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
them in Horeb They weakly trifle who here understand * Such an Interpretation is not so weak and trifling but had I no other evasion I would fly to it rather than affirm here as this Author doth a new Covenant on Gods part having quite different Precepts Promises and Threats a renewing of the Covenant made in Mount Sinai and do contradict the most plain words of the Text. Neither can the words of the Covenant made in Mount Sinai repeated and renewed in any sense be called the words of the Covenant which God made besides that he had made in Sinai Secondly It is expresly said * It is only said That he might be to them a God as he promised them meaning from Mount Sinai and also had sworn it before to Abraham c. as appears Lev. 26. 45 46. and from many other places Exod. 19. 5 6. Deut. 26. 15. 18 19. that this Covenant is altogether the same with that which God made and confirmed by Oath with the Israelites Ancestors to wit with Abraham Isaac and Jacob v. 12 13. which Covenant was the very Gospel something obscurely revealed as Paul saith Gal. 3. 16 17. Thirdly Paul cites some words of this Covenant as words of the * So Paul doth cite these words Lev. 26. 12. I will walk among you and will be your God and you shall be my people which words weâ—e spoken at Mount Sinai as appears by v. 46. as a Gospel-promise as indeed they were 2 Cor. 6. 16. and begins the following Chapter thus Having these Promises let us cleanse our selves c. Gospel-covenant which holds forth the Righteousness of Faith see Rom. 10. 6. c. compared with Deut. 30. 11. I am not ignorant that some determine these words to be accommodated to the Righteousness of Faith only by way allusion But I cannot believe them since Paul manifestly alledges these words as the very words of the Righteousness of Faith that is as the very words of the Gospel-covenant in which this Righteousness is revealed And that I may confess the truth I have always esteemed these Allusions to which some flie as to the holy Asylum or Sanctuary of their Ignorance for the most part to be nothing else then manifest abuses of the Holy Scripture Fourthly All the things contained in this Covenant do wonderfully fit or agree to the Gospel 1. As for the Precepts there are only commanded here * There are no particular Laws recited not so much as the Ten Commandments in these two chapters which he will have to contain this whole Covenant things belonging to Manners and which are in their own nature Honest there being no mention here made of those Rites whereof the whole Legal-covenant is almost full which being considered according to the words may seem childish and further the whole obedience which is here required may be †So may equally all Covenanted by the people at Mount Sinai or required of them by God referred to a sincere and diligent endeavour to obey God in all things Chap. 30. 10. 16. 20. 2. As for the Promises God here promises full Remission of all sins upon Repentance even of the most ‖ So he doth as fully from Mount Sinai Lev. 26. 40 41. heinous Cap. 30. 1 2 3 4. which favour was never granted in the Legal covenant And further the Grace of the Holy Ghost whereby the hearts of men may be circumcised that they may love the Lord with all their hearts and souls is clearly promised v. 6. How far is this from the usual vein of Moses writings Fifthly That Covenant which Jeremiah foretold Jer. 31. 31 32. c. was a Gospel-covenant as all Christians grant and the Author to the Hebrews expresly teacheth Heb. 8. 8. Now all those things which the Prophet foretels of that Covenant do †Allusions being too much built on may be Illusions exactly answer to this Moabitish-covenant Jeremiah calls his Covenant a new Covenant altogether different from that which God plighted with the Ancestors of Israel going out of Egypt Moses saith the same of the Moabitish-covenant Jeremiah gives this cause why God would make a new Covenant viz. because they brake the Old wanting Gods powerful Grace The same reason Moses gives here of making this new Covenant Deut. 29. 4. Jeremiah's promised circumcision of heart so this That promised Remission of sins Jer. 31. 34. So this Deut. 30. 1 2 c. Jeremiah speaks of the clearness and facility of the Precepts which are contained in the New-covenant that they might know and obey them without much search and labour So doth Moses Deut. 30. 11 12. compared with Romans 10. 6. All these things seem very clear to me I have dwelt something long upon these things Both that it may be manifest hence that all things in the Mosaic-writings do not belong to the Mosaic-Covenant properly so called And to shew how necessary it is to restrain the old Law properly so called only to the Covenant made in Mount Sinai And also chiefly that the Wisdom of God might appear in dispencing the Covenant of Grace God had made that gracious Covenant with Abraham many years before the giving of the Law to which Covenant it afterwards pleased him to add another Covenant made up of many painful Rites and Ceremonies by which he might keep in their Duty that is restrain from the Idolatrous-worship of the Heathen the rude and carnal posterity of Abraham lately brought out of Aegypt and so too much addicted to Paganish Rites and Superstitions But the most wise God foreseeing that this People of a foolish or hard-heart obtusi pectoris would not understand his purpose after he had made this carnal Law He commanded Moses that he should promulgate a New-covenant to the Israelites or rather that he should renew that Old-covenant which he many years before had made with Abraham which did chiefly require spiritual Righteousness and was full of Grace and Mercy That from hence the Jews might know that the Abrahamatical-covenant was yet in force even after the Ritual-Law was made and also was to be accounted for the Covenant by which only their Salvation was to be attained see Gal. 3. 17. Who would not here cry out with the Apostle Oâ— the depth of the Riches and Wisdom and Knowledg of God! Since this here recited hath some dark shew of proof I shall before I go any further manifest that the Author is notoriously mistaken in affirming that the Covenant made in the Land of Moab was not the same for substance repeated with that made at Horeb or Mount Sinai but a Covenant having quite different Promises and Precepts the one carnal and earthly the other Spiritual and Heavenly and also in thinking that these two Chapters 29th and 30th comprehended the whole Covenant made in the Land of Moab Let these things be considered A Covenant in the strictest propriety of the Word is a mutual Engagement of Parties two at the least
