Moses and that in so doing in excluding them he doth also reject the corrupt Interpretations or Opinions which the Scribes and Pharisees had fastned on this Law or added to it And also that the Apostle though speaking little about it and on the bie doth implicitly affirm that Works done according to the Law of Nature and proceeding from the strength of Nature doth avail nothing to Salvation Chap. 7. He tells us what works of the Laws of Moses in these words pag. 101. This Law consists of two Parts viz. of Moral and Ritual Precepts The Apostle without doubt had respect to them both For that he speaks also of the Moral Precepts of the Law of Moses whatever some say to the contrary is too manifest out of his own words Rom. 3. 20. Wherefore by the Works of the Law shall no flesh be justified in his sight for by the Law is the knowledg of sin From whence it may be gathered that it is that Law by which is the knowledg of sin whose works he he excludes which without controversie is spoken of the Moral-Law written in the Decalogue For so the Apostle expounds himself Rom. 7. 7. citing that out of the Decalogue Thou shalt not Covet So Rom. 3. 31. Do we destroy the Law by Faith God forbid yea we establish the Law Now the Ceremonial-Law can scarce be said to be established by Faith The Law worketh wrath For where there is no Law there is no Transgression is chiefly true of the Moral-Law For almost all Transgressions are against the Moral-Law therefore the Dispute of the Apostle pertains also to the Works of the Moral-Law In the mean time I must add this that the Works of the Moral-Law are not simply excluded by Paul from Justification but only so far as they were prescribed in the mosaic-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-Mosaic-Covenant by Works of the Moral-Law though they were rightly yea and exactly performed according to the Rule of the Law because it promised no true Justification at all That is Justification joyned with Eternal-Life For that great Benefit comes only from the Covenant of Grace made in the Blood of the Mediator So that if you respect the mosaic-Mosaic-Covenant even the works of the Moral-Law are together to be excluded from Justification and are indeed excluded by the Apostle I know you are at a loss about the Author's meaning what he means by this Mosaic-Covenant that no man could be justified by as to Future life though free all sin and perfectly obeying the Moral-Law because this Mosaic-Covenant promised no Justification as to Eternal life upon any terms whatsoever Now because you will not understand what he saith here on the two Arguments he brings in the next words which he pretends are only the Apostle's Arguments against Justification by this Mosaic-Covenant and that this is all the Law and Covenant that the Apostle proves against Justification by I will bring together here all that he saith to tell us what he means by the Mosaic-Covenant that there is no Justification by as he saith as to a Future life though there was as to this Life and you will see it apparent that he means by it only that Law or Laws which I before cited out of him by the name of an Original-Law and Remedying-Law which threatned a violent Temporal death to the Transgressors of the Law and promised upon offering a Sacrifice they should escape such violent Temporal death but promised nothing of Happiness in a Future life if they offered such Sacrifices or Pardon of those sins as to a Future life He apparently either means this Remedying-Law only or both together the Original-Law as it threatned a violent Temporal death and the Remedying-Law freeing from a violent Temporal death upon the death of a Beast And he thinks that the Law taken in such a sense as to threaten Eternal death or promise Eternal life was the Gospel it self and that Paul doth not dispute against being Justified by any such Law And that the Law given from Mount Sinai however had no Promises or Threats of a Future life not so much as obscure ones and he builds the sense he gives of the Apostle Paul upon this Foundation You have seen this passage already where he saith it promised no Eternal life-Justification to any whatsoever though Sinless and perfectly keeping the Law Pag. 208. The Promises and Threatnings of the Law were only Temporal and Earthly Pag. 210. And the Precepts did wonderfully accord with the Promises Pag. 212. He speaks largely to prove this The Apostle doth in many places tax this defect of the Mosaic-Law that it had no promise of a Future life And hither some refer that Text Rom. 8. 3. where it is said The Law was weak through the Flesh i. e. say they It contained only carnal Promises But I chuse rather the common Interpretation viz. of Flesh for Sin The 5th verse of the foregoing Chapter is more apposite where the Law is called Flesh for those words When we were in the Flesh must be expounded When we were under the Law as is manifest from the Antithesis which they have to Vers 6. and also from the scope of the whole Chapter And the Mosaic-Law seems to be called Flesh not only because the most of the Precepts were carnal only and External but also because the Promises with which this Law was enforced did not look beyond this Carnal life To the same sense Grotius expounds the words of the Apostle 2 Cor. 3. where he calls the Law a Ministry of Death because all its Promises were ended with Death without any hope of Restitution So v. 6. The Law of Moses is said to kill viz. as the same Grotius notes As the Hebrew word to make alive is used of him who did not kill a man Exod. 1. 17. Judg. 8. 19. So that is said to kill which leaves a man to die and doth not free from Death But that I may confess the truth I rather believe these Phrases to Kill and a Ministry of death to signifie something else viz. the written Law of Moses to make men Obnoxious to Divine anger and Eternal death if it be alone and destitute of the Spirit not through its †It is well he here grants it is through the default of the Man and not fâ—om the Law but this destroys his cause and He a few Lines after contradicts this own fault but through the infirmity of the Flesh The Apostle's words Gal. 3. 13. seem more clear The Law is not of Faith but he that doth them shall live in them That is the Law neither requires Faith neither doth it promise those things which require Faith or Belief properly so called which is the evidence of things not seen Heb. 11. 1. Rom. 8. 24. because it promises only good things of that sort which are things of Sense and
