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
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
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
cordibus non minus quam manibus oculis loquutas est Reus erit judicio Hoc membrum confirmat quâ—d diximus vitium illud reprehendi quod lex Dei quae regendis animis tradita fuit in Politiam conversa erat Calv. in Loc. Doctors hence gathered and taught the people by this Argument that none else was threatned by the Law with Future punishment And so that the Commandment reached no further than to prohibit the External act under a Future penalty and that such speeches as Thou shalt not hate thy Brother in thy heart And Be not hasty in thy spirit to be angry Anger resteth in the bosome of Fools Eccles 7. 9. were but Counsels Now ver 22. Christ teacheth them the true meaning of the Law and since their Rabbies used the word the Judgment to signifie Future punishment he doth so too But I say unto you that he that is angry with his brother without a cause though his anger do not proceed so far as to kill him nor to any outward Expression is yet guilty of Murder in the sense of the Law and so obnoxious to the Future death signified by you to be due to the External act and meant by the Word the Judgment in the former Speech which primarily signifies putting to death with the Sword And he that shall proceed so much further in causless anger as to use only some lesser words of reproach as Racha shall be yet in danger of a greater punishment in the Future-life shall be in danger of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Council of the Jerusalem-Court of Seventy that is of a severer Future-death answerable to the Punishment which used to be inflicted by the Sanhedrim which word came from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 who ordinarily punished Offenders with stoning to death But whosoever shall though not kill his Brother yet proceed so far in wrath as to say thou fool i. e. to use the most Villifying and Approbrious expressions shall be punished hereafter with death * Christ's Speech could proceed no fuâ—ther in keeping to the Metaphor expresssing Future punishment by Jewish courts since no other but the two fore-mentioned inflicted the punishment of death And though it may be Objected that one of these Couâ—ts also put to death by burning however in two cases viz of a Priests daughter committing whoredom Lev. 21 9. And of a man lying with his Wives Mother Lev. 20. 14. Yet these were it is probable crimes seldom hapning so that the ordinary punishment of the highest Court was as it is commonly agreed Stoning And however this would no way have served to have carried on the begun Metaphor which expressed the Gradation of punishments by several Courts since this was a punishment by the same Court and rarely used Now since the Court of Judicature is put in this speech to signifie immediately the punishment of the Court it was most consentaneous to rational Speech to signifie by it the ordinary punishment of the Court And so he expresses the third Degree of Future punishment due to the third and greatest Offence mentioned by him by a burning to death in Tophet that was often used by the Jews to express Future punishment answerable to the being put to death with fire in the Valley of Hinnom which was a more cruel death than by the Sword or Stoning and the meaning of it well known to the Jews though no judicial death and used often by them and sometimes by the Scripture to signifie Future torments And the word should have been thus Translated viz. Shall be in danger of the fire of the Valley of Hinnom or Tophet For as it is Translated it is apt to minister a doubt to the Vulgar as if the two former sort of offences were not by Christ accounted to be threatned with Hell whereas had it been Translated according to the Words it would have been more easie and occasioned no such doubt the Judgment the Council the fire of Hinnom all equally signifying Future death and punishment and only here used to denote Degrees of punishment in Hell Yea and Christ here assigns as great a Future punishment to the least offence viz. Anger as they did to actual Murther Now it will appear to you no great unlikelyhood that the Jewish Doctors gave such a loose Interpretation of the Law if you consider that it is a growing Opinion at this day taught by some of our own Doctors as well as by Socinus that no more was commanded to the Jews however not under the penalty of Future death but only such External obedience And if perhaps there were any Commands in the Old Testament-Scriptures requiring such Internal obedience as is required by Christ in his Sermon on the Mount they were glimmerings of the Gospel and not Universally commanded to all under threat of Eternal punishment but only recommended to them that will do what is best Pract. Cat. pag. 141. Though now since Christs Sermon in the Mount they are acknowledged to be Commands which not to do is a sin and not only Counsels of Perfection