Gospel-condition the whole duty required for Salvation or the obedience of Faith And I judg thus much of it which is near one third part of the Book highly worth the Reading of any that have any other apprehensions of the meaning of James or that are not satisfied that the Apostle Paul by Faith means the whole necessary duty of a Christian But * Quantum mutatus ab illo Hectore qui redit exuvias indutus Achillis now when he begins at the 6th Chapter of the second Dissertation to tell positively what the Apostle Paul means by excluding Works of the Law from Justification and what he means by Works and by the Law The sense he fastens on the Apostle is quite remote from his meaning and would not only make the whole discourse of the Apostle about denying Justification by works a vain useless Speculation but also would bring in such intolerable Opinions as these following at least by evident consequence viz. First That no man sins while he lives a truly Christian life sincerely obedient to the Law and so needeth no pardon or Christ's satisfaction for such failings as are consistent with true Christianity Secondly That there is no such thing as pardon of sin possible as to Eternal punishment or punishment after this Life neither did Christ satisfie for the breach of any Law as to any Eternal punishment or punishment after this Life but onely for Temporal Not that I affirm that the Author holds this Opinion for it is apparent he holds the contrary but this follows by undeniable consequence from his discourse though he see it not but will deny this consequence Thirdly That there is no possible Argument against Popish perfection or meriting so far as to need no pardon from those passages in Pauls Epistles that deny Justification by Works but meerly such a vain useless Speculation as this That good Works done without knowledg of or respect to a future recompence of reward do not merit and works done by one that hath in no sense any ability to do them do not merit These four things following seem apparently to be the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the first great Mistakes and the occasion of all his * Yea these also seem to be the causes of the mistakes of many other very learned Authoâ—s much of his Judgment in the paâ—ticulars here endeavoured to be Rectified other mistakes of the Apostle Pauls sense in denying Justification by Works 1. His denying that there is any such thing as any Law of God setting the Gospel it self aside made with Mankind to this Tenour or Purport That he that doth not every thing that God requires of him whatsoever whether by the Light of Nature or the Writings of the Old and New Testament shall be subject to Eternal misery or misery after this Life and if men do all that God requires of them by any way making his will known they shall be eternally Happy or Happy after this Life but he thinks There is no Law of God that threatens future misery or promises future happiness but only the Gospel it self which is reveaed in the Old and New Testament And that any Law threatning future misery I mean after this Life or promising future Happiness is the Gospel it self whereby men alwayes were and are justified and saved Now to prove against this and that we must hold a Law threatning future and Eternal misery to all sinners and that all are condemned and none justified by this Law and that this Law is distinct and quite different from the Gospel let these things be considered 1. If there be no Law distinct from the Gospel threatning future misery or misery after this Life then Christ never satisfied for the future misery that was threatned to any never died to free any from the wrath to come from the eternal or future Curse of any such Law but only from a temporal Curse or Curse of this Life The consequence is apparent because he knows not what he says that should affirm that Christ was made under the Gospel to free us from the Curse of the Gospel for the Gospel either threatens nothing as many hold but I judg them to err or which is apparent it threatens nothing except to them that perform not its condition viz. To them that Believe not and Repent not in this Life and it is certain Christ died not to Redeem finally Impenitent Unbelievers Christ's Satisfaction was made to the Law and not to the Gospel to free them that perform not the condition of the Law viz. perfect Obedience but not to free them that perform not the condition of the Gospel There was indeed a satisfaction made to the Law that God might with Justice and Honour with safety to the Law make this Act of Oblivion this Law of Grace the Gospel Therefore surely that first Original-Law did threaten eternal death to sinners and not meerly Temporal punishment else there cannot possibly be any satisfaction for sin as to Eternal punishment at all because the first Law to which the satisfaction was made did not threaten it Suppose a Law in force that every Felon shall be sold to work in the Galleys and the King's Son paid a great price and by this obtained of the King this conditional Act of Oblivion to be made that if such Offenders will serve his Son in the Wars they should be Acquitted but if they shrink from such Service they shall die Here indeed was a price paid to free them from being Gally-slaves but none paid to free them from Death because the first Original Law that was transgressed by their Felony did not threaten Death but only Slavery And you cannot say that the price was paid to free them from the Penalty of the Law of Grace or Act of Oblivion which doth threaten Death but the satisfaction was made to the first Law only though indeed the Act of Oblivion or Remedying Law was made upon the account of the price paid in satisfaction for the breach of the first Law 2. If there be no Law threatning wrath to come or future misery but only the Gospel it self then no man can be pardoned or can need pardon by the Gospel or the Bloud of Christ as to the wrath to come for the Gospel affords no pardon to its transgressors that is to men continuing to death in Impenitency and Unbelief The Gospel indeed affords pardon to transgressors of the Law yea and to transgressors of the Commands of the New Testament so far as they are transgressions of the Law and threatned by that general Law Cursed is he that doth not all any way revealed to be his duty provided they perform the Gospel-conditions but the Gospel affords no pardon at all to them that fall under its curse by not performing the Gospel-condition Suppose a Law made threatning every Felon with Death and suppose a conditional Act of Oblivion or Remedying Law made that if the Felon read he shall not die
the Authour doth to say Any Law doth not require perfect Obedience for it is to say it doth not require all that it doth require We may indeed say the Gospel doth not require the perfect Obedience of another Law that is the whole condition of the Original Law which it was made to pardon our failure in because sincere Obedience only to that Original-Law was made the condition of it but it is impossible but the Gospel being a Law it is a Law of Grace commanding sincere obedience with a penalty of our otherwise not having the benefit offered by it I say it is impossible but that it should require perfect Obedience to what it doth require as it's condition whereon we shall attain the pardon offered by it and this condition is perfectly all that it doth require as a Remedying-Law or Act of Oblivion For if there be any thing that it doth not require of us so as we should lose the offered Pardon if we do not perform it this thing is not it's condition nor any part of it which is required that we might not so fall short Also as was demonstrated before No Law either doth or can remit any thing required by it self If a man fail in any thing required by the Gospel under the penalty of having no benefit by it he is Remediless Fourthly Another fundamental cause of his Mistake of the Apostle's sense is want of true notions about the Law of Moses which he thinks to be a Law that had only Temporal Promises and Threats and to be void of Spiritual and Internal commands and also that the Apostle only excludes it and its works from Justification Now because I know not of any that speak exactly and satisfactorily of the Law in the several Notions and Acceptations of it nor in all things * I mean not rightly only because not comprehensibly enough so as to include all the senses of it here to be mentioned rightly however not in my judgment which in this may possibly differ from all others I think it needful to speak here something largely and distinctly of it not to destroy the Author's Opinion about the Apostle's sense since that may be done in few words but that I may lay a foundation for the right understanding not only of the passages of the Apostles in debate but other passages also of this Apostle and of the Authour to the Hebrews respecting the Law where they take it in a different sense from that wherein it is mainly taken in the places now in dispute My thoughts are these The Law of Moses or Old Testament-dispensation may be considered as to Temporal respects only or as to Conscience or Life-to-come Concernments And first to speak of it as to Temporal concernments only it may in this respect be considered either strictly or as affording pardon 1. The Law of Moses may be considered as to Temporal respects in its utmost exacting Rigour I mean in its utmost Rigour threatning Temporal Punishments as Dearth or Barrenness to their Land and by that Calamity to the Community as also by Pestilence and Banishment out of their Land to be executed by God And as the Instrument of the Jewish Polity or Common-wealth for they had no other Temporal-Law of their Land threatning violent and untimely Death to all * It threatnâ—d as the Common-wealth-Law this violent death to every external visible Breach whether Omissiâ—n or Commâ—ssion of every express Law either Mâ—ral Judicial or Ceremâ—nial This appears plain enough â—y that Sanction Cursed is every one that continues not in all things c. The penalty was threatned to every Transgressâ—â— and what this penalty was appâ—aâ—s by its contrary the Life promised to the Obedient which all will grant to contain temporal Life But it most undeniably appeaâ—s by that of a Beast's blood being offered in stead of the offender's I do not think it threatned as the Câ—â—mâ—n-wealth-law this death to a breach in thought or will with us any visible I mean by this word that may bâ— seen or Externally perceived if any man was by to perceive it external Omâ—ssion or Câ—mmission nor to a not-express but only by remote consequence implied breach nor was the Magistrate bound to inflâ—ct death on the offender guilty of such sinful thoughts or desires or refusing to offer sacrifice for them though it some way came to his knowledg as by the parties confessing such inward sins to him and declaring his resolution not to â—ffer sacrifice for them Yea it seems apparent that none of their sacrifices were to be offered for such Internal sins Transgressors of it to be Executed by the Magistrate or if secret from him or in the Magistrate's neglect or default by God himself Lev. 20. 3 4 5. Yea and it enjoyned exclusion from Society and from the Congregation for pollutions Lev. 15. Numb 19. Which were at least most of them no sins though so called figuratively not being forbidden being generally altogether Involuntary and it might often be a man's duty to pollute himself as for Example by Burying the Dead Though yet it was a sin yea and might be a presumptuous sin in the sense of Numb 15. 30. to neglect wittingly the Expiation or Purgation in that case appointed and also to come into society till the Purgation finished This would take up too much time to speak more particularly exactly of I would speak more plain if possible let me Repeat it in other words which may be plainer to some understandings I say the Law may be considered in this External political sense viz. so far as the Offences might be Expiated by their Sacrifices or were excluded positively by it from being expiated by their Sacrifices for that Exclusion was meant only as to Temporal punishment taking no notice of the Future or Eternal In this sence it had only as Temporal punishments of Offenders so only Temporal promises of Peace or Prosperity or Long-Life in the Land of Canaan upon obedience to the Law and also had in this sense no Spiritual or Internal precepts Now the Law in this strict temporal sense wherein it threatned such calamities to every Offender was a shadow of things to come Punishments to come a Shadow and Commemoration of the same I mean materially the same Law 's * It was a strangely severe Common-wealthlaw even beyond Draco's Laws that for their severity were said to be writ in blood and this severity would even appear irrational and unaccountable unto us did we not consider its typicalness and representation of the great strictness of the same law in a higher sense cursing with eternal death every one not continuing in all c. And also did we not consider that it wâ—s given with a Râ—medâ—ing Law accâ—pting the blood of beasts in stead of a man's in most cases severe threatnings of Future punishments to every Transgression either External or Internal And a shadow or pattern of Good things to come Heb. 10.