Pâ—scaâ—or interpreting the words beside the Covenant thus Praeter actionem illam qua foedus fuit pactum which can mean nothing but the peoples Engagement which actual promise of the people the Lord commanded Moses to make with the children of Israel that is which the Lord commanded Moses to cause the children of Israel to make for so this phrase and word is expresly used Josh 24. 25. Joshuah made a Covenant with the people that day that is caused the people to promise obedience to the Lords Commands that day The like sense the word hath so far as concerns the Covenanting of the people 2 Kings 11. 17. in the Land of Moab beside the Covenant that is beside their actual promising which Moses made with them that is caused them to make at Horeb or Sinai But suppose this Verse should have reference only to the following Verses in this Chapter and the following his meaning can only be These are the words whereby he engaged the people in a Covenant distinct from the words whereby Moses engaged them in a Covenant to the Lord formerly We find Joshuah a little before his death again engaging the people in a Covenant to obey Gods Commandments and useth Words and Exhortations different from these in this Chapter in engaging them Suppose we had read such words as these viz. These are the words of the Covenant which Joshuah made with the people besides the Covenant which Moses made with them at Mount Sinai and in the Land of Moab This might import that it was a distinct Engaging of the people from the other two but not that it was another Covenant of God having other Promises and Commands and Threats We find the people in Nehemiah's time Nehem. 10. 29. entering into a Covenant But it was into the Mount Sinai-Covenant It was to walk in God's Law which was given by Moses and we may see there it was also to observe Ceremonial and Judicial commands It seems they had not observed this New-covenant of this Authors in these two Chapters of Deuteronomy Object But may not this whole Book of Deuteronomy being spoken in the Land of Moab comprehend a new Gospel-Covenant distinct from the Old at Sinai and so that be serviceable to reconcile those passages of the Apostle Paul in dispute the Author's way Answ No For the Apostle Paul cites Gal. 3. two Passages out of this Book for words of the Law And again There are by far more Promises and Threatnings in this Book expressed in a Carnal Temporal and Terrence stile than in all the Law of Moses beside in Exodus Leviti Numb I am sensible this Ignis fatuus hath led me out of my designed way for I designed here only to bring in those Passages together without any reflection upon them where the Author tells us what he supposes the Apostle Paul means by the Law which he disputes against Justification by and by the Works of even a Law that either hath or at least in the sense the Apostle opposeth Justification by it hath neither Spiritual-promises nor Threatnings nor Precepts There is only one place more and that is pag. 122 123. where he explains the Apostle's meaning by the Law but because I have been long in Reciting these and that wâ—ll methodically be brought in in another place I shall bring it in there and so shall return now to the place where I left off viz. At the end of pag. 102. and shall begin at the top of pag. 103. where he tells us The Apostle useth two Arguments against Justification by Works which two Arguments this Author only prosecutes and so largely that the Setting down and Proving and Explaining these takes up almost two third parts of his whole Book Take his own words Pag 103. The Arguments whereby Paul opposes the Law may be divided into two sorts one into those which belong to the whole Mosaic-Covenant the other into those Arguments which chiefly respect the Ceremonial Law This latter sort of Arguments which chiefly respect the Ceremonial-Law he leaves till near the end of his Book and then spends but few Lines about them as not being as he saith controverted by Christians The Arguments of this first sort whereby the Apostle fights are especially two and those are taken from a double defect of the Mosaic-Covenant viz. From the want both of pardoning Grace and of helping Grace The first Argument of the Apostle respecting the Mosaic-Covenant is drawn from the defect of Pardoning-grace or Remission of sins which that Covenant wanted Where the Apostle shews the Universal guilt as well of the Jews as of the Gentiles and that all are guilty of those sins that there is no true and perfect Remission to be hoped for by this Law It is clear that this is the scope of Paul in the third Chapter of the Epistle to the Romans For there after a long Catalogue of sins charged both on the Jews and Gentiles by the Law v. 10. c. At length ver 20. he inferrs this conclusion Wherefore by the works of the Law shall no flesh be justified in his sight viz. in the sight of God And also the things which the Apostle disputes in the 3d. Chap. of