising the Grace of the Gospel whom he opposeth to them that are of Faith v. 9 That is who believe the Gospel and embrace it's Grace and who have attained the Promises or thing Promised of the Spirit whereby they may fulfil the Righteousness of the Law and so avoid the Curse of it v. 14. Of the first sort indeed he hints that they neither continue nor †Then they aâ—e not according to his Argument bound to continue in all c. and so are free from the Curse though they continue not in all c. can continue in all things written but of the second sort he by no means affirms it In a word The Apostle â—â—ver spoke word against man's being able to fulfil the Law in all things by Gospel-Grace so far as it was a Law that is under the penalty of Eternal death is imposed us or ever was imposed upon Mankind since the fall of the first man yea he often acknowledges this possibility as we shall see hereafter There remains another Argument of the Adversaries of which they boast as being most unconquerable taken out of that famous place Deut. 6. 5. Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart and with all thy soul and with all thy strength You may see here say they that the highest and perfectest love of God is required of all in the Law Answer They who fight with this Argument do kill themselves with their own Sword For since God requires no other love than what is done with all the Heart and Mind and with all the Strength it is manifest that nothing is required of us beside or above our strength our strength I mean helpt with that measure of Grace which God communicates to every one of us in this Life or is certainly ready to communicate Now it is certain that we can with all our Pag. 112. strength obey God because it would be a †It is no contradiction but a great truth It is appaâ—ent that a man's culpable Impotency to good is an Impotency of doing something that we have the natural power and strength to do And whosoever doth not understand this must necessarily talk ridiculously about such matters as these in hand manifest contradiction to say we cannot do the thing we can do or cannot do a thing according to our strength The truth of this Answer is established firmly with these following Reasons First Because God promises that he will give to his people that which he requires viz. To circumcise their heart to love him with all their heart Deut. 30. 6. Secondly Because God himself witnesseth that there were some that loved him after this manner so it is said of Asah the King and all the people that they sought the Lord with their whole heart 2 Chro. 15. 2. We read of David that he followed God with all his heart 1 Kings 14. 8. But that is a famous Testimony which the Holy Ghost gives concerning Josiah the King That he turned to the the Lord with all his heart and with all his soul and with all his strength according to the Law of Moses 2 Kin. 23. 25. viz. That is said to be done with the whole heart and whole strength which a man imploys his chief Thoughts and Endeavours about even as we say A man is totus in literis wholly in studies that maketh them his chief business I shall as soon as I have recited all he saith of this nature answer the substance of all But this of loving God with all the Soul being something out of the Road I will answer it here The
the Natural power to do because then so to Teach or Speak would neither have been Laudable nor Culpable and so not formally a Lye nor a cause of being accursed Neither can you say if a non-Elect man had believed he had not been saved My discourse of Natural and Moral-Impotency will make what I here say more plain to you This Author speaks often and particularly here of the necessity of Grace and of mans Disability to do any good without the Grace of the Holy Spirit which may much puzle men not versed in such Discourses And the knowing what he means by the word GRACE would do much to shew further the Inconsistency of the Argument from a defect of Internal Grace which he pretends the Apostle makes use of Now though the Author speak not much Explicitly to tell us what he means by this Grace and what the effect of it is yet thus much is apparent from the constant Tenor of his Discourse that he goes the common Remonstrant way and holds that the Effect of it is The giving that Internal power or ability that men could not be inexcusable in not obeying the Gospel without and whosoever doth so may be forced by a little Argumentation as I have else-where made apparent though against his will to confess that he means no more by it than God's giving men that enjoy the Gospel the very power or faculty of free-will in actu secundo without which they could not sin or be sound men or men in their right wits Yea all that ever I have read of that way do apparently mean no more by Grace not so much as those by some-admired Letters of Doctor Hammond in answer to the Lord Bishop Sanderson excepted though some pretend a great satisfactoriness in the Scheme there propounded as if it avoided the common inconveniences that Way is Clogged with For there the Learned Doctor though he seems cautelous to hide his meaning in calling it a Supernatural power to believe and obey the Gospel yet it will appear plain enough that he means by it no more than the very Power and Faculty of Free-will to any Intelligent man that shall consider these his Assertions following concerning it First He holds that if this Grace of the Holy Spirit or this Grace of Conversion was denied men that enjoy the Gospel they would be excusable pag. 34. that is They could not be guilty of sinning against or disobedience to the Gospel for nothing that is truly sin is excusable Yea he supposes still consonantly to this that if it should be denied any man in this life enjoying the Gospel as he thinks it was to Pharaoh such a one would be as one naturally dead even from under the command of Obedience to the Gospel For his non-obedience in this case would be imputable to God pag. 94. 