Places denying Justification by the Law and Works of the Law since it is apparent he speaks of Justification as to Conscience and Future life and speaks of Moses Law as referring to Conscience and Future life which sense I now come to speak of that Law in Secondly The Law of Moses may be considered as to Conscience Conscience essentially respects the Future state and Life to come-concernments viz. as requiring Obedience with a promise of Future happiness and under the Peril of Future or Eternal death and also as Remitting and Pardoning sins as to Future misery Now in this high important sense this same Law I mean materially and in words the same must be considered both as a strict Law and a gracious Law or Gospel What is a Law but a signification of the Rector's will any way whatsoever obliging the Subjects to Obedience by promising rewards to the Obedient and threatning punishment to the Disobedient Now in this very Law in this high sense there are significations of his Will both of an Original strict Law constituting Eternal or Future death due to every Transgressor and of a Remedying-law promising Pardon to Transgressors upon Repentance and sincere Obedience even as in the Temporal consideration of the Law already spoken of there was a Law requiring the Offender's blood upon his failing in the least in it else there could have been no Pardon of him as to violent death upon a Sacrifice if the Law had not threatned death to him and also there was the Remedying-law of Pardon upon a Sacrifice So here this consideration This very Law given in the same words at Sinai did Reveal and Signifie these formally-distinct Laws First A strict exacting of Obedience all their lives to all that he commanded under the peril of Future death or wrath to come else as I have made apparent before there could be no Pardon as to wrath to come or Satisfaction by Christ for wrath to come due by this Law as to such sins And in this strict sence the Apostle Paul useth the word Law in the most of those places in Dispute which the Author chiefly insists on to reconcile them to St. James viz. the 3d. and 4th Chapter to the Romans and Gal. 3. v. 10 11 12 13. And in this sense the Law was no Type or Shaddow nor to vanish away but stands in Force unto this day Secondly Also it did Reveal that though they should sometimes during their life which is enough for Condemnation by this Law in the first sense fail in obedience to it yet their condition should not be hopeless the Punishment made due to them by this Law should be pardoned and they should yet enjoy the promised Future life upon condition they did Repent and sincerely love and serve God endeavouring Obedience to all his Laws Moral Judicial and Ceremonial with the prevailing design and bent of their Souls Now in this sense the Law of Moses was no Type or Shaddow but the very Gospel the Word of Faith which the Apostles Preached Rom. 10. 6 7 8. And in this sense David takes the Law in most of his Encomiums of it and in this sense Justification and Salvation are not denied to it or the Works of it by the Apostle to them that lived under this Dispensation nor to us by it For it yet continues the same for substance having the same Sanction and Condition or Precept in the general viz. That if we sinners repent and sincerely obey all his Commands he will be our God to Bless us to Justifie and Save us from all our sins Though many of the former particular Precepts are ceased and some new ones added and the whole Dispensation more intelligible and clear It is apparent that the Law of Moses though it was given designedly as to the end of the Revelation of it as a Covenant of Grace and Pardon even for the Salvation of sinners and not for their Destruction yet it was given subserviently still as to the same end of Salvation also to Reveal the Law in its utmost exacting Rigour For though an Original strict Law may really be and so may be Revealed without a Remedying-Law yet it is a plain impossibility to Reveal however so as Offenders should be sensible of pardon and favour in it a Remedying-Law of Pardon as this from Mount Sinai mainly as to the design of it was without Revealing and making known the strict Original-Law For without knowing what the Law in its Rigor requires from us and what it threatens to them that fail in the least we cannot be thankful for Pardon offered on the Gospel-terms of Sincerity nor know we stand in need of Pardon so we be but sincere Neither can this Author possibly reconcilably to his Principles as you will see tell us how Pardon is either needful to one or possibly consistent with performing the Gospel-condition since he maintains That sincere imperfect Obedience or the Gospel-condition is all that any Law of God so much as requires Thus you see my Judgment concerning the Law of Moses And that I suppose that Threat Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things written had these four significations or did notifie these four distinct Sanctions with their distinct Conditions 1st Every one shall be punished with a violent Temporal death or such death shall be due to him that observeth not every External Precept 2ly Every one shall remedilesly be punished with the foresaid death that offendeth in the great Instances exempted from Pardon or in other faults and observeth not the Sacrifices appointed for the Expiation of them 3ly Future Death or Wrath to come shall be due to every one that obeyeth not every Command both Internal and External 4ly This Future-death shall remedilesly befal every such Offender that shall not repent of his sins and sincerely endeavour obedience to every Command Internal and External And to the like extensive Import mutatis mutandis that Promise The man that doth them shall live in or by them may and ought to be Interpreted Now you will see these four grand Mistakes which I have here spoken to causing the failings of his whole Discourse in determining what the Apostle Paul means by Works and by the Law in denying Justification by Works and by the Law which Discourse I shall now propound to your View Transcribing some of it Verbatim yea all that is Argumentative in it without leaving out any thing in the least material and telling you when I leave out any thing that is not but may seem material Which I thus begin The Author having before made it apparent that though Faith in some other passages of the Apostle doth mean one particular Grace yet in those Speeches where he speaks of Justification by it in opposition to Works he means by Faith all required to Salvation the obedience of Faith He tells us Chap. 6. pag. 98. That the Apostle doth not exclude all Works from Justification but Works of the Law of
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-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-Moral-Law In the mean time I must add this that the Works of the moral-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-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-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
Moses Where the Apostle seems to affirm two things viz. Not only that Spiritual Remission of Sins which the Law granted not at all was Preached through Jesus But that every Believer should be Justified by him from all sins from which no man could so much as carnally be Justified by the Law of Moses Hitherto concerning the first Argument of the Apostle He might have said Hitherto of all that hath any shew that he saith of the Apostle's meaning And I will add hitherto I have translated him since I begun with his Argument almost at least verbatim But in going forward will bind my self to do it no further since this first Argument is all the Arguments he brings that can with any fairness be pretended to be the Apostle's Argument to exclude Justification by the Law and works of the Law I will relate the substance of his other Arguments which is all he pretends to be the Apostle's and the relating and expatiating upon which takes up the rest of his Book almost wholly I will also relate all such Passages as have any considerable shew to support his Exposition of the Apostles words in such places as this Book is Written to Reconcile to Saint James The other Argument of the Apostle which equally hath respect to the whole Law whereby the Apostle clearly proves the Impossibility of Justification by the Mosaic-Law is taken from another defect of this Covenant from the defect of Helping or Auxiliary Grace even as the Old Law indulged no full and perfect pardon to past sins so neither did it supply sufficient aid for the avoiding of Future sins The Apostle is much in this Argument shewing the Law was very Infirm in it self and plainly destitute of strength whereby miserable men might be drawn from the dominion of sin and from an inveterate Custom of sinning to true and saving Righteousness or Holiness First This Argument from a disability of the Law to sanctifie men suppose it true which is indeed true of the Law as the Common-wealth-Law but not when the Law is used in the sense wherein it was the Gospel or Law of Grace for then this Disability can only be affirmed at the most comparatively to this clear Dispensation since Christ and consequently that Sanctification must be by some Grace and Favour of the Spirit would by no means prove Justification to be of Gospel Grace or Favour or by Pardon For suppose that God should by his Spirit take some effectual course to preserve a man wholly free from sin this Sanctification of a man would be free and of Grace and Favour but not his Justification but that would be of Works and the Law in the strictest sense of it so as not to be of the Gospel or of Mercy and Pardon The Sanctification of the humane Nature of Christ was of Grace and Favour and by special Dispensation but his Justification was of Debt by the Law and of Justice in the strictest sense and not of Grace or Mercy or Pardon or by Imputation of Righteousness to one unrighteous Secondly The Apostle doth not anywhere to my remembrance though it may have a true meaning in a very remote sense much less in any of the places propounded to be reconciled to St. James make use of this Argument That Sanctification is of Grace and Mercy therefore Justification is so and not of Works or Debt So that whether it be a good Argument or no it is not the Apostle's Argument Thirdly The Author seems now in the prosecution of this Argument not to keep Justification or Sanctification or the grace and favour of Justification and Sanctification distinct as he hath done hitherto one being the working a real change I mean real in opposition to a Law or relative change in the Soul and consisting in the favour of Converting a man The other being a Law-Act and consisting in acquitting or absolving a man from an Accusation He seems to forget that he had pag. 8 9. well and convincingly confuted the Opinion of Grotius who herein Symbolizing with the Papists affirm's that the Apostle Paul by Justification means not in a Law-sense absolution from sin but Sanctification or Purging from Vices whereas there is not one place where the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to justifie is used where it so signifies except Rev. 22. 11. He that is righteous 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 let him be further justified still And concerning this place the Author saith it is probable and it is also affirmed by Grotius himself that it should be there read according to some antient Manuscripts 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 let him do righteousness still Now as I said this Author seems to forget this in the whole prosecution of this Argument as for Example when pag. 253. he will have the meaning of those words Tit. 3. v. 7. That being justified freely by his Grace to be that being enabled by the Grace of the Holy Ghost to do those things to which Justification is promised Which is in effect to say being justified by the Grace of Sanctification or being justified by the gracious operation of the Holy Ghost in Sanctifying Which also is an Interpretation alien from the meaning of those words The meaning whereof is as may appear to any perusing the words foregoing That having the Gospel-condition wrought in us by the operation of the Holy Ghost being Regenerated we might be justified by his Grace that is by his Grace in Pardoning not by the gracious Operation of the Spirit in Sanctifying For though the Grace and Favour of Sanctifying be ascribed frequently to the Spirit as it 's peculiar operation yet not the grace and favour of Justification but is peculiarly ascribed to God the Father as Judg and Rector being a Law-Act It is GOD that justifieth who is he that condemneth The Law had a defect of strength to Sanctifie men Why Because it wanted External help necessary to work true Sanctification and Internal help necessary to work true Sanctification It wanted an External help necessary to work true Sanctification viz. it wanted a promise of Eternal life to encourage men to obey it It wanted an Internal help necessary to work Sanctification because it wanted the Gift of the Holy Ghost First As to the first It wanted this External help to work true Sanctification in that the Promises and Threatnings of this Law wherein the strength of every Law lies were only Temporal and Earthly and men might easily contemn these Those Earthly good things would not much move the mind of an intelligent man Yea the Law of Moses upon that account that it contained only Earthly Promises and Threats was in it's own Nature apt to beget in men a base and sordid Temper yea a Temper plainly alien from true Piety The chief parts of Piety are the denying of self bearing the Cross dayly Prayer Meditation on the Life-to-come and a moderate and a sober use of the good things of this Life But how could it be that