Gal. are to be referred the same way where he proves also by this Reason That all who are under the Law are under a Curse because it is written Cursed is every one that shall not continue in all things written in the Law to do them v. 10. But here I am sensible that upon the very Threshold I am cast upon a great difficulty For it may be doubted here whether this Argumentation of the Apostle doth not lean upon this Foundation that he determines The Mosaic-Law as it was given to the Jews was a Law requiring Obedience wholly perfect and so impossible to be performed and also whether the Apostle conclude that upon this account all men are sinners by this Law and by and for their sins guilty of eternal Death and Malediction and so that no man can be Justified by this Law Thus indeed the most think affirming that the Law of Moses did oblige if not absolutely yet †Conditionally is no good word here For though we may properly say Men shall perish for their sins conditionally except they repent for this is no more than to say the Law that threatens death absolutely shall be executed except they repent yet we must not say that the Law threatens death conditionally except they repent but we must hold it threatens death absolutely repent or repent not and that the Gospel is a distinct Law a Remedying-Law For if God threatned death by the Law only conditionally except they perform the Gospel-condition it would follow that no man is pardoned that performs the Gospel condition it would also quite destroy Christs Satisfaction Though I know many mean well that use such speeches and however far better than the Author that denies any such Law-threat either absolute or conditional conditionally
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
on verbatim thus But how doth the Apostle gather this Pag. 264. from the words cited I answer Some think that this Argument is placed in the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was accounted or imputed as if the word signified graciously accepting or accounting according to Grace and Favour and that it signifies accounting or rewarding according to Debt either never or very Improperly Whence Erasmus Interpreteth the word acceptum fert adding Est autem acceptum ferre pro accepto habere quod non acceperis quae apud Jureconsultos nifallor vocatur acceptilatio That is the word imputed it self signifies such a Law acceptation as when one grants he hath received a thing and acquits as if he had received it when indeed he hath not received it Many most learned Pag 265. Interpreters follow this Interpretation of Erasmus thus forming the Apostles Argument If the reward had been given to Abraham of debt it would not have been said God Imputed Righteousness unto him For Imputation denotes gracious and free Donation But the Scripture saith God Imputed Righteousness to Abraham Ergo c. But this Interpretation doth not please me since it is manifest from the Scriptures that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 used in the Old Testament and also the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 used by the Apostle in the Greek and which answereth to the Hebrew word are used concerning the Imputation of a thing to or for sin 2 Sam. 19. 19. which every one will grant is Imputation in Justice yea and the same word often signifies in Scripture a true and just Estimation and Judgment of a thing Deut. 2. 11 20. And it is too manifest that the Apostle himself in the very next verse ver 4. uses this very word for rewarding according to debt Therefore this Argument of the Apostle whereby he infers from the Text cited that the Justification of Abraham was meerly Gracious cannot lean upon the naked signification of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is Accounted or Imputed or Reckoned Since this Objection hath a colourable shew and the right Interpretation of this Chapter Rom. 4. doth depend wholly upon it as I have shewed in a short Discourse of the Apostles meaning and since many Learned men are perplexed so with this difficulty as to be driven to Interpret this place otherwise than right thinking the very word doth not signifie Accounting of Grace and Favour and so that the Apostle's Argument cannot lean on this word And since none that I know of have attempted to Answer it I shall speak largely in Answer to this that I may speak satisfactorily I know the Hebrew and Greek words in dispute are Polysema have divers significations just as the English word Account also hath For they signifie properly and in the first sense meerly the immanent Acts of the Understanding as to Think Esteem as also the immanent acts of valewing computing Sums together devising inventing though not so primarily Now when these words are used in this sense they may be according to the reality and truth of things or not according to the reality or truth of things If there be an Accounting or Esteeming in this sense not according to the reality and truth of things it is an errour of the Understanding and a fault or weakness though it can neither be an Act of Kindness or Severity and so cannot be ascribed to God his Judgment and counting and valuation in this sense being always according as things are But the words cannot have this proper sense here as is apparent for imputing Righteousness is either an Act of Mercy or Justice For Acts of Justice and Mercy belong not to the Understanding nor are Acts of that for they proceed from the Will and are not neither meer immanent Acts of the Will but transient Acts proceeding from it and caused by it Therefore let this proper and most common use of the words pass as not capable of being meant in such Speeches Sometime these words are used not for Acts of the Understanding as I said But for the Rectoral transient Acts of Rewarding or