95. I grant that if God had totally deprived Pharaoh of the Natural power of obeying his Calls viz. By depriving him of the right Natural use of his Faculties by making him a Natural Fool then his Non-conversion and Non-obedience to the Divine Command after such deprival would as the Doctor saith have been imputable to God and therefore his Non-obedience in such a case would have been no sin but wholly excusable because imputable to God But that a man having the faculties to understand and do Gods Commands should not be to blame in not doing such Commands except God give him the Internal grace of his Spirit is strange Discourse though too common Secondly He affirms that Grace doth not give To will to any or take away unwillingness or resistency of will from any any faâ—ther than by meerly giving Power or Ability to comply with the Gospel pag. 55. And expresses his dislike of it as a meer conceit for any to hold that Grace causeth actual willingness or taketh away unwillingness to good any further than by meerly giving power to the Will to obey and comply with the Gospel which Grace gives to all enjoying the Gospel Thirdly If it should be granted that God doth any more towards any man's Conversion that enjoys the Gospel than give this Power without which men would not be Inexcusable in not obeying it which he calls sufficient Grace as he supposes God may do some singular External thing providentially for some as by afflicting them though no singular Internal thing by his Spirit he then supposes that what is done more for any man than this degree of Grace sufficient to render men inexcusable is not an effect of Grace properly so called or to be said to proceed from Supernatural grace Whereas I should say that giving that ability without which men could in no sense obey the Gospel is to be called an effect of Justice and not of Grace so that God cannot in Justice condemn men for not obeying the Gospel if he did not give them so much power as to make them inexcusable in not obeying it which if true there would be nothing left to be called Internal-grace in the conversion of one enjoying the External or Objective evidence the Gospel according to his Principles Moreover the Doctor affirms consentaneous to the same Principle That Mans resisting and refusing to comply with the Gospel is the only reason of the difference of men that enjoy the Gospel that one is Converted and another not and not Grace any further than by graciously giving this power of willing to obey or power of not resisting the Gospel which is given also to those that are not Converted And he pretends that he yet keeps up the honour of Grace in Conversion by saying that though one mans chusing when others refuse to comply with the Gospel cometh only from the former well-disposedness of the man and his preceding willingness to do Gods Will which the other wanted yet this chusing the good when others refuse cannot be ascribed only to Free-will because this well-disposedness of the man proceeded from former preventing Grace Now cannot any man that is not of a forlorn understanding see that this doth not avoid the Consequence he pretends it doth avoid while he makes this preventing Grace the same or however no more than the Subsequent by holding that neither Preventing nor Subsequent Grace do any more towards Conversion than meerly give the power and do not in the least cause the well-disposedness of any man any further than meerly by giving a man a power so far to obey the Gospel as to be able to be wrought on to this well-disposedness which also was equally given to others And to hold that God did cause this Towardliness and good Disposition and Malleableness and Willingness to obey the Gospel which he so much insists on by doing for such men more than he did for others that have no such Temper wrought in them would be but at the most if so much a running the Controversy a little further by running a little way from the Anti-Remonstrant and then standing still and yeilding to him by
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
belong to this visible World but saith not a tittle concerning a Future life It excites us not to Piety with any promises of this sort but requires that we do its commands not adding any such promise to excite us Only saying Thou shalt live here a prosperous and fortunate life as appears Lev. 18. 5. but that place Gal. 3. 21. is most clear If there had been a Law which could have given life verily Righteousness should have been by that Law The Law is said to give or do what it promises The sense thereof is If the * Here He lays the fault on the Law and denies it virtually to be the fault of the Man unsaying what he had said before Law had had promises of life viz. Eternal then men could have attained by the Law true and perfect Righteousness or true and perfect Justification that is Justification conjoyned with Eternal life But the matter was far otherwise the Law contains only promises belonging to this Life Being no better supplied with proofs than with these out of the Apostle Paul he brings some out of the Author to the Hebrews and might have brought many more and clearer to shew that Author means by the Law the Law of Sacrifices which Sacrifices did only expiate Temporal guilt as real propitiatory Sacrifices and not at all guilt as to Eternal punishment but only Typified that which did Pag. 215. Quest Is there no promise of Eternal life extant in the Old Testament Answ Either you mean by the Old Testament the Covenant made in Mount Sinai or all things contained in Moses the Hagiography and the Prophets If taken in the latter sense it may perhaps be granted there are some not obscure hints of a Future life though not a clear and express Promise of Eternal life But these hints such as they were were only Praeludiums and Anticipations of Gospel-Grace They did not belong to the Law For the Law as it is considered by the Apostle in his Disputations with the Jews doth properly denote the Covenant made in Mount Sinai Gal. 4. 