the Internal defect Secondly Another defect of the Law or Mosaic-Dispensation is that it did not afford the Internal help of the Holy Spirit And it was indeed impossible that men should be brought to Spiritual righteousness or Holiness by that Law which neither gave nor promised any aid of the Spirit I will not speak much here in answer to this because I have said enough already either here or in another Discourse First This is not an Argument made use of as is here pretended Secondly If they had no ability to perform Spiritual righteousness without the Spirits help which was denied them they were not bound to perform such Spiritual obedience since no man is bound to Natural impossibilities Thirdly It is a weak manner of speaking though common to talk of it being a defect of a Law not giving ability to perform it no Law doth so not that to Adam or of Moses or of Christ for every Law supposeth Ability I mean the Natural ability to obey it or it could not oblige to Obedience and so could be no Law to such Fourthly This is to say that men could not sin without the Grace of the Holy Spirit to enable them For this Author grants as well he may that none are bound by any Law to do what they have no power to do But I have at large shewed in another Discourse the absurdity of this Opinion and that the gracious opperation of the Spirit and the effect of it is something that men can sin without And therefore that men have the Natural power to obey some other way and not from this though not the Moral but have this Moral power from this Grace of the Holy Spirit It cannot be pretended here that this Author means the Mosaic-Law afforded not the Spirit to free men from the Moral impotency of doing what they had the Natural power to do For this would be to overthrow the thing he is pleading for viz. The Impotency and and Insufficiency of the Law and Dispensation Since Moral-impotency is nothing else but voluntary wickedness it self and would be to grant there was no defect in the Mosaic-Law to Sanctifie or Justifie but it had all necessary naturally for these ends but only the men were in fault the men were so wicked they would not yield to and obey it and the Spirit did not actually make them willing of unwilling obedient of disobedient But I refer such as do not understand what I here say to my Discourse of Natural and Moral-impotency At last the Author comes having made as he supposeth apparent what the Apostle's Arguments were against Justification by the Law to shew more expresly what Works of the Law they only were that the Apostle excluded from Justification in these words and the following Whosoever shall understand these things which we have spoken viz. In the prosecution of this Argument of the Apostle he may easily see that the Works which Paul simply excludeth from Justification are such as are performed by men without Gospel-Grace by force of the mosaic-Mosaic-law or Law of Nature For the things by which Paul disputeth against the Mosaic-Law do more strongly militate as we have noted somewhere viz. pag. 120. before recited against the Law of Nature Now this is an evident Consectary from what is before said The Apostle fighteth with this Argument chiefly against Justification by the Law of Moses or Nature that both these Laws are purely destitute of those helps by which a man may be drawn to true Holiness worthy of God and grateful to him It manifestly hence follows that only that Holiness and those Works are excluded by the Apostle from Justification which proceed from a mans weak ability ab infirmitate humana who is in the state of the Law or Nature First Then no man was bound to true Holiness acceptable to God by the Law of Moses or the Law of Nature and consequently no man did sin in not performing Obedience acceptable to God since it was this defect of these Laws neither of them either promising Future reward or affording ability to perform true Godliness Secondly I cannot understand how this is consistent with what this Author saith pag. 116. before recited where he affirmeth that Some Heathens did sincerely and heartily love and follow Virtue and Righteousness so far as it was known to them Unless he will say that no Virtue and Righteousness pleasing to God was known to them which would be to make his concession insignificant or that these Heathens did super-erogate or did more than they had ability to do or than the Law of Nature required from them Thirdly This is to say that the Apostle hath Copiously and Elaborately proved only these two things viz. 1. That there is no Justification by good Works performed by men provided there be no promise of Future reward made to them or at least provided men to perform them without respect to Future recompence of reward And 2. That no man is Justified by doing such Works as men have in no sense any ability to do Now can any imagine that any of the Jews Pharisaical Teachers taught them that they might be Justified by such Works If it shall be replied No For their Teachers taught them that they might be Justified by the Works of the Law of Moses or Nature which Works really had no promise of a Future-life reward and they had really no ability to perform these Works But their Pharisaical Teachers taught them That such Works of the Law of Moses had a promise of Future-life reward and that they had ability to do such Works I shall let many things pass that I might here rejoyn to shew the Inconsistency of this Reply with the whole discourse of the Apostle yea and with the Argument he strives to fasten on the Apostle And also to shew how improbable it is that men should fancy themselves to have or believe others telling them they have power to do things they have an Impotency to do taking Impotency as this Author apparently doth for the proper natural Impotency distinct from wickedness for a cannot distinct from a will not For it is not ordinary for Multitudes to fancy this nor to believe them that should tell them so nor for any but wonderfully weak and fanciful men Though I know it is too common for men to have better thoughts of themselves than they should in reference to their Morals and so to think they are not so wicked as they are and that they have no Moral-Impotency which is wicked Obstinacy to the doing those good things they have the Natural power to do I say letting these things pass And also letting pass what I could say to prove that the Apostle would never have contradicted these Opinions viz. That men might have been Justified had they done all the Law of Moses or Nature required of them so as only wicked wilfulness which is the Moral-Impotency hindred them because neither those nor any other Laws
such as he was before his calling but James considers him as now being already favoured with Grace and Divine Vocation One denies his Justification by works done before Faith the other ascribes his Justification to his works proceeding from Faith And so there is no contradiction here between the Apostles This is if I may borrow a phrase from * Referente Origene lib. 6. Celsus like casting Lots what to say to Reconcile the Apostles And this is the common Evasion of the Papists when an Argument is brought against them from such passages in Pauls Epistles to prove that no man is Justified by the Merit of Works or perfect Obedience Further It is notoriously false that Paul here considers Abraham as he was before the Divine calling and his believing For First He speaks expresly of him as believing and having such a strong Faith as overcame great Oppositions and of his being Justified by such Faith Secondly He proves that when he Believed and Obeyed he was not Justified by Works in the sense wherein he excludes his Justification by Works viz. by perfect Obedience or Jewish Observations or Meritorious Works Thirdly He as equally excludes Works done after Faith as before viz. such works as he excludes Fourthly The Apostle brings this Circumstance to prove he was not Justified by Works viz. That he was Justified before Circumcision ver 16. which he could not have done had he in speaking of him considered him as he was before the Divine Call so as to deny his Justification by works done before it For had this been his meaning to deny his Justification only by such works done in his estate of Heathenism it would rather have furthered this denial and have added force to it by way of Argument could he have shewed that Abraham's Justification was not till after his Circumcision and Receiving the Seal of the Covenant Fifthly The Pharisaical-Jews which the Apostle there opposeth would not be sure pretend that Abraham was Justified while he lived in Heathenish courses before the Divine Call that the Apostle should need to oppose it Yea it was their Interest if they would maintain their first Opinion of Excluding the Uncircumcised Gentiles from Salvation and Justification to Plead though false that Abraham was not Justified till Circumcised or which is true that he was not Justified while he lived in Heathenish courses as they might pretend though falsly the Uncircumcised Converted Gentiles did But for the true meaning of this whole Chapter since I would not needlesly repeat the same thing See my short Discourse of the Apostle Paul's meaning Thus I have set before you all considerable that our Author saith concerning the only two Arguments that he tells us the Apostle Paul maketh use of against Justification by the Law and Works that concern the whole Body of the mosaic-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
AN ENDEAVOUR TO RECTIFIE SOME PREVAILING OPINIONS Contrary to the Doctrine of The Church of England By the Author of The Great Propitiation And A Discourse of Natural and Moral-Impotency LONDON Printed by T. M. for Robert Clavel in Cross-Keys Court in Little-Brittain 1671. THE Author to the Reader I Published about two Years since some Sermons called The Great Propitiation and thereto Added a short Discourse concerning the Apostle Paul's meaning by Justification by Faith without Works About half a Year after there came forth a Learned Book called Harmonia Apostolica written by Mr. George Bull which quite crossing the Interpretation I had given of Saint Paul I was Occasioned by some Occurrences which it concerns not the Reader to know to Write the substance of these Reflections upon it which were Written within less than three Months after it's coming forth without any Design of Printing them And since I had Written this there is Published a Discourse of Mr. Charles Gataker Thomae 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Filii wherein he signifying his dislike of Mr. Bull 's Propounds a third way to Reconcile the Apostles Paul and James What my thoughts are of Mr. Bull 's way you will here see I think he hath in the main spoken right concerning the sense of Saint James But I think Mr. Gataker hath given the right Interpretation of neither and judg that I have said enough in my Book fore-mentioned to make it appear and so hath Mr. Bull in his I grant and lament it that many Important Doctrines of the Reformed Churches are frequently by too many grosly Explained so as to have ill Consequences following from them which if rightly Explained would be found not to Patronize but to disown such Consequences And hence many Learned men seeing the Intolerableness of such consequent Opinions and not being able to Extricate themselves deny Important truths and maintain such Opinions as these following which are the Foundation of the greatest part of Mr. Bull 's Book opposed and would make an intolerable change in the very substance of the Body of Divinity viz. First That there is no Law that threatens Future-death or promised Future-happiness but the Gospel or Law of Grace Secondly That the Jewish Law or Law of Moses had only Temporal Promises and Threats and required only External Obedience Which yet you will see I grant in one Limitted sense of it to be true Thirdly That no Law of God whatsoever requires perfect Obedience and so no man is bound to live perfectly or free from sin Fourthly And that for this Reason because no man is bound to do what he cannot do Which Reason is only true in a sense nothing to the purpose but it is dangerously false to deny a man is bound to do what he cannot do in another sense viz. Upon the account of his Morally insuperable wickedness as I have else-where at large shewed Fifthly That for any Evidence we have from Scripture to the contrary men after Conversion or after the receiving of the Gospel do live perfectly or without sin or do as much as any Law of God requires from them Sixthly That the effect of the Grace of the Spirit is something that if denied to men enjoying the Gospel they would be excusable or blameless in not obeying the Gospel Also These following Expositions would alter the very substance of the sense of most Important parts of Scripture First That the Apostle Paul doth not dispute against Justification by perfect Obedience to the Law as being impossible to man in this Life Secondly That our Lord in the 5th of Matthew doth not vindicate the Law from corrupt Interpretations but adds to it making that the meaning of it that never was so before Take notice I charge not this last mentioned Exposition as maintained by Mr. Bull though it be by many others and though it must follow by consequence if what he maintains be true viz. That Moses's Law had no Internal Precepts I judg what I have here written may be of use for the clearing of those in Dispute and many other passages of Scripture and for the Confutation of many dangerous Opinions or I should not have permitted it's Publication I shall not here needlesly use Protestations concerning my Fidelity in representing by a Translation Mr. Bull 's Discourse since it is commonly accounted a sign of Guilt to cleer one's self before accused If any should suspect me of Disingenuity herein let me desire them to read the passages here replyed to out of Mr. Bull 's Book it self And to encourage so far as my word will pass them that have it not to procure it I shall say that much of it is well worth Reading and that I am far from passing that censure on the rest of the Book which I do on the parts here replied to May but what is here written be so read and considered without prejudice and passion which may well be expected from ingenuous Lovers of Truth that it may have free Influence upon mens understandings according to the evidence it brings I shall not much doubt of it's good success in composing many differences in Opinion Which is the Prayer of the Author ERRATA PAge 27. Line 17. Read so speak Marg. r. Heavenly p. 34. l. 16. after here r. in p. 67. l. 23. instead of also r at Sinai p. 75. l. 17. after fatuus r. of a new Covenant p. 90. l. 5. for was r. as l. 6. r. on us p. 108. l. 25. after ask r. as I would ask p. 125. l. 20. for Arguments r. Argument p. 168. l. penult r. exiguum p. 171. l. marg 20. r. Adulterio p. 208. l. 15 for to r. do An endeavour to Rectifie some prevailing Opinions THe Learned Author's design is very commendable viz. To reconcile such seemingly contrary Expressions of the Apostle Paul and James as these You see therefore that a man is justified by Works and not by Faith only Jam. 2. 24. We conclude therefore that a man is justified by Faith without the works of the Law Rom. 3. 28. which Scriptures he sets down before his discourse as the Chief or Examplaâ—s of the chief Places he designs to reconcile He divides his whole Discourse into two Dissertations The first whereof is about the meaning of the Apostle James in such Expressions as that cited and is so short as not to take up a fifth part of the Book The second about the sense of the Apostle Paul in his seemingly contrary Affirmations taking up all the rest of the Book His whole first Dissertation concerning the sense of the Apostle James in affirming Justification by Works as a condition is Acute Solid and Cogent yea and so is all generally in his second Dissertation to the 5th Chap. and part of it he spending those Chapters in discovering the weakness and falsehood of the attempts of many designing to reconcile such places and in proving the Apostle Paul means not one single virtue by Faith but the whole