Punishing of dealing Kindly or Severely Graciously or Justly For these words when used of such transient Acts are capable of either of these significations and which of the significations they have in particular places is known readily by seeing whether it be some good or evil that is reckned or imputed or whether it be some good or evil thing that is not reckned or not Imputed But let these words when used in this Rectoral Law-sense be used in whether of the senses they will viz. of doing Justly or Mercifully Severely or Graciously yet this is true of them that they always signifie the accounting or imputing something that is not in reality the thing that it is accounted or imputed for but only by a kind of Law Construction or Acceptilation or the not accounting or not imputing the thing that is that in reality which it is not accounted or not imputed for Now if this be true which I shall after make appear by producing all the places of Scripture where the word is used in any sense different from a meer Act of the Understanding then it follows that when ever we read of Imputing or accounting to a man a thing that is a good thing as here Righteousness or Reward then it is an act of Grace or Law acceptilation and kindness and that God might justly have done otherwise because the word Implys a man had not that Righteousness that perfect Innocency that was accounted to him And also when ever we read of God's not Imputing or not accounting that which is evil to a man as Sin Iniquity then it was an act of Kindness or Grace because the very word Implys the man had that sin had done that evil that was not accounted to him Now to make it appear that these words when they do not signifie a meer immanent Act of the understanding but are used in the sense of doing good or evil kindly or severely yet they always signifie the accounting something that is not or not accounting something that is the thing respectively as I have said First Let these Scriptures be considered wherein the words are used in the Penal or Inimical sense and not in the Benigne rewarding favourable sense Lev. 7. 18. Where speaking of a mans Peace-offering It is commanded that he eat all he eats of it in two days and burn the rest with fire If any of it be eaten by the man on the third day the Offering shall not be accepted neither shall it be imputed to him that offereth it That is though he did offer indeed this Offering yet this Offering for an offence committed three days after shall be null and void for any benefit coming to the man by it even as if he had not offered it at all not that Godwill account that in reality he did not offer it So Lev. 17. 4. If any man kill
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
all that you do v. 10. You stand here this day all of you before the Lord your God your Captains your Elders your little Ones your Wives that you should enter into Covenant with the Lord thy God and into his Oath which the Lord maketh with thee this day that he may Establish thee to day for a people to himself that He may be unto thee a God as he hath sworn unto thy Fathers Abraham Isaac and Jacob i. e. to give their Seed this good Land And tells them If they forsake God and God bring on this Land the curse of the Covenant written in the Book of this Law and make it like Sodom and Gomorrah and men shall say What means the heat of this great Anger It shall be answered Because they have forsaken the Covenant of the Lord God of their Fathers which He made with their Fathers when he brought them out of the Land of Egypt that is which he made almost Forty years since with the Fathers of this Generation at Sinai v. 21 25. And He spends the next Chapter which the Author makes part of his New-covenant partly in telling them God would when cast out of their Land for their sins yet admit them again to it if they repent and turn as He told them before also what ever this Author saith of that admitting no Repentance as you may see apparent Lev. 26. 40 41 44 45 46. Yea this place of Leviticus which is said expresly to be spoken at Sinai v. 64. is rather more express for Repentance being accepted than this the Author so much insists on And partly in telling them that he hath told them plainly what the Laws of God are which if they observe they shall live and need not go beyond the Sea to enquire what they may do to be happy and partly in warning them to keep these Laws The whole contents of this Book of Deuteronomy to the end of this Thirtieth Chapter was not only spoken to the people within a Month before his Death which is apparent but it is very probable within a few of the first days of the Month the latter part of the Month being taken up with his writing it Chap. 31. 9. And giving a charge to the Priests and Levites and in his presenting himself with Joshuah before the Lord in the Tabernacle that God might give Joshuah a charge Chap. 31. 9 10 14 15. and in Speaking and Writing the Song called Moses Song and teaching the people it v. 22. And in blessing the people Chap. 33. And observe This Deuteronomy this Fare-well Speach of Moses all of it however to the 29th Chapter was when Moses had written it given to the Priests with a command that it should be Read in the hearing of the people met together every Seventh year as being very sutably Pen'd for their Instruction Chap. 31. 9 10 11 12 13. And it is commanded that when they should have a King that he shall in the beginning of his Reign Write out a Copy of this Book Chap. 17. 18. The last Chapter of this Book was added by some other than Moses as is apparent It 's likely by Joshuah You see now there is no colour to pretend that the Covenant spoken of Deut. 39. 