which to do is to do better pag. 142. But Doctor Taylor if I can understand him holds that now no Law threatens Hell to the neglect of them but that they are yet Counsels left to a man's choice Unum Neces pag. 48 49. You may find this Opinion maintained by many who pretend that Christ's oppositions Mat. 5. to what hath been said by others were however in several of those sayings referring to the Ten Commandments really Additions to the Law and not vindications of the right true sense of it against false Flesh-pleasing expositions And that the Law till Christ made those Additions to it in his Sermon in the Mount did not as a Law require any however not with any Threat of Future punishment to abstain from Heart-Adultery or Heart-Murder provided it proceeded not to the External fact Now I look upon my self as bound here to answer the Arguments for that Opinion viz. That that is a true notion of the Jewish Law as referring to Conscience and the Future life-state For if this be so All that I here speak thus largely and make apparent chiefly from this Chapter which you will at last I hope see the necessity of for the Interpreting many Scriptures of the New Testament that speak derogatory to the Law will fall to the ground The strongest Arguments by which they prove their Opinion are such as these Pract. Catech. pag. 136. First The most of the Fathers especially of the Greeks before St. Austines time so held Answ 1. I could easily I think make it appear that the most of them held the contrary 2. The most of the Citations produced may be made appear either not to prove that to be their Opinion but are capable of another Construction or they might be forced to that Exposition to maintain now-acknowledged Errours frequent in those days as that it is unlawful under the Gospel to Swear
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
whatsoever required more than men have the Natural ability to do And also passing by his mentioning of it as a defect in Moses Law and the Law of Nature that they gave no ability to perform what they required Whereas every Law supposeth ability to obey it or it could not be a Law or Obligatory and therefore no Law giveeth or promiseth the proper Ability to obey it self I say setting these things aside I shall only mind you how Inconsistent with themselves as well as with one another both these Arguments are which he pretends are the Apostles two main if not only Arguments against Justification by Works of the Law of Moses I have shewed before in speaking to it the Inconsistency of the first Argument with it self which he saith leaneth on two Foundations viz. 1. That all men are guilty of great sins so that they cannot be Justified as to Conscience by the Law of Moses 2. That the Law of Moses promised no Justification as to Conscience on any terms whatsoever whereas one of these can only possibly be a reason why they were not Justified by the Law of Moses For if that Law promised no Justification on any terms whatsoever then their being sinners can be no reason why they were not Justified by that Law And again if their sins were the reason why they were not Justified by the Law of Moses then the Law did promise Justification to them on condition of their being free from such sins So this second Argument which he ascribes to the Apostle viz. That none could be Justified by the Law of Moses because of two Internal defects of the Law which are that it had no promise of Future-life Justification and that they had no ability to do the things it required for their Future-life Justification labours with the same 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For if they had no ability to do the things it required for their Future-life Justification then their disability was the only cause of their not being Justified by that Law and not the Laws not promising it And again if the Laws not promising it was the reason why they could not attain Future-life Justification by that Law then their disability to perform what it required could be no cause of their not being Justified by it If any should reply their disability was the cause why they could not perform true Piety which true Piety was required by some other Law for their Future-life Justification Setting aside the Illogicalness and Incoherency of Discourse which this would fasten on the Apostle in many particulars I will only ask one so replying By what Law was true Piety required of them This Author tells us by the consequence though possibly not expresly it was not required by the Law of Moses or Nature neither of them as he saith promising Future happiness and both being purely destitute of those helps whereby men might be drawn to true Piety and consequently by his Argument none were bound to true Piety by them If it shall be answered according to this Author and some others that true Piety was only required by the Gospel I have said enough against this already in shewing this Opinion would inevitably destroy Christs satisfaction for any though Partial or