belong to this visible World but saith not a tittle concerning a Future life It excites us not to Piety with any promises of this sort but requires that we do its commands not adding any such promise to excite us Only saying Thou shalt live here a prosperous and fortunate life as appears Lev. 18. 5. but that place Gal. 3. 21. is most clear If there had been a Law which could have given life verily Righteousness should have been by that Law The Law is said to give or do what it promises The sense thereof is If the * Here He lays the fault on the Law and denies it virtually to be the fault of the Man unsaying what he had said before Law had had promises of life viz. Eternal then men could have attained by the Law true and perfect Righteousness or true and perfect Justification that is Justification conjoyned with Eternal life But the matter was far otherwise the Law contains only promises belonging to this Life Being no better supplied with proofs than with these out of the Apostle Paul he brings some out of the Author to the Hebrews and might have brought many more and clearer to shew that Author means by the Law the Law of Sacrifices which Sacrifices did only expiate Temporal guilt as real propitiatory Sacrifices and not at all guilt as to Eternal punishment but only Typified that which did Pag. 215. Quest Is there no promise of Eternal life extant in the Old Testament Answ Either you mean by the Old Testament the Covenant made in Mount Sinai or all things contained in Moses the Hagiography and the Prophets If taken in the latter sense it may perhaps be granted there are some not obscure hints of a Future life though not a clear and express Promise of Eternal life But these hints such as they were were only Praeludiums and Anticipations of Gospel-Grace They did not belong to the Law For the Law as it is considered by the Apostle in his Disputations with the Jews doth properly denote the Covenant made in Mount Sinai Gal. 4. 24. And that had earthly Promises and earthly only It is true indeed that those earthly Promises added to the Law of Works were signs of those good things which did follow the Law of the Spirit and those were comprehended in them in the intention of God himself It is also true that there are extant some general Promises or Promises made in general terms in the Law it self in which it is manifest that Eternal life not only might be but was contained in Gods Intention As I will be thy God and I will Bless you For who doubts but in these Promises thus generally pronounced there might be contained every sort of good things yea those which come only after Death For God to be willing to be one's God what is it else then God to be willing to embrace a man with Divine good Will Now Divine good Will or Benignity worthy of God What is it else than the highest Benignity and than which there can be no greater or further And therefore with a Benignity most long in duration that is Eternal most powerful in Operation and therefore freeing from Death and Destruction For it is manifest by the Interpretation of Christ himself and his Apostles that Life-eternal in the Intention of God was comprehended in these words see Mat. 22. 31 32. Heb. 11. 16. 2 Cor. 6. 16 17 18. compared with Chap. 7. 1. Rev. 21. 3. 7. But these things do not suffice that we may say that Life-eternal was promised in the Mosaic-Covenant For Promises annexed to a Covenant ought to be clear and express and such as may be understood by either Party but it was almost impossible that any one should understand these Typical and general Promises without some adventitious Interpretation Again this Eternallife shadowed with Types and comprehended in these general Promises was not given to the external Righteousness required in the Letter of the Law but to that spiritual Purity and Piety of which this other External was only a shadow For even as Eternal good things lay covered under the bark of Temporal good things so also the Bodily-Religion prescribed in the Law was a Shadow and Type of Spiritual-Righteousness to be revealed more clearly in the Gospel In a word the Law considered Carnally and according to the Letter neither required Spiritual-Righteousness nor promised Eternal-life but being considered Spiritually was the very Gospel it self neither doth the Apostle move any controversie about here it being so taken Pa. 232. He again largely tells us what Law it was that the Apostle only meant when he exclude's the Law and Works of the Law from Justification where denying the Spirit to be given by that Law he thus speaketh If by the Law you understand the Covenant made in Mount Sinai and given to the Israelites Moses being the Mediator which I have even now said is the most proper and genuine Acceptation and Notion of it in Paul's Epistles it is manifest it contained no Promise of the Holy Spirit But in other Books of the Old Testament yea and in the writings of Moses though not in the Mosaic-Covenant it self we may find a Promise cleer enough of giving the Grace of the Holy Spirit to the Israelites as that Deut. 30. 6. The Lord thy God shall circumcise thy heart and the heart of thy Seed to love the Lord thy God with all thy heart c. Now this cannot be done as all that differ from Pelagius confess without a great force of the Holy Ghost But this did belong to the Gospel-Righteousness which first Moses himself and after other Prophets did shew to lie under the Bark of the external Rites and Ceremonies for the Righteousness of Faith which is manifested in the Gospel was in times past testified by the Law and the Prophets as the Apostle expresly affirms Rom. 3. 21. Yea I will shew you further that this was part of the New Testament promulgated by Moses For that the Covenant made with the Jews Deut. 29. and 30. in which these words are found was plainly distinct from the Covenant made in Mount Sinai and also doth contain a Renewing of the Covenant made with Abraham that is of the Gospel-covenant then more obscurely Revealed may be Demonstrated by many Arguments First It is expresly said Deut. 29. 1. that the words which there * It is not said the words which follow I rather think that the Expression these are the words of the covenant meaning the laws or Precepts of the Covenant hath reference to the Laws before recited in this Book of Deuteronomy rather than to the words following in this Chapter And that this Verse if a right division had been made should rather have ended the former Chapter than have begun this follow were words of the Covenant which the Lord commanded Moses to make with the Children of Israrael in the Land of Moab besides the Covenant which he made with
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