1. means only that Chapter and the following much less that these Two Chapters only of all Moses writings have only Spiritual commands and Spiritual promises and give way and make Promises to Repentance For as for the Spirituality of the Laws in this Chapter it doth not Recite the Laws they were here engaged to obey not so much as the Ten Commandments whereof some are sure Spiritual commands and the sincere observing of them is certainly the condition of the Gospel but shew plainly This Covenant obliges them to keep all the Laws given at Mount Sinai And for the Promises and Threatnings they are expressed in as Terrene Expressions here as in most other places And as for this of Repentance see Lev. 26. 40. When they shall be in Ages to come almost destroyed with Judgments threatned for their sins if they shall confess their Iniquities and the Iniquities of their Fathers v. 41. And if their uncircumcised heart be humbled and they then accept the punishment of their Iniquities I will not cast them away but will remember their Land v. 45. I will for their sakes remember the Covenant of their Ancestors whom I brought forth out of the Land of Egypt that is This at Sinai for none other of their Ancestors were brought out of the Land of Egypt v. 46. These are the Statutes and Judgments and Laws which the Lord made between him and the children of Israel in Mount Sinai So Deut. 4. 29. If ye shall be scattered for your sins amongst the Heathen being driven out of your own Land and shall there serve other Gods of Wood and Stone If from thence thou shalt seek the Lord thy God thou shalt find him if thou seek him with all thy heart and with all thy soul v. 31. For the Lord thy God is a merciful God Exod. 34. 6. He proclaimed himself thus from Sinai The Lord the Lord gracious and merciful forgiving Iniquity Transgression and Sin c. As for Deuteronomy 29. 1. These are the words of the Covenant which the Lord commanded Moses to make with the Children of Israel in the Land of Moab beside the Covenant which he made with them in Horeb It seems apparent to me that this verse hath reference to the Laws and Precepts before Recited by Moses in his past Oration to the people and the meaning of the words is this These fore-Recited Commands are the Laws which the people covenanted to keep which covenanting of the people the Lord commanded Moses to require from them in the Land of Moab beside that covenanting which Moses required from the people in Horeb. Which I will make plain in Reciting these words again with the sense they are used in in other Scriptures These are the words that is the Laws or Precepts for so words is used apparently v. 9. and 2 Kings 23. 3. Deut. 27. 26. Exod. 24. 28. So also the Ten Commandments are called the Ten-words Deut. 4. 13. and Chap. 10. 4. And the Words Exod. 20. 1. of the Covenant By Covenant is here meant the peoples promise to obey the peoples actual Engagement so the word Covenant is used 2 Kings 12. 17. and Chap. 23. 3. and 2 Chro. 15. 12. which that is which Covenant which actual Promise not which words for that the Hebrew word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 used appropriately for making a Covenant will by no means bear So that it is an apparent Errour in the Septuagint to read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 refering to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The meaning is * I had written this before Mr. Pool's Elabâ—â—tate and useful Synopsis was published and upon â—eading the Criâ—icks and some others could find none concurring with me but now in his Book I find
the failing in not doing works of Super-erogation cannot be pardoned nor need Christs satisfaction It is but casting a Mist before the Readers Eyes so often to put in the word Eternal-death saying they do not deserve Eternal death Will he grant that God may justly punish such sins with Temporal death or any Temporal punishment I see he will not His Opinion and his and Episcopius's Argument that God cannot justly require what men cannot do areas much against their deserving any punishment at all If God do not as he affirms require them by any Law to be free from such sins then they are not sins nor deserve any Penalty It would then be Injustice in God to make any mans finger or tooth to ake for them Whereas the Popish Schoolmen themselves do grant that they do deserve Temporal punishment Though the Scripture indeed allows no ground for any such distinction but either threatens and be sure it would not threaten what sin doth not deserve death yea Eternal death or nothing The wages of Sin is death the Sting of death is Sin and the strength of Sin the Law And Cursed is he that continues not in all c. Which curse the Author as you will after see affirms to signifie Eternal wrath But to go on with his words The other thing which the Apostle supposes in his Argument is this viz. That there was no true and perfect Remission of Sins or deliverance from Divine Anger or Eternal death due to sins promised in the Mosaic-Law It is manifest enough the Apostle had respect to this ver the 20th of the foresaid Chapter viz. Rom. 3. Where having drawn his Conclusion only from the first Hypothesis viz. that all are guilty he presently subjoyns this other without which his whole Argumentation would have been infirm in these words For by the Law is the knowledg of Sin Which sentence is without doubt to be understood exclusively thus By the Law is only the * Methinks This very place viz. Rom 3. 