the pardon is only as to the first Law and Breach of it for there is no pardon as to this second Law and Breach of it for if he do not read which is the condition of the second Law there is no pardon for his failing therein So that if the first Law never threatned Eternal death there can be no pardon as to Eternal death And which maketh it still apparent is this Pardon must be by some Law else it may be Forbearance or Reprieve but no Pardon and no Law can possibly in any case whatsoever afford pardon of Offences against it self it is a contradiction to say it may For to answer an objection that may be in your mind suppose a Law made threatning the Offenders only conditionally as threatning death except a man abjure the Realm or pay a sum of Money in this case if the person either abjure or pay the Money here is no pardoning any thing the Law threatned for the Law never threatned his death absolutely So that you see there cannot possibly be pardon of a transgression from the Law it self but only from another Law a Remedying Law or Act of Oblivion Therefore the Gospel which is an Act of Pardon or Oblivion for those that are guilty of the breach of another Law cannot possibly pardon an offence against it self which is failing in the performing the condition of it by dying in Unbelief For any that will affirm pardon in the failing in the condition of this Act of Oblivion he must affirm some new Law made for a Remedying Law to one cast by the Gospel to this effect That if men die impenitent they shall be saved provided they or others for them perform the condition while they are in an other world which the Papists affirm something a kin to Now if the Gospel afford no pardon to them that perform not its condition as it is impossible it should and no Law else threatens Eternal death there cannot possibly be any pardon of sin as to Eternal death So that you see whatsoever this Author saith to the contrary we must hold a Law threatning Eternal death or Wrath to come which Christ hath undergone a punishment for the satisfaction of distinct from the Gospel or the Law of Grace that was founded upon the account of this satisfaction and that all are condemned by this Law and that as to Future and Eternal concernments and that none are Justified by it Which if the Author had considered he would surely have told us better than he hath done what the Apostle meant by the Law and works of the Law which he denies Justification by Yea and you must hold that this Law threatning wrath to come to every Offender is yet in force and not Abrogated by the Gospel yea and that it threatens men that do perform the Gospel-condition as really as others I shall not deny that such a Law seiseth upon mens being sinners as to the Promissary part as a promise made to a man if he shall work all such a week doth cease after he hath failed the first day but it is actually in Force still with its penalty requiring perfect Obedience and not only sincere which I thus prove First Else we must say that no man sins or transgresseth this Law so he do but perform the Gospel condition so he be but in the main a sincere Christian and consequently that no sincere Christian needs Christs satisfaction or pardon for such sins as are consistent with Gospel sincerity which is an Opinion which I almost dread to mention though the Author seems very confident in it for he maintains pag. 108. 112. That so men do but chiefly mind the best things do but observe the main Precepts of the Law no Law whatsoever requires any more of them and also holds that men after * I cannot tell whether he mean after Conversion or after the meer Preaching of the Gospel to â—hem but however I will â—onstrue it to the best sense Conversion or receiving the Gospel for any disability on them to the contrary may and for any evidence we have in the Scripture to the contrary do live such lives as not to sin any sin that deserves or is by any Law threatned so much as conditionally with Eternal death and so it follows consequently as any one sees that they need no pardon or the Blood of Christ for such sins as to Eternal punishment though yet he grants but yet any one may see with some reluctancy That pag. 117. All do sometime or other of their lives commit some either sin or sins that deserves Eternal punishment and consequently needs pardon and the Blood of Christ Now if it be true that he saith that No Law of God requires any more than that men keep the main substantials of it and make Religion their business then he may safely affirm that they do not need pardon by the Blood of Christ for any so much as temporal punishment as to those failings that are consistent with true Christianity I grant the Gospel requires no more for our Justification and Salvation than such sincere imperfect indeavours as he mentions but I cannot enough express my dislike of saying No Law doth require any more Secondly If the Law was abrogated by Christs satisfaction and the Gospel as to its requiring perfect Obedience under a threatning of the penalty of Eternal death of those that continue performing the Gospel-condition Then we must not say that Christ died to obtain the pardon of those sins that are consistent with Gospel-sincerity but died to prevent them from being Sins and Transgressions of the Law that would otherwise have been sins or to prevent such sins from legally desâ—â—ving or being threatned with Eternal wrath and so to prevent them from being pardoned by his Blood as to Eternal wrath Secondly Another great Mistake that causeth his other Errors as any one may perceive that reads his Book is this That he doth not understand or doth not consider the difference between an Original Law with a Remedying Law or conditional Act of Oblivion distinct from the Original Law and a Law that threatens a transgressour of it only conditionally I shall make my meaning appear by an Instance which he brings of an Original Law and a Remedying Law though I confess he brings it not under that notion but speaks somthing not right concerning it and especially he is widely mistaken in making that the chief yea the only Law of Moses that the Apostle speaks against Justification by in those places where he speaks against Justification by the works of the Law though yet I do think that the Apostle had in some places a main respect to this Law of Sacrifices now to be mentioned as Acts 13. 38 39. Heb. 7. 11. 19. Chap. 9. v. 8. 18. Chap. 10. v. 1. c. The Instance is this Page 121 122. where he rightly tells us That God did make a Law that concerned the Jews as a
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
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
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
this Law that bound their minds only to Earthly profits and worldly delights should work such Piety in men And hence it cometh to pass that the Precepts of this Law were much a Kin to the Promises of it viz. Earthly He then brings-in Scripture to prove this defect but none of them out of places where the Apostle speaks against Justification by Works and by the Law but these two which I cited before to shew his meaning by the Law Gal. 3. 13. The Law is not of Faith but he that doth them shall live in them And gives this as the meaning The Law did not promise such things as that a man did need Faith which is the evidence of things not seen to believe them viz. It promised only things of Sense not of Faith Gal. 3. 21. If there had been a Law which could have given life verily Righteousness should have been by that Law And supposes the meaning to be that the fault was in the Law not in the Men for if the Law had promised it men would have attained Life by that Law Whereas the very next words of the Apostle are But the Scripture hath concluded all under sin c. implying it was through sin and mens default they did not attain life by that Law which could not be if the Law there spoken of promised no such thing to the Obedient And he after tells us that in the sense wherein the Law had any Spiritual commands or Threatnings or Promises of a Future life it was Ipsissimum Evangelium the very Gospel it self And that the Apostle never made question about it taken in this sense which is in effect to say That the Apostle never spoke against Justification by the Law in any sense wherein it threatned Eternal death or promised Eternal life Nor in any sense wherein mans sins hinder his Justification by it And also it is to say that no man is or ever was Condemned by the Law as to Eternal condemnation in any sense wherein the Law is distinct from the Gospel And that Christ never satisfied for the breach of any Law different from the Gospel that threatned Future death much less for the breach of any Law that required Spiritual or Internal obedience And also That no man is pardoned by Christ and the Gospel the breach of any Law that threatned Future death But I have already even in the beginning of this Discourse shewed both the inevitableness and absurdity of these Consequences Yet because many maintain this Opinion of the Author for substance viz. That the Promises and Threats of the Law were only Temporal and Earthly and so could not work in men true Piety As Episcopius Doctor Hammond Doctor Taylor c. Though in something disagreeing from this Author in the way of * I confess Doctor Taylor seems not careful to evade difficulties at all but seems peremptory in denying any but Temporal promises till Christs time Vnum Neces pag. 2. 3. their evading the difficulties their Opinions are cumbred with and because it is a growing Opinion and seems to me very dangerous I will here speak largely against it First I grant The Law of Moses had no Spiritual commands meaning by Spiritual as this Author doth obliging the inward man the Thoughts and Affections nor Threats or Promises of Life-to-come Punishments or Rewards as it was the Jewish Political-Law or the Instrument of the Jewish Polity But this cannot be meant by the Law in those Passages in debate to be reconciled to James For it is apparent and this Author grants it that mens sinfulness is given by the Apostle as the cause why men are excluded from Justification as to Future life by the Law But mens sinfulness could be no cause why none were Justified as to Conscience and Future-life by the Law in this Political sense since it would not have Justified any as to Conscience and Future-life had they been altogether innocent Secondly How notoriously contrary it is to David's and Paul's expressions concerning the Jewish Law to deny it had in any sense Spiâ—itual Commands or Promises or Threats of Life-to-come Reward or Punishment Psal 1. 2. The Godly man's delight is in the Law of the Lord and therein doth he meditate day and night Psal 19. 7. The Law of the Lord is perfect converting the soul The Testimony of the Lord is sure making wise the simple He meant not only wise for this world ver 8. The Statutes of the Lord are right rejoycing the heart The Commandment of the Lord is pure enlightning the eyes True and Righteous altogether more to be desired than Gold whereas Gold was worth a Temporal Inheritance in Canaan sweeter than the Honey and the Honey-comb By them is thy servant warned and in keeping them there is great reward He means greater than this world can afford or else it was not very great Psal 119. 18. 20. Open thou mine eyes that I may behold wonderous things out of thy Law My soul breaketh for the longing it hath to thy Judgments at all times Ver. 111. Thy Testimonies have I taken as a heritage for ever for they are the rejoycing of my heart That these things were spoken of the Law of Moses is apparent nothing else that could pretend to the Name of the Law of God being then written And it is equally apparent These things could not be truly spoken of a Law that had neither Spiritual Precepts nor Future Promises or Rewards And sure none will pretend that David's working-Fancy conceited such things of the Law as was not true of it for then he would have been too blame And also these phrases David saith and The Holy Ghost saith are used as Equipollent terms Heb. 3. 7. and Chap. 4. 7. compared Psal 16. Thou wilt shew me the Path of Life in thy Presence is fulness of Joy and at thy right Hand there are pleasures for evermore David that thus speaks tell 's us He learned his Wisdom and Understanding from his Meditation on the Law Further lest any should conceit that David was a man wonderfully panting after the Word and delighted in the Law only upon the account of worldly Promises therein made to the Righteous Let it be considered that Psal 17. 14. he allows wicked men to have great things in this life calling them Men of this world which have their portion in this life whose belly thou fillest with hid treasures they are full of Children and leave the residue of their substance to them In the following Verse he distinguisheth himself from these as appears by the Antithesis ver 15. as for me saying As for me I will behold thy Face in Righteousness I shall be satisfied when I awake with thy Likeness So Psal 49. 6. They that trust in their Wealth and boast themselves in the multitude of their Riches Ver. 14. Death shall feed on them c. Then follows by way of Antithesis ver 15. But God will redeem my soul from the power of
to say he will surely hardly pardon such great sins as mine are How can he with safety to his Justice Now further to enable any to answer many Scriptures which this Author brings to maintain his extenuating Expressions of the Law Though such Scriptures are not immediately serviceable to discover the Apostle's meaning where he ascribes Justification to Faith in opposition to Works else I would have taken more particular notice of them Remember what I spoke before that sometimes not only the Author to the Hebrews but this Apostle in speaking of the Law understands by it the Jewish Common-wealth Law threatning Violent Immature Temporal death to all External visible sins and in some cases allowing Sacrifices in the stead of this violent death in other cases not And the occasion of the so using the word Law which you may possibly think very Improper when speaking of Conscience-concernments is this It was the common yea almost Universally professed Opinion of the Jews sometime before and about those days of the Apostles taught them by all their Rabbies As this Author also affirms pag. 306. That the Law did not threaten Future punishment to any sins but to those that it as the common Law of the Land threatned Temporal violent death to to be Executed by the Magistrate And that the Law required no more to Future salvation than so much as was made necessary by it to escape violent death And also that the expiation of their Sacrifices which were for faults granted by them to be sins threatned by their Law with Future death reached so far as to expiate and absolve them from sins as to Future punishment which Opinion the Author to the Hebrews at large opposes And since they could not but grant that there were commands of inward Holiness forbiding Heart-adultery and Heart-murther and meer inward coveting as the Tenth Commandment and commands to fear and love the Lord and walk in his Ways and keep his Commandments with all their heart and soul Deut. 10. 12. Chap. 11. 13. And it would not be Sense or it would be Remiss sense to say that keeping the Commandments as for example of not doing Murder or not committing Adultery with the whole heart was only to abstain from the outward Fact without avoiding the occasions beginnings or causes thereof They held these were not properly Commands that any penalty of Exclusion from Heaven or that Future-life death was threatned unto But that these Precepts were only Councels recommended to them that had a mind to do the best and that it was commendable and men did well to observe them but the refusing to obey these was not sin by their Law nor punishable with any Future misery And the Scribes and Pharisees the wicked Doctors of this and some former degenerate Ages making it their study almost unanimously to excuse themselves and others from inward Piety which they were resolved against as being the most difficult part of true Religion and most ingrateful to flesh and blood might have this pretence from the Law it self to maintain their Flesh-pleasing exposition of the Law to quiet their own and others Consciences in the neglect of inward Purity viz. There is no violent penal Temporal death threatned to such sins to be inflicted by the Magistrate as there is to all External sins therefore it is likely there is no Eternal or Future punishment threatned by the Law for such there are no Expiations appointed for such sins surely therefore they are no sins and need no Expiations These Pharisaical Doctors did hold their Law promised Future-life and threatned Future punishment but * I shewed you at the beginning four true senses of the Jewish Law all intended by the Law-giver But the Pharisaical Jews maintained a fifth sense and that a false and pernicious one viz. That their Law promised the Future-life happiness to their observing the Law Politically and Externally taught the people that if they were but justi ad legem righteous according to the Law in the sense that Seneca useth the word saying Exignum est ad legem bonum esse that is Righteous so far as the Law of the Land was to compel them by Temporal punishment as all those were that had committed none of those Crimes that were excluded from attaining Temporal pardon by Sacrifice and had offered Sacrifice for their other External faults they were as perfectly righteous before God as their Law in any sense required them to be So because the Law as the Law of the Land appointed no punishment for one that put away his wife for any light cause so he did but set her wholly at liberty by a Bill of Divorce to marry another they were taught it was no sin so to put away a Wife Mat. 5. 