Temporary defect of true Piety I shall further ask Had the Jews under the Law of Moses this Gospel that required true Piety Or had they it not If they had not this Gospel either they then had ability to perform the true Piety required or had not If they had ability to perform it then they had no need of this Law of Moses to promise Future-life Justification or to give them ability for true Piety If they had no ability to perform true Piety which the Gospel required of them This is to say the Gospel required of the Jews what they had in no sense any ability to do which this Author denies as well he may taking Ability in the strictest sense any Law of God to require Yet this Author here forgetting himself I suppose hath run himself into such straits in affirming the Jews could not perform true Piety without the Spirit and that this Spirit was denied them which is to say they could not at all perform true Piety That he must grant this of the Gospel or some Law that it required what they had in no sense any ability to do which without doubt is false or he must deny that God required any true Piety of them by any Law whatsoever which Evasion I suppose he will not make use of From the whole Series of the Apostles Disputation it is made manifest that he only rejects such works from Justification which if admitted may seem to yield to men matter of glorying and boasting themselves before God Rom. 3. 27. and 4. 2. Ephes 2. 9. And who doth not see that that can only be spoken of Works which men do by their own ability without the help of Grace For it is manifest that the Works which men perform through the assistance of Grace are owing to God and their glory redounds to Him as the highest and chiefest Author These good Works which we perform are not so much our Works as the Works of God himself in us And no man can rightly boast of that thing which he ows to God I shall ere long take notice of this Pag. 271. Since Abraham in the 4th Chapter to the Romans is considered by Paul as the Father of the Faithful and the great Exemplar of the Justification of all justified ones It is impossible but the speech of the Apostle concerning his Justification should give great light to this whole Dispute concerning Justification This is well observed therefore I shall diligently attend to this This Author begins to give largely the meaning of the first Verses of the fourth to the Romans pag. 264. which speak of Abraham's Justification And proceeds well for substance to ver 3. only he affirms that these words according to the flesh in the first Verse and by the Law in the second Verse which he grants do both signifie the same thing do signifie Works done by a mans own power that is without a promise of Future reward and without the help of Gods Spirit which I see no evidence of but have told you my thoughts that these words signifie perfect and unsinning Obedience or meritorious Works But now ver 3. For what saith the Scripture Abraham believed God and it was accounted or imputed to him for Righteousness Here saith he well This Citation of Scripture is brought to prove the words in the verse before viz. That Abraham in the business of Justification had nothing to boast of before God And the Apostle gathereth it thus That the reward was imputed to Abraham not of debt as a reward useth to be given to workers but of meer Grace And therefore Abraham had no cause to boast before God of any thing in the matter of his Justification Thus far well He goes
yielding that God by his Spirit doth more in Conversion than meerly give ability to the will to chuse or refuse and doth actually cause the difference And that the cause of to be ones thus differing from another is ascribed to some special Grace and Favour consisting in doing somthing for one he did not for the other and that unconditionately or without respect to any precedent less illness or more goodness of his which is the thing these Letters mainly oppose And if it appear that God doth thus in time it will readily be granted by him he decreed to do so from Eternity as appears fully by his Orthodox and judicious Letters annexed to these concerning Praescience And whereas he grants that if this well-disposedness of the man which he saith is the only reason of the Conversion of one enjoying the Gospel when others go on Unconverted was not wrought by Grace this would be to ascribe a mans Conversion so to Free-will as that it would be gâ—osly prejudicial to the Grace of God pag. 45. 