20 which this Author insists on to prove the Apostlâ— by the Law meant a Law having only Temporal threaâ—s and External commands should have convinced him that he meant by it a Law that had Future threats and Internal commands even the Law in the strict Conscience-senâ—eâ— since it is hard to imagine how there should be much conviction or knowledg of sin and its danger by a Law that had no Spiritual or Internal commands nor Future-life-threats And the Apostle's Argument here is this viz. We cannot be justified as innocent by the Law that conviâ—â—ces us we are sinners knowledg of sin and not Remission Now I said expresly that the Law of Moses did contain no true and perfect Remission of sins Because I well knew that there was given in the Law of Moses some kind of Pardon such a slender one as it was to Sins and that to voluntary and hainous sins For though the Sins which were done by Pride notorious Rebellion or as the Scripture speaks with a high-hand could be expiated with no Sacrifices but were punished with death without Mercy or Pardon except the special Mercy of God did intervene as Numb 15. 25 26. is to be read Yet they are not all to be accounted amongst these sins as the most Learned †This is the common observation of Learned men Episcopius hath most highly well observed which are done voluntarily or are done Spontaneously or in some measure on purpose but they only which are done with an impious contempt of Gods Commands or with the stubbornness of a wilful mind And so they are They to which the Punishment of Death was appointed by God It is plain that they that think otherwise are in a manifest Errour as appear's from that that we see God appointed sacrifice for such sins as these viz. Not restoring a Pledg The taking away something from another by Force The denying of what one found of another's yea and that with an Oath Lev. 6. 2 3 4. Therefore there was granted Remission in the Mosaic-Law to hainous sins But what a kind of Remission Why External Civil Temporary and which belonged only to this Carnal life For the Law as it was an Instrument ordained for the Political Beatitude of civil Society did promise long Life to those who lived according to the Law Lev. 18. 5. and on the contrary did threaten violent death to the Transgressors of it as we learn out of Exod. 20. 7. But the highest Law-giver the merciful GOD that all the people might not be exstirpated with the punishments of their sinning appointed that some most atrocious offences indeed that did wage open war against the Life and civil Converse of men and this Political Theocracy or Government of God for the defence of which the Mosaical-Law was instituted such as Idolatry Murther Adultery c. should only be expiated with death But Sacrifices were slain for men unclean or defiled with Sins less hainous Therefore the Punishment of Temporary death which the men deserved was transferred upon a Beast Therefore the Mosaical Sacrifices did afford only a Carnal Redemption in as much as they did by Divine appointment free a man indeed from a violent and immature death but they did afford no remedy against death it self In a word they did not afford such Remission as is conjoyned with the giving of Eternal life There being no mention in the Law of Moses nor Promise made of it The divine Author to the Epistle to the Hebrews had respect to this Chap. 9. Where having spoken of the Sacrifices prescribed in the Law He denies they could make the Sacrificer perfect according to Conscience v. 8. that is Free the man from Internal and Eternal guilt of Sin in the sight of God but they availed only to the Purgation of the Flesh v. 13. that is That a man might be Externally freed from Punishment and Corporal death Then he brings in these places Heb. Chap. 7. 11. 19. Chap. 10. 1. Where it is affirmed The Law made nothing perfect and thus proceeds In which place by Perfection he chiefly understands Full and Perfect that is Eternal Absolution not only from leighter faults but from most hainous which he most deservedly denies to be afforded by the Law of Moses It cannot but be manifest to him that rightly understands these things wherefore it is that the Apostle denies Justification to the Law viz. Not because it requires perfect and so impossible Obedience as the condition of Justification but rather because it grants no Justification at all that is conjoyned with the Donation of Eternal life upon any condition whatsoever Out of these Premises therefore the Apostle at length draws his Conclusion viz. Neither Jews nor Gentiles which be comprehended under these words no Flesh can be justified by the Law of Moses in the sight of God Chap. 3. 20. Which words are added by way of Emphasis because he was to grant some kind of Justification by the Law
or War in any case though it was not unlawful by the Law of Nature or the Moral Law Secondly The Fathers give these two reasons for this their Opinion 1. Because Christ under the Gospel gives either higher or plainer Promises than he did before 2. Because he gives more grace now to perform them viz. the Commandments than before he had done The Law given by Moses was a Carnal Law that is weak not accompanied with strength to perform what it requires but the Gospel of Christ the Administration of the Spirit i. e. a means to Administer the Spirit to our hearts to enable us to do what he commands us to do As for the first Reason said to be the Fathers 1. I cannot see it's Cogency 2. The Heathens knew by the Light of Nature that Heart-adultery and Murther and that taking Gods Name in vain in Swearing customarily or Lusoriously or Idle were sins surely then the Jews had Light enough to make them inexcusable in these things before Christ's Sermon in the Mount and so such were sins in them And for Answer to the second Argument I can neither understand the Cogency nor the Consistency of it First It is apparent to me that men are not one jot the less obliged by the Law because of God's not giving them Grace to obey it because I do not think that giving the Natural ability to Obey is to be called giving Grace or an effect of Grace but of Justice so as men could not in Justice be obliged to obey the Law without it Secondly The Law of the Ten Commandments for that is