31. Also because the Law as the Common-wealth Law gave men liberty to require an Eye for an Eye and Tooth for Tooth and if they so required it the Magistrate was bound to Inflict it Deut. 19. 21. They were taught it was no sin to seek this revenge in any case And so that the Commands of forgiving Injuries were but Counsels as Prov. 24. 29. and Chap. 20. 22. Say not I will do to him as he hath done to me Lev. 19. 17 18. Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thy heart thou shalt not avenge nor bear any grudg c. But shalt love thy Neighbour as thy self Rev. 25. 21. If thy enemy hunger give him meat c. Exod. 23. 4 5. If the Ass of thy enemy wander or be faln under his burden bring him back or help him up Which Opinion of theirs Christ confutes Mat. 5. v. 21. You have heard that it hath been said by them of old or to them of old thou shalt not Kill and whosoever shall Kill shall be in danger of the Judgment That is you have been told it as a Tradition taught by the Ancients or to the Ancients by some Ancient Rabbies that you break not any Law of God nor incur danger of Future torments by anger hatred or approbrious speeches but only he that actually kills shall be in danger of Future punishment of the Court of Judgment the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which litterally signifies is in danger of the Court of the 23 Elders that sate in the †Deut. 16. 18. Chap. 19. 11 12. Gates of the City and put Offenders to death by the Sword Now since Murtherers in Fact were to be put to death only not they that only hated or reproached another the * Damnat Christus in Pharisaeis quod legis Doctrinam ad Politicum or dinem transtulerant ut sufficeret externis officiis defungi Ita fiebat ut se ab homicidio absolveret quisquis hominem manu non occiderat Se purum castum putaret coram Deo quisquis Adulteria corpus non polluerat Hâ—c vero erat minime ferenda Legis profanatio quum certum sit spiritualem Dei cultum a Mose requiri Deus
Spiritual and required more yea more necessarily for salvation even Internal Piety and so could not have spoken after that manner of his Righteousness according to the Law in the true important sense of the Law And hence it comes to pass since the Law was used by most of the Jews in those days in this external Political and Ritual sense That the Author to the Hebrews doth almost I think altogether constantly use this word the Law in this sense but confutes their erronious Opinion that held that in this sense it availed to Salvation in a Future-life and shews it in this sense made none perfect as to Conscience or Future-life concern's but only as it threatned violent death and exclusion from Society so the Sacrifices for Expiation reached not to Expiate sins as to Future-life concerns but only to free from the Temporal punishment of Death and Exclusion from the Congregation And hence also it comes to pass that the Apostle Paul often useth the word the Law in this Political sense Though it is apparent he doth not so when he denies Justification by the Law as to Future-life by reason of mens sinfulness as it is apparent he doth in those places that seem opposite to St. James And this Author also confess it For mans sinfulness could not possibly be any reason why men were not Justified as to Future-life by the Law in that Political sense wherein it neither promised Future-life nor threatned Future death You must observe diligently as you desire to understand the Apostle Paul in many places that he often passes from the Conscience strict sense of the Law opposed to the Gospel to the Common-wealth sense of the Law as Gal. 3. and often runs them together as Rom. 7. using the word sometime in one of the senses and intermixing passages that agree to it in the other which I could give you I think a satisfying account of and would indeavour by reciting the particular places but that I am sensible I speak more largely than is suitable for such a short Discourse as I intend Now to draw to a conclusion of this long Digression designed to help you to understand many Scriptures Since so many took the Law in this low sense as requiring so short an obedience and foolishly promised themselves that Eternal happiness in the observance of it so far which it never promised them It is no wonder that you find so many extenuating Expressions of it in this sense Not that any such Expressions extenuate it as the Common-wealth Law for it was an excellent one imposed by the only Wise God and fitted to the temper of the Jewish people and to Typifie the great things But they extenuate it 1. As a way of Salvation for it promised no such thing made nothing perfect as to Conscience and Eternal life though observed with the greatest exactness 2. It is not extenuated as a shadow or resemblance Typical of the great things for it was a wonderful perfect Shadow and Type But it is extenuated as being but a Shadow which the the Jews would have to be the very substance the way of Salvation it self of the great concernments a poor and beggarly Rudiment or * I could I think give satisfying Reasons that thâ— Law in this sense only is by the Apostle called a School-master to teach the first beggarly Letters or Elements and so to ceaâ—e its imployment and not at all in the strict Conscience sense Element or rude first Draught or representation of the great Realities 3. As that which was but Temporary and to vanish away as this Typical Common-wealth Law was to do at the fuller Exhibition of the things it was but a Type of 4. This is called the Letter the very outward Letter of the Old Testament for the most part though yet frequently otherwise holding forth the Law in this Common-wealth sense with the rewards prosperity in Canaan and the threats Temporal death And in its being called the Letter it is opposed to the Internal and Spiritual meaning of that Law as it was the strict Law and the Gospel and to this cleerer Dispensation of both the Law and Gospel under Christ and called the Oldness of the Letter being the Old common way they had been taught by their Doctors and educated in For the Gospel and more Spiritual way of the Mosaic-Law was New and strange to them as you may perceive by John the Baptist's Doctrine of Repentance for the Remission of sins being rejected by the Pharisees as well as this cleer Dispensation under Christ though that was the true way of Salvation from the beginning ever since mans fall 5. The Law in this sense is said to kill and to be a Ministry of condemnation though not only in this sense I suppose but also in this sense taken in Conjunction with the strict Law of Works revealed in by and with this Law It is said to kill and condemn 1. Because this Law did condemn with Temporal violent death every one that did neglect any such external Work whatsoever But did not justifie to a prosperous life in Canaan any but they that observed every puntilio of it 2. Or rather since the Apostle useth sometimes to run the Law in the strictest sense exacting perfect Obedience and the Law in this Political sense together The Law may be said to condemn and to be a Ministry of condemnation because the Law did as the Original strict Law of Works in reality though not in their Opinion condemned every man that did not all whatsoever required yea that fail'd in obedience to any Internal command and did also condemn as to Conscience all External failings which they also held but did not quicken or revive or justifie any as to Future-life Not the Political Law through it's own weakness and default having no such Promises to any performances whatsoever Not the Law in the strict Conscience-sense through mans default because all are sinners 3. This Law taken still conjunctly may be said to condemn and kill men in another respect Taken politically it condemned men and killed them as to Eternal death by occasioning men or rather men taking occasion by it to go on in all Internal wickedness securely even to condemnation by the Law in a higher sense because the Law in this Political sense never forbad those sins that is did not forbid them with its penalty of violent death and they took occasion hence to think such inward Impiety was not forbidden by the Law in any sense nor such inward Piety required to their Salvation which may be the meaning of Rom. 7. 8 11. and so fell under Eternal condemnation through the neglect of such Piety It proved to them a Ministry of condemnation in the event through their own fault they abusing this â—itual Political dispensation against the end and aim of it 6. The Law also in this sense is said to be-get Bondage and Baseness and Servility of Spirit even disingenuous and unfilial Tempers
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
viz. unless they fled to the Gospel-covenant all those to whom it belonged and that under the peril of Eternal death to most absolute obedience that is such as comprehends all manner of sinlesness yea and that perpetually and did forbid all Imperfection Inadvertency and Infirmity through the whole course of their lives But I cannot be perswaded to the opinion of these for Reasons which I shall presently give In the mean while that you may more rightly understand the state of this Controversie keep this exactly in your mind that these two things do widely differ viz. A man to be accounted by God unworthy of the reward of Righteousness and Eternal life And a man to be accounted of God worthy to be punished with the punishment of Eternal death For the first For a man to be judged unworthy of Eternal Life it sufficeth that he is not altogether Sinless for God may and that righteously deny him the reward of Eternal Life for the least Imperfection For God might deny that infinite Gift of Eternal Life to a man obeying perfectly if such a one could be found because it is a free Gift and cannot be due to the Merit of any Creature But for that last That one should be accounted by God worthy of the punishment of Eternal death it is necessarily required that he did not perform that Obedience which he could perform Hence it follows that no man can righteously be adjudged guilty of Eternal death for the defect of perfect Righteousness since this Righteousness is simply impossible to a man in this Life And it is manifest that the Apostle in the Dispute of which we speak doth prove all Jews and Gentiles without difference for not obeying the Law not only to be unworthy of the reward of Eternal life but obnoxious to Divine anger and Eternal death That every mouth might be stopped Rom. 3. 19. that is that all Jews and Gentiles may be without excuse Rom. 1. 20. and 2. 1. And what is more unlikely that I may use here the words of Episcopius that the Apostle would charge men to be guilty of Death and Condemnation for violating or not keeping a Law which he judged it impossible for them to keep Neither is it likely that Paul had any Adversaries but what would grant that no man could keep the Law so exactly as not to offend in the least and so no man to be justified in that sense by the Law And who would not also object to him that men were ill accused to be guilty of Punishment when it is certain they could not avoid the fault The foundation of all here said is this That it is repugnant to Divine Justice that any should be bound to Impossibilities Pag 106. especially under the peril of Eternal death He here make 's out That that-usual pretence of some is very absurd that men have lost their power to do what God requires of them and so God may justly require what they cannot now do which I grant and have elsewhere proved to be so absurd as no way to answer that difficulty He thus proceeds And to come to the Mosaic-Law it is far more unlikely that it was a Law requiring perfect Obedience Which that I may make manifest It is diligently to be observed that the Old Law as Grotius de Satisf cap. 10. noteth may be considered * This â—â—numeration is not near large â—â—ough nor any thing to the puâ—pose two ways as having a double relation or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 First Carnally and according to the Letter as it was an Instrument of the Government of the Jewish Polity or the Common-wealth Secondly Spiritually as having a shadow of good things to come Heb. 10. 1. Now in this last 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Habitude since the Law was nothing else but the * The Law as it had a shadow of good things to come was not the Gospel it self Again so far as it was an Instrument of the Jewish Polity it was a shadow of good things to come And so far as it was the Law of Grace the Gospel of Salvation it Typified nothing Gospel it self shadowed with or shadowed under Types no man in his right wits will say it was a a Law requiring perfect obedience viz. In that sense wherein the Law was meant in this Controversie to require perfect Obedience It remains therefore to be affirmed that the Law of Moses required perfect Obedience under the former consideration viz. As the Instrument of the Jewish Government But to affirm this would be wonderfully * †It did threaten death in this consideration to the least failing in this Political-Law absurd Because First Because we read expresly that God by * It was not by that Law formally considered but by the Remedying-Law different from it that Law commanded Sacrifices by which the offences which were not done in contempt of the Law and with a high Hand were expiated as may be seen Num. 15. from the 22d to the 29th v. Now * The just contrary is true For there can be no pardon of the want of perfect obedience but where perfect obedience is required where any pardon of sin is granted there the requiring of Perfect-bedience cannot have place For these are inconsistent Secondly The Mosaic-Law was so far from requiring Perfect-obedience from the Jews that it is too manifest that some things were in that Law * The doing things permitted by a Law is no breach of that particular Law nor hinders a man from perfectly obeying that Law permitted to them for the hardness of their hearts which things cannot be excused from being sin as Polygamy and Licence of divorcing for leight causes Deut. 24. 1. and compared with Mat. 19. 3. c. I conclude therefore that since by the Mosaic-Law carnally considered many sins were remitted to the Jews and some things which at least to us Christians are accounted sins were expresly permitted It ought to be granted without controversie that this Law so considered did by no means require perfect and exact Obedience Yet there are not wanting Arguments by which some endeavour to prove this Hypothesis to be true and that thence Paul gathered the impossibility of Justification by the Mosaic-Law We will weigh these Arguments exactly to try if they have any thing of Solidity which ought to prejudice so plain a truth They bring two chiefly Their first Argument is taken from that place fore-alleadg'd by me Pag. 108. viz. Gal. 3. 10. As many as are of the works of the Law are under a Curse For it is written Cursed is every one that doth not continue in all things c. Where say they it is manifest that the Apostle gathers the Impossibility of Justification by the Mosaic-Law from thence that by this Law no man is free from a Curse who hath not obeyed all the commands of this Law perfectly I answer It is not necessary nor convenient in the cited place
