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-Law written in the Decalogue For so the Apostle expounds himself Rom. 7. 7. citing that out of the Decalogue Thou shalt not Covet So Rom. 3. 31. Do we destroy the Law by Faith God forbid yea we establish the Law Now the Ceremonial-Law can scarce be said to be established by Faith The Law worketh wrath For where there is no Law there is no Transgression is chiefly true of the Moral-Law For almost all Transgressions are against the Moral-Law therefore the Dispute of the Apostle pertains also to the Works of the Moral-Law In the mean time I must add this that the Works of the Moral-Law are not simply excluded by Paul from Justification but only so far as they were prescribed in the Mosaic-Covenant and were made part of the condition annexed to this Covenant It is certain that no man could come to true Justification by the Mosaic-Covenant by Works of the Moral-Law though they were rightly yea and exactly performed according to the Rule of the Law because it promised no true Justification at all That is Justification joyned with Eternal-Life For that great Benefit comes only from the Covenant of Grace made in the Blood of the Mediator So that if you respect the Mosaic-Covenant even the works of the Moral-Law are together to be excluded from Justification and are indeed excluded by the Apostle I know you are at a loss about the Author's meaning what he means by this Mosaic-Covenant that no man could be justified by as to Future life though free all sin and perfectly obeying the Moral-Law because this Mosaic-Covenant promised no Justification as to Eternal life upon any terms whatsoever Now because you will not understand what he saith here on the two Arguments he brings in the next words which he pretends are only the Apostle's Arguments against Justification by this Mosaic-Covenant and that this is all the Law and Covenant that the Apostle proves against Justification by I will bring together here all that he saith to tell us what he means by the Mosaic-Covenant that there is no Justification by as he saith as to a Future life though there was as to this Life and you will see it apparent that he means by it only that Law or Laws which I before cited out of him by the name of an Original-Law and Remedying-Law which threatned a violent Temporal death to the Transgressors of the Law and promised upon offering a Sacrifice they should escape such violent Temporal death but promised nothing of Happiness in a Future life if they offered such Sacrifices or Pardon of those sins as to a Future life He apparently either means this Remedying-Law only or both together the Original-Law as it threatned a violent Temporal death and the Remedying-Law freeing from a violent Temporal death upon the death of a Beast And he thinks that the Law taken in such a sense as to threaten Eternal death or promise Eternal life was the Gospel it self and that Paul doth not dispute against being Justified by any such Law And that the Law given from Mount Sinai however had no Promises or Threats of a Future life not so much as obscure ones and he builds the sense he gives of the Apostle Paul upon this Foundation You have seen this passage already where he saith it promised no Eternal life-Justification to any whatsoever though Sinless and perfectly keeping the Law Pag. 208. The Promises and Threatnings of the Law were only Temporal and Earthly Pag. 210. And the Precepts did wonderfully accord with the Promises Pag. 212. He speaks largely to prove this The Apostle doth in many places tax this defect of the Mosaic-Law that it had no promise of a Future life And hither some refer that Text Rom. 8. 3. where it is said The Law was weak through the Flesh i. e. say they It contained only carnal Promises But I chuse rather the common Interpretation viz. of Flesh for Sin The 5th verse of the foregoing Chapter is more apposite where the Law is called Flesh for those words When we were in the Flesh must be expounded When we were under the Law as is manifest from the Antithesis which they have to Vers 6. and also from the scope of the whole Chapter And the Mosaic-Law seems to be called Flesh not only because the most of the Precepts were carnal only and External but also because the Promises with which this Law was enforced did not look beyond this Carnal life To the same sense Grotius expounds the words of the Apostle 2 Cor. 3. where he calls the Law a Ministry of Death because all its Promises were ended with Death without any hope of Restitution So v. 6. The Law of Moses is said to kill viz. as the same Grotius notes As the Hebrew word to make alive is used of him who did not kill a man Exod. 1. 17. Judg. 8. 