it the Doctor speaks of and only pretends Christs addition to was not in the true Conscience-sense a Carnal Law but a Spiritual Rom. 7. Thirdly If the Jews had no strength to perform what this Law required it must be granted that they were not obliged by the Law to avoid Heart-sins and Thought-sins Fourthly Methinks this undo's all to give this as a Reason why the Jews were not forbidden such Inward-sins as are under Dispute viz. Because they had no ability to perform what the Law commanded For it is to grant the Law did command them to abstain from such things which this Argument is brought to prove it did not forbid till Christ made that Addition Thirdly The word Translated fulfil ver 17. Think not that I am come to destroy the Law or the Prophets I am not come to destroy but to fulfil them signifies to perfect and fill-up that which was imperfect before I Answer It cannot be denied but the word is used in divers significations But setting aside what other things may be opposed to that sense of the Word I shall only say this The surest way to know the sense of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to fulfil in this place is by the word here opposed to it which is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to dissolve or destroy the Law Now it is apparent that by Destroying is meant Enervating and Evacuating the Obligation of the Law by a too favourable Exposition which is called in the Verse following breaking the Commandment and teaching men so to do Therefore by the word fulfil must be meant to assert and maintain it's strictness and obligation to vindicate it from such evacuating Expositions The meaning of the Verse is Think not c. i. e. You will be deceived if you shall suppose that I am come to Teach as your Doctors that are in the greatest Repute do who make it their great business to gratifie you in making the Law to be of very little extent so as not to forbid Heart-sins but to alow those and many evil practices I am not come thus to dissolve the Law but to fulfil i. e. to vindicate it to it 's true sense from such Evacuating glosses Fourthly That these words you have heard signifies you have been taught out of the Books of Moses and It hath been said by them of old time should be read according as the Margent also of our Bibles translates them it hath been said to them of old time that is to the Jews your Ancestors by Moses Answer 1. The words may be read either it hath been said to them of old or by them of old without any inconvenience or alteration of the sense for if said by them of old then be sure to them of old and if it was said to the Ancients then by the Ancients 2. The meaning seems to be These Expositions of the Law have been taught you with a pretence of their †Calv. in Loc. Antiquity as being taught the Ancients by the Ancients i. e. that is some Generations since by Rabbie's 3. But that the meaning should be These things were taught you by Moses in the Ten Commandments But I now either add or oppose this Interpretation to what was the true former meaning seems wonderfully unlikely by this to say no more That this is not the usual phrase of Christ or his Apostles in citing Scripture viz. you have heard it hath been said neither is this †Calv. in Loc. manner of Speech or any akin to it ever used in this sense and therefore seems to be a way of citing Traditional Expositions When Christ citeth Scripture he useth to say You have read Mat. 12. 35. Mark 12. 26 Luk. 10. 26. Not as here You have heard And he useth to say It is written Mat. 4. 4 6 10. Luke 2. 23. and 10. 26. John 8. 17. Chap. 10. 38. Not as here It hath been said Fifthly In these words Except your righteousness exceed the righteousness of the Scribes and Pharisees that is which they think themselves obliged to and teach others that they are obliged to you cannot enter Sure Christ doth not pitch on the names of the Scribes and Pharisees as those that were the greatest Evacuators of the Law by their own hypocritical Practices or false Glosses in some particulars but as the most exact and learned Sect as those that sate in Moses Chair i. e. taught there truly the Doctrine of the Mosaical-Law in that manner as others were obliged to perform it Answer 1. Then Christ doth not bring in these Names here as he is wont to do for he useth to charge them with making void the Law through Traditions 2. It seems apparent he means by the Scribes and Pharisees the same that he doth by those that break the Commandments and teach others so to do 3. I grant they had generally the repute of the strictest Teachers and Livers as to External and less weighty matters of the Law but yet they generally are charged to make void the Law by their Lives and Doctrines as to Internal obedience and most weighty concernments Surely it is not all one as if he had said Except your righteousness exceed the righteousness of Moses Joshuah Samuel and David which they taught other and thought themselves and others obliged to you cannot enter which yet seems to be the Doctors meaning 4. The