and facilly gathered that all are sinners and cannot be justified by the Law that is without pardon of sin hainous sort as will easily appear to any one viewing the place Secondly If you enquire concerning the Persons charged by him they are as well Gentiles as Jews v. 9. 19. 23. but both considered as they were before and without the Grace of the Gospel which is even manifest from the scope of the Apostle whose purpose it was to stir up both Jews and Gentiles convinc't of their guilt and misery to seek and embrace the Grace of the Gospel Therefore Paul contends that both Gentiles and Jews considered in this estate to be all under sin You will Object But there were some at least amongst the Jews who liv'd a holy and unblamable life before the Faith of Christ or their faith in Christ and a life most alien from the Vices which the Apostle here reckons up and from all of the like kind such as were Zachary Elizabeth Simeon Anna and others I answer I confess it yea I do not doubt but amongst the Gentiles †I dare not affirm this For then I must hold their Salvation whereas I read Salvation is of the Jews and that the Gentiles were without hope without God in the world Neither yet daâ—e I say that none did thus sincerely also there were some who abhorred the Vices here mentioned and also did sincerely and from their hearts love and follow Coluerunt Virtue and Righteousness so far as it was known to them And both right Reason and St. Paul himself perswades me to be of this Opinion who doth not obscurely teach it himself Rom. 2. v. 14 15 26 27. But because the Objection is made only concerning the Jews I will answer only concerning them leaving it yet to the Reader to accommodate or fit the same Answer to the Gentiles mutatis mutandis changing what is to be changed I say therefore that First These Pious men amongst the Jews were very few and being compar'd to others as a drop in the Sea and therefore the Apostle was to take no great notice concerning them But it was reasonable that the great scarcity of good men should as one speaks give its testimony to the numerosity of the wicked And certainly universal speeches of this sort that the Apostle here uses do often occurr in Scripture which yet it is certain are †That is all put for the most This then is to say that the most men are guilty of sins deserving Eternal death and needing pardon by Christ but he contradicts this sence after Hyperbolical see John 3. 32. Isa 66. 23. Joel 2. 28. Acts 2. 17. Psal 14. 23. 145. 14 15. Phil. 2. 21. c. Secondly Those few that were Righteous under the Law did not receive their Righteousness from the Law but they owed it to Gospel-grace which even before the Promulgation of the Gospel did indeed more sparingly and rarely put forth it's force through all past-Ages In a word they were led with the Spirit of the Gospel and not of the Law and so deserved to be accounted with those who are not of the Works of the Law but are of Faith Whence the Author of the Epistle to the Hebrews shews that all the works of Pious men who shine in the History of the Old Testament proceeded not from the Law but from Faith Thirdly It is †Sure this is too easie a word that it is likely such did commit such a sin as to deserve Eternal death so as to need Christ and Pardon likely that those few did not so carry themselves through the whole course of their lives but that they some time fell into some sins or into some more hainous sin and worthy of death Yea this is to be accounted for certain †This doth not prove his Opinion for though these did not yet it is probable Some did live without any hainous sin in his sense in the whole course of their lives and so did not need pardon as to Eternal guilt by his opinion because it is expresly read concerning those very men to whom in the Old Testament an unblamable and perfect observation of the Divine Law is ascribed That sometimes they fell into some sins and those enormous ones and most worthy of Death as of Asa 2. Chron. 16. Of David 1 Kings 15. 5. Of Josiah 2 Chron. 35. 22. And I think that which follows with the Apostle v. 23. must be interpreted to this sense viz. All have sinned and come short of the Glory of God That proposition seems plainly Universal so as to except none implying there is no man who hath not been guilty of some sins or of some more hainous sin either some one time or for some time Sive aliquando sive aliquandiu And this seems to be that very thing which the Scripture in many places asserts as for Example 1 Kings 8. 46. For there is no man who doth not sin 1 John 1. 8. If we say we have no sin we deceive our selves and the Truth is not in us Which speech that it ought to be understood of sins properly so called not only of lighter faults and also that it is Universal the very matter shews and the things which are after Pag. 118. added in that Epistle Chap. 2. v. 12. wherein also that is to be noted that St. John speaks in the Praeter-tense If we say we have not sinned viz. before the knowledg of the Gospel that is to say The holy Apostle would have the Christians to whom he writes diligently to take heed to themselves of the fault of an ingrateful mind And that they would not attribute this that they are purged from Vices either to themselves or the Law of Moses or Nature but only to Gospel-grace Otherwise he doth not seem to deny but that after the knowledg of the Gospel and its Grace received some could be without sin so as the word Sin is taken by him not so as it should signifie meer Ignorance or suddain Motions but those evil acts which have tractum a continued course as Grotius speaks and do not go before deliberation yea he doth not obscurely hint that this is possible 1 Epist 2. 1. Where he doth seriously exhort Christians not to sin Perhaps one may reply that the Apostle in the aforesaid Chapter v. 3. doth use the Present tense If we say we have no sin c. Therefore he implies That no man even after the Faith of the Gospel is free or can be free from those sins more properly so called But the answer is easie for to have sin and to sin or to do sin do not signifie the same Because to have sin as Grotius saith rightly is not now to be in sin but to be guilty or to be made guilty for sins formerly committed as doth most manifestly appear from John 9. 41. and 15. 22 24. The sense therefore is If we say that we have not hainously
Scripture is profitable for Doctrine for instruction in Righteousness That the man of God i. e. a Minister may be perfect throughly instructed to every good work this is spoken of the Old Testament-Scripture Christ and his Apostles do Interpret the Life promised to the Obedient in the Law as reaching to Future life Lev. 18. 5. The man that doth these Commands shall live in them Ezek. 20. 11. I gave them my Statutes which if a man do he shall live in them Gal. 3. 12. The Apostle cites these words and by Life takes it as a thing granted that they meant Eternal life Also Rom. 7. 10. The Commandment that was unto life Mat. 19. 16 17. The young man asks What shall I do to inherit Eternal life Christ answers If thou wilt enter into life keep the Commandments Which shew that Life and Eternal life signifie the same Psal 16. ult Thou wilt shew me the way of life in thy presence is fulness of joy and at thy right hand are pleasures for evermore Life here also signifies the Future life There are frequent Promises That if they will keep his Commandments He will be their God The Apostle cites Lev. 26. Where it is said If you will walk in my Statutes and keep my Judgments and do them then I will be your God and you shall be my people Ver. 3. 12. Which was Gods part of the Covenant his Engagement made to the people at Mount Sinai as appears Ver. 46. Now the Apostle having cited this Promise amongst others 2 Cor. 6. 16. adds Having these Promises let us cleanse our selves c. Which shews That he understood these words of Gods being one's God to extend to Future happiness So Mat. 22. 31 32 33. Have you not read concerning the Resurrection of the Dead I am the God of Abraham and Isaac Now God is not the God of the Dead but of the Living So Mark 12. 26. By the words translated Resurrection of the dead in Mat. and Rising in Mark seems to be meant Immediately and Primarily only †See Doctor Hammonds Annotation Mat. 22. 31. well cleaâ—ing this subsisting and being in a Future-state after death And this was that which the Sadduces denied as well as other things consequential thereto and of less concernment to support this Opinion And this was a most wicked Tenent subverting virtually all Religion which cannot be said of an Opinion only denying the Resurrection of the Body provided a man did but hold a Future-state of being or subsistence of the Soul in happiness or misery according to a mans works in this life But such an erronious Opinion might possibly be held for any thing I can see to the contrary in those more dark times consistent with this foundation of true Religion that God is a Rewarder in a Future life of Obedience in this and Punisher of Disobedience And further I do not think that the Resurrection of the Body was so clearly delivered in the Old Testament as that one believing all the Books of it to be Divine might not yet hold it a disputable Point considering the difficulties that Oppugne it and the obscurity of the Scriptures affirming it Though none of competent understanding believing the New Testament can now doubt of it Now our Saviour's Argument drawn from these words I am the God of Abraham and of Isaac c. since this was spoken to Moses and therefore after Abraham and Isaac were dead is cogent to prove against the main foundational wicked Opinion of the Sadduces viz. That Abraham and Isaac were then in being and also in Being in happiness for had they been utterly extinct or in beeing but in no estate of happiness He could not have said I am the God but only at the most I was the God of Abraham He is not so much as the Sustainer as the God in such a low-sense of the dead viz. of men totally extinct but of the living viz. of men in actual being And He cannot be called the God which implies some wonderful great and infinite favour of men being indeed and subsisting after their death but being in misery and dead in the sense wherein the Law threatned Future death But only can be called a God to such men departed as are in being and also are in great happiness and so are alive in the sense the Law promised Future life Also Saint John Rev. 22. 3 4 7. citeth that very Scripture fore-mentioned viz. Lev. 26. 11 12. Where God promises from Mount Sinai that if they would obey his Voice he would be their God It appears He refers to this very Scripture by the foregoing words in both places of setting his Tabernacle amongst them And he interpreteth the meaning of those words of God's being one's God by expressions denoting Life-to-come happiness As wiping away all tears And death being no more ver 7. He that overcometh shall inherit all things and I will be his God And also the Author to the Hebrews Chap. 11. 14 15 16. explain's this phrase of God being one 's God All these dyed in the Faith not having received the Promises but having seen them afar off were perswaded of them and declared plainly by confessing themselves Pilgrims and Strangers that they sought a Country and that not meerly Canaan an earthly Country but a Heavenly Wherefore God is not ashamed to be called their God For he hath prepared for them a City meaning Heaven of which Canaan and Jerusalem were but Types Implying that if that phrase of being their God had meant no more than giving them temporal good things in Canaan it would have been a shamefully too high a word for so low a thing and that giving only such low things as temporal Mercies are would have been unworthy of that Appellation of God being their God So that God might have been ashamed of using so Emphatical a Speech in such a low signification But he is therefore not ashamed of so high a profession of Friendship as those words import since He builded for them a City not made with hands Eternal in the Heavens These following are the only colourable replys made by some or that can be made here that I can call to mind First It would be to no purpose to reply The Old Testament had no Promises or Threats of Life-to-come happiness or misery but it typified Promises and Threats of Life-to-come happiness or misery For first I suppose I have sufficiently proved it had Life-to-come Promises and Threats Secondly In the sense wherein it did typifie such Life-to-come good or evil things it had no Life-to-come Promises or Threats else it would typifie Promises of such Fâ—ture-good things in promising those Future-good things which would be ridiculous to affirm Thirdly In the sense wherein it did typifie Life-to-come things it was neither the strict Law of Works requiring perfect obedience under the penalty of Future misery and promising Future happiness thereon Nor the Law of Grace or the Gospel promising