58. Cannot any one see that this Concession was unwary and that he would presently have faln into this guilt had he answered without Tergiversation these Questions viz. Whether God did any more in order to the working in such a man this Malleableness of heart and willingness to obey than by giving him that ability to be wrought on by the Gospel into this good Temper which ability he also gave equally to others that were not so wrought on And whether Free-will then here did not so cause the difference as to be prejudicial to the Grace of God And why it would be more prejudicial to the Grace of God to ascribe mans Conversion to Free-will and the goodness of a mans Temper than to ascribe mans being made to use his own words Malleable and willing to obey God to mans Free-will and the goodness of a mans Temper Or if he will ascribe this Malleableness and willingness to obey to another Malleableness and willingness to obey and that to another Malleableness and willingness to obey and so forward why he may not as well candidly ascribe the first named Malleableness to Free-will as the last For since to ascribe any such effect to a special Favour and Work of God is the great thing opposed the making the difference must be ascribed to Free-will at last or to Chance or to Nothing Yet the Doctor saith That it is a posing Question to him to answer What exception can possibly be stated against this his Scheme and that he ascribes nothing to man himself but all the good a man doth to Supernatural Grace Yea he would seem pag. 52 53 56. with high words though of low Import to out-go his Lordship in extolling Grace charging him as over cautious in saying That in the Conversion of a sinner though Free-will co-operate yet the Grace of God had the main stroke and chiefest operation And would have it rather said and saith all the Remonstants herein concur with him That the Grace of God in Lapsed man is the one sole principle of Conversion Regeneration Repentance and every other Evangelical Virtue and all that can justly be attributed to our will in any of these is the obeying the Motions and making use of the Powers which are bestowed upon us by that Supernatural principle For saith he God's Spirit giveth us the power which all the good we do is imputable to And when we read of God's working in us to will and to do the meaning is he giveth us power to will and do But if this be the Opinion of the Doctor and all the Remonstrants as he saith here at least Implicitly it is viz. That obeying the Motions and making use of the Powers which God bestoweth upon men may justly be attributed to the Will so as not to any special operation of the Spirit he only giving us the Power and wholly leaving it to men to make use of it without doing any more by his Spirit to cause us to make use of it I shall say Sit anima mea cum contra-Remonstrantibus in this particular Though still I grant that in a sense though in a very remote sense he that giveth the Tallent or Power may be said to be the cause of the Improvement of it though yet in no other sense than by giving the Tallent or Power But why then do any pray God to cause them by his Spirit to improve their Tallent and make use of their power if he do no more than meerly give the Tallent or Power which he doth to all But if this be the Import of all these great words as apparently it is concerning Grace and Supernatural-grace given to all that enjoy the Gospel viz. That Supernatural-grace giveth them the very Power of Free-will or that Power call it what you will without which men could not be Inexcusable in not obeying the Gospel and God goeth no further by his Spirit with any in order to their Conversion and this Power doth all in Conversion and in causing the difference therefore Supernatural-grace doth all good and nothing is Imputable to the man in the whole work I say if this be the meaning it is an empty sound and exalts Gods special Grace and Kindness no more in and oblidges a man no more to special Thankfulness for the work of this Conversion than if it was said God by his Supernatural-grace made us Men endued us with Understanding and Will And man doth all in Improving the Gospel to his own Conversion therefore God doth all Or God by his common Providence causeth men to have Free-will and Free-will doth all therefore God doth all Neither doth it denote any more any more or less of Kindness in God or engage men any more or less to Thankfulness to say God by his ordinary Providence gave Free-will or the Power be it what it will without which he could not be Inexcusable in not obeying the Gospel than to say God by his Supernatural-grace gave Free-will or the Power aforesaid while it is only Free-will or the Power without which men could not sin in not obeying the Gospel that is said to be given either way Neither would it any more or less hinder a man's boasting That although he received the Power from God as others did yet that he differs from them or made good use of the Power he owes to himself and Free-will Neither would this be a Dispute of any Importance in Divinity to be determined whether Supernatural-grace caused this Power or common Providence though it would be a gross Impropriety to say Men could not sin without Supernatural-grace Yea it is all one as to Religious Concerns whether you call this Power the Remote and Fundamental Power to use the words of the Doctor and others or the Proximate power of Free-will while there is meant by it only that Power without which men that enjoy the Gospel could not sin or which is all one be Inexcusable in not