people were to hear them and also to take heed how they heard and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees They were to embrace their Doctrine only so far as they sate in Moses Chair and taught Moses's Doctrine truly Sixthly Christ expresseth the saying opposed or added to by him in the very words of the Ten Commandments Therefore to say he speaks by way of Opposition and not of Addition would be to say he opposes the very Commandments Answer 1. He doth so only in one place of this Chapter viz. ver 27. Thou shalt not commit Adultery 2. Any one may yet perceive by his following Opposition what it is he meant by those words and what it is he opposed viz. Not the very Law or the true sense of the Law but that Exposition of the Law which laid the stress on the word commit as if it meant only commit with the outward Fact and forbad nothing else And it is apparent the Scribes and Pharisees so taught The Doctor giveth us another Argument taken from a saying of Saint John which carrieth so little evidence in my opinion that I would not have here set it down but that he seems to lay so great stress not only on this his Interpretation of Christs Words as being as he saith A foundation of a great and weighty Superstructure but also upon that Scripture as being as he saith a remarkable place to prove it The words are these 1 John 1. 5. God is Light and in him is no darkness at all The meaning whereof he saith is this That God is Light and in him is no Darkness at all in respect of his Law and Commandments the rule of mens lives and implies that these had before viz. Christ's teaching some indulgence for some sins and where they had not so yet they had some mixture of Imperfection but now they have none they had before some Vacuities in them which are now filled up by Christ Answer 1. I see no evidence or probability that this is the meaning of these words 2. We read The Law of the Lord is perfect i. e. without Imperfection and is Light i. e. without darkness and this was spoken of the Law before Christs Teaching 3. I cannot understand the consistency of these words That the Law and Commandments the Rule of mens lives had before Indulgence for some sins If no Law forbad them they were not sins or if it did not forbid them under the penalty of Future-death then they were not sins For I have I suppose made it appear it threatned Future death to all sins and else none were pardoned those sins as to Future death because they did need no such Pardon 4. Nor can I understand the words following That where the Law the Rule of mens lives did not allow Indulgence for some sins yet it had some mixture of Imperfection I cannot imagine how this appears for none will surely say it appears in this that it did not require some thing the Law now requires as Baptisme and the Lords Supper for that will no more prove the Law imperfect then then that the Law of God is now imperfect in not requiring circumcision whereas the Law did then as it doth now require all to obey whatsoever he should any way whatsoever command them and that under the penalty of Future-death 5. You may see by what hath been said That the Law not as referring to Conscience and Future-life but as the Jewish Common-wealth Law did allow or indulge some things that is so far as not to threaten violent death to them at all and so in this Common-wealth sense did not forbid such Practises at all which yet the Law in the most Important and Conscience sense did forbid and so were sins threatned with Future-death As for example The putting away a Wife for any cause and Heart-murther and Heart-adultery Also I have made apparent that the Scribes and Pharisees the Jewish Doctors taught and it was an Opinion ordinarily received amongst the Jews in the days of Christ and his Apostles that if men were but justi ad legem that is righteous so far as to be free from such things as Temporal death was by the Law of the Land remedilesly threatned to and had offered Sacrifice for such as the Law allowed it for they were either as righteous as any Law of God in the utmost rigour required them to be or however at the least as righteous as the Law of God in the indulgent Gospel-sense required them as necessary to their Future salvation And that Christ opposeth in this Chapter the common Jewish conceit taught by their Doctors And without doubt there was no Jew ever saved by that Law of Moses taken in the Gospel-sense as all good men that lived under it were that did not more than was required by that Law in the strictest sense as the Law of the Land threatning violent death to be Executed by the Magistrate As for example that did not love and fear God and endeavour inward Holiness and the repressing of the inward sins which the Law in the Political sense required not And again All saved by that Law did far less than was required by that Law as the Original strict Law under the penalty of Future-death For all saved were pardoned as to Future-death as to some Heart-sins which could not be if such sins were not Threatned with Future-death Now upon this false foundation viz. That the Law of God as to Conscience required no more than it required as the Law of the Land was without doubt built that Interpretation of the 18. ver of Psal 66. given by the Ancient famous Rabbi David Kimchi who upon the words which are these If I regard iniquity with my heart the Lord will not hear me gives this as the meaning viz. Though I shall see Iniquity in my heart which I am forward to execute in fact Though God do see it yet he will not hear it meaning he will not impute it to me for sin For God doth not charge a wicked Thought for a wicked Act except only a wicked Thought against the Faith and true Religion so as to worship Idols For this such Doctors did hold to be sin threatned with Future punishment though it proceeded not to the Fact but not any other wicked Thought or Intention And it seems apparent the Apostle Paul took the Law in this Vulgar sense when he saith Phil. 3. 6. He had been a Pharisee and touching the righteousness which is of the Law blameless That is he had lived without fault so far as the Law required in that sense wherein the most Jews then and he himself formerly being so taught by his Master Gamaliel understood it viz. in this external Political sense And though he had formerly accounted that perfect Obedience to the Law or however all required to his salvation yet now he looketh upon such Righteousness as insignificant as to Future salvation and understood the Law was truly
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