And one in Answer to this Book replying that this is contrary to the seventh Article of the Church of England which saith They are not to be heard who say the Fathers looked for no more than Transitory promises Meaning things Promised In his Appendix to the third Part pag. 150. He rejoyns I never thought that the Fathers looked for no more than Transitory promises but that it was not by virtue of the Covenant made with Moses that they looked for more I did and do affirm A great many of the Worthies mentioned Heb. 11. lived before the Law was given and the rest that followed them built their Expectation on the same ground they did Which also seems to be Doctor Hammond's opinion viz. That there were Promises of Future-life made to the more Ancient Patriarchs but none in the Mosaic-Dispensation For First Almost all the Arguments I have used do convincingly prove this That the Law of Moses to the Jews promised Future-life as well as threatned Future-death Now whether this Author holds the Law of Moses threatned Future-life-death to any sin or not I know not but think I have proved both sufficiently Also the Threats of Moses Law are expressed in as temporal a stile as the Promises so it would be irrational to affirm it threatned Future-death but promised not Future-life Secondly The promises made to Abraham were made in as temporal a stile as those in the Mosaic-Law if not in a far more temporal Thirdly If it shall be urged for I know the misunderstanding of such passages occasions this mistake that those Promises made to Abraham Isaac and Jacob are Interpreted in the New Testament as apparently reaching to a Future-life I answer So are the Promises of the Law of Moses made with the Jews Rom. 7. 10. Chap. 10. 5 6 7 2 Cor. 6. 16. Gal. 3. 10 11 12. And also the Threats Fourthly It seems apparent to me that that Dispensation of the Law from Mount Sinai and the Land of Moab was a clearer Dispensation of Threatnings of Future-death to the Disobedient and Promises of Future Soul-life to the Obedient than that to Abraham Sixthly You cannot with any colour reply It is true there are Promises of Future-life and Threatnings of Future-death as this Author somewhere grants but virtually and often unsays it again in Moses writings but not in the Law of Moses for these Promises and Threats were Gospel in Moses writings For First I have spoken against this Opinion enough already Secondly Some you see deny any such Promises in the Jewish Law And some any such Promises or Threats in the Scriptures of the Old Testament Thirdly If this was true it would follow That Christ never satisfied for any more than a temporal Curse of the Law For I have shewed the obsurdity of saying that he satisfied for the Curse of the Gospel in Moses writings threatned Fourthly The Apostle speaks of the Law in a sense distinct from the Gospel in Moses writings wherein it had Spiritual commands and that to Life meaning Eternal-life and also Future life Threats saying Christ hath born the Curse of the Law for us So Rom. 3. 20. By the deeds of the Law shall no flesh be justified in his sight For by the Law is the knowledg of sin So that I may conclude from what hath been here said that the utmost that can be said in derogating from the Law is First That the Law of Moses as it was the Common-wealth Law had no Eternal Promises or Threats or Spiritual Commands And in this sense are many Scriptures produced by this Author to be understood Secondly That the Law of Moses and the Old Testament-Law dispensation taken in the Important sense as refering to Conscience and Soul-salvation or damnation both in the sense wherein it was the Original-law of Works And also in the sense wherein it was the Gospel or a Law of Grace and Pardon hath no such cleer and distinct Promises of Eternal-life and threatnings of Eternal-death as are in the New Testament-Scriptures And in this comparative sense may some places of Scripture speaking in extenuation of the Law-promises be understood as being no Spiritual promises or Promises of Heaven comparatively to these in the New Testament And multitudes of Instances may be brought of Scriptures denying possitively and yet to be understood only comparatively As for Instance That place 2 Tim. 1. 10. where we read that Christ hath brought Life and Immortality to light through this clearer Dispensation of the Gospel must be understood comparatively as this Author grants though he destroys his whole Argumentation by granting it And may possibly be understood only of bringing them to light among the Gentiles who are said to be without hope being aliens from the Covenants of Promise For he saith in the verse following He was made a Teacher of the Gentiles viz. in these things Now though the light of Nature and Providence taught them Future-life happiness to the Obedient and Future misery and death to the Disobebient yet they taught these things so obscurely and faintly That they living wickedly and contrarily to the Light they had and so making it their interest to wish there was no Future-life might with ease stiffle and bafle such natural Sentiments so far as to hope there was no such Future state or however to make it a disputable Point as it was amongst them I mean more easily than the Jews that had the Law given in a dreadful manner testifying these things and credibly and convincingly brought down to them by Irrefragable testimony and more easily by far than men now But it is probable also this Scripture is to be understood comparatively to the Jewish dispensation of the Law and Gospel by Moses and the Prophets And indeed though it is so apparent that the Jews were taught a Future-life of Retribution by the Scripture of the Old Testament else those Scriptures could not have taught the Foundation of Religion and they did so understand the Scriptures That it is a wonder so many Learned men should incline to any Notions contrary yet the evidence they had of these things was very obscure to what this open-fac'd Dispensation of the Gospel affords and especially as to the exact manner of the great Judgment by Christ Jesus Acts 17. 31. And of Bodys being raised and made glorious like Christ's Body c. And also without doubt the best of them had very little particular hope and assurance ordinarily comparatively to this cleer Gospel-dispensation That they themselves in particular should enjoy the Future blessed state For they that knew but little of Christs satisfaction as comparatively to us they did which being now with open face known answereth such perplexing difficulties as they were ordinarily perplexed with and made subject to Bondage through fear of death could not ordinarily but be much perplexed thinking though it is apparent by the Testimony of God himself he will pardon sinners yet every truly Pious person might be ready
a Beast in Sacrifice and bring it not to the door of the Tabernacle Blood shall be imputed to that man he hath shed Blood and he shall be cut off from among the people That is he shall be accounted in Law a Murtherer Murther shall be Imputed to him viz. He shall in judgment of Law be accounted a Murtherer so far that the same punishment shall be due to him and Inflicted on him that would have been due if he had committed Murther not that he had in reality or was esteemed in reality to have shed Humane blood Philemon vers 18 19. where there is a word near akin to this but not altogether the same If he have wronged or oweth thee any thing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Impute it Account it to me I will pay it Not that he did owe it or had wronged him or that he would have him count that in reality he had wronged him or ought it to him but require it of me I put my self into that state in reference to Law as if I did owe it or had wronged thee Secondly Consider these following Scriptures where these words are used in the favourable Rewarding-sense 2 Tim. 4. 16. I pray God this viz. fault may not be imputed or accounted to them That is I pray it may be pardoned that it may be accounted as if it had not been committed not that he pray's God to think really that they never committed the fault which would be to admit an errour into his understanding but that he would graciously pardon it and consequently no more punish it than if he judged it not committed Numb 18. 27 30. This your Heave-offering shall be accounted or imputed to you as the Corn of the Threshing-floor That is whereas the people are commanded to offer their Tithes and their first-Fruits to God or they cannot without Sin and a Curse enjoy the rest Now saith he to the Levites If you pay this part the giving of this shall by Gods favour be available in Law to your benefit and comfort in freeing you from a Curse in imploying all the rest to your own use as if you had given such Tithes and First-fruits of your own Husbandry as the people do Not that God would account it really the Corn of their own Threshing-floor the First-fruits of their own Husbandry Rom. 5. 13. Where a different word is used but next a-kin to this Sin is not imputed where there is no Law That is could one suppose per possibile vel impossibile that there should be sin committed by a man without a Law it would not be Imputed he would not be guilty obliged to suffer would not be treated as an Offender Rom. 4. 11. That Righteousness might be imputed to them viz. the Gentiles also That is That though they be sinners and so have not Innocence and Righteousness in reality yet it shall upon their becoming Christians be Imputed to them Rom. 2. 26. If the uncircumcised keep the righteousness of the Law his uncircumcision shall be accounted for circumcision That is though a man be not Circumcised and so be one that you much despise yet if he live holily he shall be respected by God to all intents and purposes as if he had been Circumcised Rom. 4. 8. cited out of Psal 32. Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute iniquity implying there is iniquity but he will pardon it and not impute it Interpreted by that his sin forgiven therefore it Implys there is sin but not Imputed Not that God accounts he never committed it These words are also used in the Scriptures following but are used in something a different sense from the words fore cited because as you may observe they are not capable of being Translated by the word Impute as these above mentioned all are viz. Job 33. 10. Chap. 19. 11. Chap. 13. 24. He counteth me for his enemy Gen. 31. 15. Are we not accounted of him strangers Job 19. 15. My Maidens accounted me for a stranger Hos 8. 12. I have written to them the wonderful things of my Law but they were accounted strange things Psal 44. 22. cited Rom. 8. 36. We are accounted as sheep for the slaughter Now this may apparently be said of these Scriptures that either the word signifies a meer Thinking a meer immanent Act of the Understanding without any thing of favour or disfavour as one may Interpret some of these places or if not they apparently imply as any may perceive upon considering the places that the thing was not so in reality as accounted It would be too high in me to say I am certain upon so little pains as I have taken to examine these are all yet I am very confident these are all the places of Scripture where the Hebrew or Greek words are used in any sense distinct from a meer immanent Act of the Understanding except that of Phineas executing Judgement and it was accounted to him for Righteousness and the same words repeated again by this Apostle and by Saint James which are plain to this sence and the two Scriptures which this Author cites that I shall now take notice of This Author refers us only to two Scriptures where the words do not signifie meer thinking to prove that the words are used for accounting according to Justice and not Grace or according to the reality of things But they both of them prove evidently against that which he produceth them to prove The first is that saying of Shimei 2 Sam. 19. 19. Let not the King impute iniquity to me neither do thou remember what thy servant did perversly Here saith he Imputation of sin is of Justice and not of Grace Answ He forgets there is a Negation in this Speech It is not let my Lord impute iniquity to me But let not my Lord impute iniquity Now not to impute Iniquity is the very same thing with imputing Righteousness as the Apostle shews in this Chapter ver 6 8. compared Imputing Righteousness without Works that is without a mans being Righteous and not imputing Iniquity where there is Iniquity are the same Shimei's meaning is though I have committed a great fault and in truth am guilty and unrighteous in this respect yet impute Righteousness to me through Grace by pardon as to this fault or do not impute Iniquity to me put me into that state in reference to Punishment for this fault as if I was Righteous or Innocent as to this fault as if the fault had never been committed He did not mean do thou really account I never did that fault or do thou in Justice and not in Favour not impute sin to me The other Scripture which he brings is as manifest against him as this is which is this viz. ver 4. the very next verse after this Abraham believed and it was accounted to him for Righteousness Now to him that worketh the reward is reckoned of debt and and not of Grace Here saith he the Apostle
himself useth the word reckoned for reckned of Debt And therefore the word reckned doth not signifie reckned of Grace of it self Answ It is so apparent that any one may see it by perusing the place That these words Now to him that worketh the reward is reckned of Debt and not of Grace are an Argument to prove somthing said before as appears by the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Translated Now and do lean upon this implied Foundation to make them Argumentative viz. That so the word reckned cannot signifie when he saith God accounted it to him for Righteousness but signifies accounted it of Grace The Apostle's Argument is this If the reward had been given to Abraham for his Works as being a righteous man in the strict sense free from all sin or failing in obedience it would not have been said that God imputed Righteousness to him which implies his being destitute of it And he proves the consequence thus For to him that worketh that is that Meriteth or is Righteous by his own works the reward is accounted of Debt and not of Grace and so it leans upon this as being a thing apparent in it self that so the word Accounted cannot signifie but signifies accounted it of Grace and Favour imputedrighteousness to one not righteous like not imputing sin to one which implys the man a sinner And the Apostle in the following verse shews that it is all one as if it had been said Abraham believed God and upon his believing God did not impute sin to him And saith that if the Idolatrous unrighteous Gentiles believe as he did Righteousness shall be imputed to them or sin shall not be imputed to them Suppose we had read expresly these words Shimei repented or confessed his fault and David imputed it to him for Righteousness would it not have been all one as to say David did upon the Repentance or Confession of Shimei not impute sin to him And would it not be the same as to say David pardoned Shimei upon his Repentance or Confession and would not all these words imputed Righteousness imputed not Sin and Pardoned equally imply Shimei was a sinner or one unrighteous and consequently an Act of grace and savour in David so to do The Author having as you have seen given us his reason why he cannot be of their mind that say the word implys reckoned of Grace He in the next words tells us how the Apostle gathers out of that Scripture Abraham believed God and it was counted or imputed to him for Righteousness that the reward was not imputed to Abraham of Debt as a reward is given to Labourers but of Grace Thus I judg therefore that the Collection Pag. 265. of the Apostle whereby he infers out of that Citation That the Justification of Abraham was meerly Gratuitous doth not lean upon the naked signification of the word was Imputed But partly upon the nature of the thing which is said to be Imputed to Abraham for Righteousness and partly on the former state and quality of the person Abraham to whom it is said to be Imputed First The nature of the thing Pag. 266. The thing which is said to be Imputed to Abraham for Righteouâ—ness was Faith and Obedience springing from it Now the obedience of Faith doth exclude all Merit all together in its own Notion For the obedience of Faith supposeth a gracious Revelation of God first made to the Believer and so such Promises as do by their own excellency strongly excite a man believing them to perform that obedience to God by which as by the condition the good things Promised are to be attained and such Promises as do not only equal but far excel the whole labour though very great which is undertaken through the belief of them So it was plainly in the Example of Abraham He indeed believed God but first God had revealed himself to him in a gracious extraordinary manner Acts 7. 