24. And that had earthly Promises and earthly only It is true indeed that those earthly Promises added to the Law of Works were signs of those good things which did follow the Law of the Spirit and those were comprehended in them in the intention of God himself It is also true that there are extant some general Promises or Promises made in general terms in the Law it self in which it is manifest that Eternal life not only might be but was contained in Gods Intention As I will be thy God and I will Bless you For who doubts but in these Promises thus generally pronounced there might be contained every sort of good things yea those which come only after Death For God to be willing to be one's God what is it else then God to be willing to embrace a man with Divine good Will Now Divine good Will or Benignity worthy of God What is it else than the highest Benignity and than which there can be no greater or further And therefore with a Benignity most long in duration that is Eternal most powerful in Operation and therefore freeing from Death and Destruction For it is manifest by the Interpretation of Christ himself and his Apostles that Life-eternal in the Intention of God was comprehended in these words see Mat. 22. 31 32. Heb. 11. 16. 2 Cor. 6. 16 17 18. compared with Chap. 7. 1. Rev. 21. 3. 7. But these things do not suffice that we may say that Life-eternal was promised in the Mosaic-Covenant For Promises annexed to a Covenant ought to be clear and express and such as may be understood by either Party but it was almost impossible that any one should understand these Typical and general Promises without some adventitious Interpretation Again this Eternallife shadowed with Types and comprehended in these general Promises was not given to the external Righteousness required in the Letter of the Law but to that spiritual Purity and Piety of which this other External was only a shadow For even as Eternal good things lay covered under the bark of Temporal good things so also the Bodily-Religion prescribed in the Law was a Shadow and Type of Spiritual-Righteousness to be revealed more clearly in the Gospel In a word the Law considered Carnally and according to the Letter neither required Spiritual-Righteousness nor promised Eternal-life but being considered Spiritually was the very Gospel it self neither doth the Apostle move any controversie about here it being so taken Pa. 232. He again largely tells us what Law it was that the Apostle only meant when he exclude's the Law and Works of the Law from Justification where denying the Spirit to be given by that Law he thus speaketh If by the Law you understand the Covenant made in Mount Sinai and given to the Israelites Moses being the Mediator which I have even now said is the most proper and genuine Acceptation and Notion of it in Paul's Epistles it is manifest it contained no Promise of the Holy Spirit But in other Books of the Old Testament yea and in the writings of Moses though not in the Mosaic-Covenant it self we may find a Promise cleer enough of giving the Grace of the Holy Spirit to the Israelites as that Deut. 30. 6. The Lord thy God shall circumcise thy heart and the heart of thy Seed to love the Lord thy God with all thy heart c. Now this cannot be done as all that differ from Pelagius confess without a great force of the Holy Ghost But this did belong to the Gospel-Righteousness which first Moses himself and after other Prophets did shew to lie under the Bark of the external Rites and Ceremonies for the Righteousness of Faith which is manifested in the Gospel was in times past testified by the Law and the Prophets as the Apostle expresly affirms Rom. 3. 21. Yea I will shew you further that this was part of the New Testament promulgated by Moses For that the Covenant made with the Jews Deut. 29. and 30. in which these words are found was plainly distinct from the Covenant made in Mount Sinai and also doth contain a Renewing of the Covenant made with Abraham that is of the Gospel-covenant then more obscurely Revealed may be Demonstrated by many Arguments First It is expresly said Deut. 29. 1. that the words which there * It is not said the words which follow I rather think that the Expression these are the words of the covenant meaning the laws or Precepts of the Covenant hath reference to the Laws before recited in this Book of Deuteronomy rather than to the words following in this Chapter And that this Verse if a right division had been made should rather have ended the former Chapter than have begun this follow were words of the Covenant which the Lord commanded Moses to make with the Children of Israrael in the Land of Moab besides the Covenant which he made with
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
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