19. So that is said to kill which leaves a man to die and doth not free from Death But that I may confess the truth I rather believe these Phrases to Kill and a Ministry of death to signifie something else viz. the written Law of Moses to make men Obnoxious to Divine anger and Eternal death if it be alone and destitute of the Spirit not through its †It is well he here grants it is through the default of the Man and not fâ—om the Law but this destroys his cause and He a few Lines after contradicts this own fault but through the infirmity of the Flesh The Apostle's words Gal. 3. 13. seem more clear The Law is not of Faith but he that doth them shall live in them That is the Law neither requires Faith neither doth it promise those things which require Faith or Belief properly so called which is the evidence of things not seen Heb. 11. 1. Rom. 8. 24. because it promises only good things of that sort which are things of Sense and
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-Gospel-Grace by force of the Mosaic-law or Law of Nature For the things by which Paul disputeth against the Mosaic-Law do more strongly militate as we have noted somewhere viz. pag. 120. before recited against the Law of Nature Now this is an evident Consectary from what is before said The Apostle fighteth with this Argument chiefly against Justification by the Law of Moses or Nature that both these Laws are purely destitute of those helps by which a man may be drawn to true Holiness worthy of God and grateful to him It manifestly hence follows that only that Holiness and those Works are excluded by the Apostle from Justification which proceed from a mans weak ability ab infirmitate humana who is in the state of the Law or Nature First Then no man was bound to true Holiness acceptable to God by the Law of Moses or the Law of Nature and consequently no man did sin in not performing Obedience acceptable to God since it was this defect of these Laws neither of them either promising Future reward or affording ability to perform true Godliness Secondly I cannot understand how this is consistent with what this Author saith pag. 116. before recited where he affirmeth that Some Heathens did sincerely and heartily love and follow Virtue and Righteousness so far as it was known to them Unless he will say that no Virtue and Righteousness pleasing to God was known to them which would be to make his concession insignificant or that these Heathens did super-erogate or did more than they had ability to do or than the Law of Nature required from them Thirdly This is to say that the Apostle hath Copiously and Elaborately proved only these two things viz. 1. That there is no Justification by good Works performed by men provided there be no promise of Future reward made to them or at least provided men to perform them without respect to Future recompence of reward And 2. That no man is Justified by doing such Works as men have in no sense any ability to do Now can any imagine that any of the Jews Pharisaical Teachers taught them that they might be Justified by such Works If it shall be replied No For their Teachers taught them that they might be Justified by the Works of the Law of Moses or Nature which Works really had no promise of a Future-life reward and they had really no ability to perform these Works But their Pharisaical Teachers taught them That such Works of the Law of Moses had a promise of Future-life reward and that they had ability to do such Works I shall let many things pass that I might here rejoyn to shew the Inconsistency of this Reply with the whole discourse of the Apostle yea and with the Argument he strives to fasten on the Apostle And also to shew how improbable it is that men should fancy themselves to have or believe others telling them they have power to do things they have an Impotency to do taking Impotency as this Author apparently doth for the proper natural Impotency distinct from wickedness for a cannot distinct from a will not For it is not ordinary for Multitudes to fancy this nor to believe them that should tell them so nor for any but wonderfully weak and fanciful men Though I know it is too common for men to have better thoughts of themselves than they should in reference to their Morals and so to think they are not so wicked as they are and that they have no Moral-Impotency which is wicked Obstinacy to the doing those good things they have the Natural power to do I say letting these things pass And also letting pass what I could say to prove that the Apostle would never have contradicted these Opinions viz. That men might have been Justified had they done all the Law of Moses or Nature required of them so as only wicked wilfulness which is the Moral-Impotency hindred them because neither those nor any other Laws