2 3. He had obeyed the Divine command in calling him to a long perilous Journey but God had added Wings to his Journey promising such huge good things which might even fill a decriped old man with youthful strength and might animate him to bear any trouble cheerfully Whatsoever therefore Abraham did worthy of praise he ought to ascribe it to the gracious Revelation and the liberal Promises made to him by God of his meer Mercy therefore there was no occasion for Abraham to glory No Merit The Apostle seems to have respect to this ver 5. where when that which was denied of one working viz. the reward to be given him of Grace * This is his mistake and not the Apostle's was to have been repeated in the following Opposition and to have been affirmed of one believing thus but to a man believing the reward is reckned of Grace But the Apostle doth quite otherwise saith he to one believing his faith is imputed for righteousness as if he should say upon that very account that his faith is imputed for righteousness his Justification is meerly gracious since Faith in it self sounds forth Grace and excludes Merit Here now I must but as on the Pag. 267. bie a little dwell upon the words of the Apostle ver 4. To him that worketh the reward is not reckned of Grace but of Debt Which place that it may be the better understood two things are to be enquired 1. What the word working signifies 2. What the word Debt signifies For the first He that worketh denoteth him that worketh of himself and by his own strength being assisted with no Divine aids For he that worketh by the Grace of God he doth not so much work as the Grace of God in him 1 Cor. 15. 10. Gal. 2. 20. And the Context of the place confirms this For beside that the Apostle as we have seen doth professedly dispute of the works of Abraham which he performed according to the flesh in the beginning of the Chapter That is also chiefly to be observed that he that worketh is opposed to him that believeth that is that from the belief of the Divine Promises and so whose works are to be ascribed to the Divine Grace which stirred him up to work with most great and liberal Promises also adding a great efficacy of his Spirit which also is received only after and by Faith Now in the second place to speak of these words of Debt no reason permits that they should be taken rigidly * There is all reason to take words strictly and properly when it can be done and not to fly to this Authors expression it may seem as it were of Debt And had this Author given the true sense of this Chapter he might have taken the words strictly thus If of perfect obedience to the Law then of Debt and not of Grace meaning by Grace Forgiveness and if of meritorious Works then of Debt and not of Grace in any sense strictly For the reward of Eternal life cannot be
said properly to be owing to any man though working most perfectly and also from the meer strength of Nature Neither could that be ascribed to the first man if he had stood in Innocency and had never violated the Divine Covenant with any sin for the reward of Eternal life being Infinite exceeds infinitely the works of any Creature Therefore it is most certain that these words of the Apostle But to him that worketh the reward is not reckoned of Grace but of Debt are not to be understood absolutely and simply but comparatively So that the Apostle signifies that the reward is not given to him that worketh on that manner as I have expressed out of such meer and pure Grace as to one that believeth that is to one working from Faith Therefore this is the sense of the words If the reward of Eternal life should be given by God to him that worketh that is that obeys God and worketh righteousness by his native strength without the Grace of God That may really seem as it were to be given as of debt and there would be to one working at least some shew of boasting But when the reward is imputed to him that doth not work but believeth that is who works nothing of himself but from Faith and after his believing of God graciously revealing himself Here appears Divine Grace illustriously boasting is excluded all merit is cast off Yea here is seen double Grace of God 1. That he works in a man the obedience of Faith by his Grace preceding all Merits of his and also that he imputeth for Righteousness the same obedience to a man which he wrought in him and Crowning it with a great Reward no otherwise than if the man had performed it of himself Whereas this Author pretends that the stress of the Apostles Argument in Rom. 4. leans upon this viz. That if men should do things they have in no sense any ability to do and that in sensu composito while they have no ability to do them If men should do that by their native strength which they have no strength to do this would Merit or have some shew of Merit As if Abraham had believed before God had promised had believed without a Testimony or Revelation or had obeyed before he had any ability to obey this would have Merited or have had some shew of Merit But God promised first before Abraham believed and afforded him strength and all things naturally necessary to produce obedience before he obeyed and so there was no Merit in his Faith and Obedience I confess I am dubious whether I should grant this to be true or not or if I should grant it true whether I should deny any such Suppositions may be allowed in Argumentation since it would require many words exactly to determine this Logical dispute and would also require more Logical acuteness than he or I in these disputes seem to make use of or is fit in this Controversie to trouble the Reader with But to be short I will grant but it shall be only conditionally That this would Merit or have a shew of Merit because it would be to do what God gave him no ability to do yea it would be to do what all generally grant that the Diety cannot do viz. a formal Impossibility But I will grant it as I said only conditionally viz. on condition that he will grant the contrary follows from the same Supposition viz. That if a man should do what he hath no ability to do it would have no Merit or no shew of Merit because it would be so far from Merit that it would be an absurd irrational and foolish act it would be so far from any shew of Merit that it could no way be commendable And because some may think strange of such a conditional concession let it be considered that from a naturally impossible Supposition as this of his is contradictory Consequences may equally follow as I could make appear in almost any Instance Take these Si scirem me mortuum esse essem mortuus And Si scirem me mortuum esse non essem mortuus If I truly knew I was not I should not be And if I truly knew I was not I should be So Si bestia intelligeret esset homo Si bestia intelligeret non esset homo Therefore what Irreverence is it at the least for this Author to fasten such an Argument on the Apostle as that either nothing can be concluded from it or the contrary may equally be concluded from it e. g. If Abraham had been Justified by Works that is according to this Author by doing such works as he had in no sense any power to do he might glory or he had Merited when it might as well at least be concluded he could not have gloried he could not have Merited But yet to prevent the Antinomian Extreme who use to say we must not so much as Suppose things or Argue from Suppositions though only Morally impossible remember I put in the word Naturally saying Suppositions Naturally impossible For it is apparent there may be rational Arguing from a Hypothetical proposition which is not Naturally impossible but only Morally As for Example in such Speeches as these If a man not Elected or to whom God did not Decree to give converting Grace should Believe and Repent he should be Saved If a man accustomed to do evil should do well he should be Saved If a man had turned from sin to God before God converted him it would have prevented many sad Thoughts of Heart Yea this may so evidently be supposed that men's Hearts may and do reproach them that they did not turn to God before God did actually turn them or did give them such Grace as would actually prevail with them because before God did thus turn them or give them the Grace of Conversion they had the Natural ability to Convert and turn to God and only their Moral-Impotency which is voluntary Wickedness hindred them else it would not have been their duty so to turn or their sin not to turn So Paul saith If an Angel of Heâ—ven should Preach any other Gospel he should be accursed And Christ said John 8. 55. If I should say I know him not I should be a lyar like to you And these are rationally allowable Suppositions because an Angel in Heaven hath and Christ on Earth had the Natural power to Speak or Teach falshood though yet joyned with such a Morally insuperable holy rectitude of Will that they could not obtain of themselves so to Speak or Teach And this is not like doing what they have not the Natural ability to do And the contrary doth not here follow from these Suppositions For you cannot say If a confirmed Angel from Heaven should Teach errour he should not be accursed or if Christ should have denied he knew God he would not have been a Lyaâ— which yet might have been said if this had been To do what they had not
my Discourse of Natural and Moral Impotency to force the Explaining of such words and also consider what would be answered to them I judg that one great cause of Doctor Hammond's mistakes under debate as well as of this Author's was chiefly their want of distinct Notions about Natural and Moral Impotency as appears by their affirming as both of them do and the Doctor particularly pag. 86. that It is a direct contradiction to hold a Power in one sense and a want of Power in another sense to the same Act to hold That a man hath a Moral impotency to do what he hath a Natural power to do And consequently also his not distinguishing between Natural and Moral Irresistibility It is also apparent that another great â—ause of his mistakes is his forgetting or not considering that men are Universally wicked else he would not supâ—ose it Irrational to hold as he doth pag. 36. and 38. that no one man that hâ—d power enough to obey the Gospel sufficient to render him Inexcusable in not obeying it as I think all have that have the Gospel and are not Natural Fools did ever obey the Gospel without the addition of some further Supereffluence of Grace to make him Willing of Unwilling Now if this be not to forget or deny that all men are wicked so wicked that their Enmity and Aversation of will to Good will never be overcome but by the Grace of the Holy Ghost I know not what is And I grant that except men were Universally wicked it would be Irrational to suppose that of such Multitudes none should obey without such Grace But I think I have said enough in my Discourse of Natural and Moral Impotency to shew the Danger and Inconsistency of such Opinions as these Letters of the Doctor 's are written to maintain though I living obscurely had not seen those Letters when I wrote that Discourse And if yet any intelligent man shall satisfie me that I have not said enough there to this end or that there is any thing said in those Leters that needeth a more particular answer I may probably say more For my great Aversation to such Principles will much encline me upon an easie call to oppose the Prevalency of them till I shall see some sitter man of our own Church and Language where they prevail as I doubt not but there are many whose Abilities and Circumstances make them far more fit willing to undertake it and save the Labour of my weak Endeavours But now to attend the Author after this large Digression who still goes on to give the meaning of Rom. 4. The Apostle also in this his Argumentation considereth the former state and condition of the Person viz. of Abraham to whom this Faith was imputed for Righteousness He was ungodly and guilty of grievous sins and therefore the Apostle saith Emphatically that Abraham believed in him who justifieth one ungodly By that implying that Abraham before the Divine vocation was so far from deserving any thing from God by any good Works that on the contrary he was guilty of the greatest sins So that the Mercy of God was wonderful both that he had revealed himself in so singular a way to so great a sinner and had called him to his Service And also that he not only blessed with the Pardon of his great sins but also rewarded with the greatest Rewards Abraham believing him revealing himself to him But you will say What was this Impiety of Abraham before he was called I answer Idolatry the greatest of Impieties as the Scripture it self plainly testifies Joshu 24. 2 3. c. where God saith in the plural Number That the Fathers of the Hebrews served other Gods And he expresses whom he means Thareh the Father of Abraham and the Father of Nachor so that he puts those three the Father with the Children in the same Predicament Also after he had said they served other gods he adds And he took your Father Abraham ver 3. evidently denoting that this is commemorated amongst the kindnesses to the Israelites that when their Ancestors viz. the Grand-Father of Israel both by his Father and Mother Abraham and Nahor living with their Father in Chaldea worshipped other gods God of his meer Mercy without any merit of his took Abraham and gave to him a Heir and an Inheritance Also the Apostle seems in these words of justifying the ungodly by a tacit indeed but yet by a strong Argument to check the Arrogancy of the Jews who did abhor the Sinful and Idolatrous Gentiles Gal. 2. 15. though Converted to the true God by Faith in Christ and Repentance and new Obedience And would by no means admit them to the favour of Justification unless approved by a long and continued working or at least purg'd by Circumcision and Sacrifices For the Apostle shews in these words that Abraham their Father and so they in him was called in the same manner from Idolatry and the worship of false Gods And was immediately after his belief of the Promises and Obedience given to the Divine vocation yea before he was Circumcised as is a little-after shewed accepted of God Who would not here admire the divine wit of the Apostle Furthermore this belongs to all Justified since there is none that is not guilty of hainous sins before Grace received so who doth not need Pardon and Divine Remission Which the Apostle well proves by a Testimony out of David ver 6 7 8. And afterward the Apostle passes to the Controversie concerning Circumcision ver 9. The Author here indeed giveth the true sense of many verses in this Chapter Rom. 4. But the fault is he faineth the Apostle to bring them in Desultorily or as Ropes of Sand without any coherence as when he saith The Apostle also considereth the former state of Abraham whereas the Apostle in this Chapter brings it in Argumentatively and had the Author given a right Interpretation of the Verses before he might readily have seen how this of Abrahams being ungodly comes in most rationally to prove that Abraham was not Justified by Works but by Righteousness Imputed to him and that his Justification was of Grace and not of Debt So whereas he tells us that the Apostle doth afterward viz. verse 9. pass to the controversie of Circumcision there is no passing to a new Controversie but the Apostle there draweth an Argument from that that Abraham was Justified upon his Believing and Obeying God before he was Circumcised to prove that Abraham was not Justified by Works in the sense wherein he opposes his Justification by Works as I have else-where made apparent Now he comes to give us the Result of his thoughts how his sense of this Chapter tends to Reconcile the two Apostles Hence there cleerly shines forth an Agreement between James and Paul when from the same Example of Abraham one concludes that a man is Justified without Works the other by Works viz. Paul considers Abraham according to the Flesh