such as he was before his calling but James considers him as now being already favoured with Grace and Divine Vocation One denies his Justification by works done before Faith the other ascribes his Justification to his works proceeding from Faith And so there is no contradiction here between the Apostles This is if I may borrow a phrase from * Referente Origene lib. 6. Celsus like casting Lots what to say to Reconcile the Apostles And this is the common Evasion of the Papists when an Argument is brought against them from such passages in Pauls Epistles to prove that no man is Justified by the Merit of Works or perfect Obedience Further It is notoriously false that Paul here considers Abraham as he was before the Divine calling and his believing For First He speaks expresly of him as believing and having such a strong Faith as overcame great Oppositions and of his being Justified by such Faith Secondly He proves that when he Believed and Obeyed he was not Justified by Works in the sense wherein he excludes his Justification by Works viz. by perfect Obedience or Jewish Observations or Meritorious Works Thirdly He as equally excludes Works done after Faith as before viz. such works as he excludes Fourthly The Apostle brings this Circumstance to prove he was not Justified by Works viz. That he was Justified before Circumcision ver 16. which he could not have done had he in speaking of him considered him as he was before the Divine Call so as to deny his Justification by works done before it For had this been his meaning to deny his Justification only by such works done in his estate of Heathenism it would rather have furthered this denial and have added force to it by way of Argument could he have shewed that Abraham's Justification was not till after his Circumcision and Receiving the Seal of the Covenant Fifthly The Pharisaical-Jews which the Apostle there opposeth would not be sure pretend that Abraham was Justified while he lived in Heathenish courses before the Divine Call that the Apostle should need to oppose it Yea it was their Interest if they would maintain their first Opinion of Excluding the Uncircumcised Gentiles from Salvation and Justification to Plead though false that Abraham was not Justified till Circumcised or which is true that he was not Justified while he lived in Heathenish courses as they might pretend though falsly the Uncircumcised Converted Gentiles did But for the true meaning of this whole Chapter since I would not needlesly repeat the same thing See my short Discourse of the Apostle Paul's meaning Thus I have set before you all considerable that our Author saith concerning the only two Arguments that he tells us the Apostle Paul maketh use of against Justification by the Law and Works that concern the whole Body of the Mosaic-Law containing in it as he saith the Moral-Law He next proceeds viz. Chap. 14. to tell us how the Apostle opposeth the Ritual and Ceremonial-Law but he spends but few Lines about it saying there is no dispute about that among Christians Chapter 15. is spent in Citing out of some Authors some sayings of the Jews in Defence of the Power of Free-will without the Grace of the Spirit which he speaks against though many of them may be capable of no ill Construction possibly meaning no more than that men have the natural Power of Free-will without which they cannot be men or guilty of sin from common Providence And not that the Will is not Morally insuperably wicked without Grace Chapter 16. He well shews out of Jewish Authors that it was a common errour amongst them to think they perfectly obeyed the Law and did all it required if they didbut some few External things thinking those Precepts that required Inward-Holiness and Heart-Obedience were only Counsel and not Commands and so in stead of bringing up their Lives to the Law they maintained such Opinions as brought the Law down to their Lives as that it required no more than an External partial Obedience But I cannot but wonder at his Corollary which he draws hence and makes use of as an Argument against others which is this Pag. 318. Hence it is manifest that they do widely Err from the Scope of the Apostle that hold that he disputes against perfect Obedience to the Law as a defended and received Opinion amongst the Jews for it is manifest out of what I have said that they were so far from this perswasion that they were content to stand still within the bounds of too Imperfect Obedience Is this Author serious Let me ask a few Questions seriously Whether is it more likely that this Author should maintain Perfection in this Life and that a man may be Justified by the Law without the Gospel and Pardon that holds there is not any Law of God that requires more than Christians that are sincere ordinarily perform Or he that holds that God is so Holy and his Law so Exact that though he believes God will accept his weak Endeavours yet thinks he falls short every day in many things so as to need Pardon and the Blood of Christ for such failings Whether is a Protestant that holds he falls short of his Duty in every thing or a Papist that holds that God's Law requires so little that he can super-erogate and do more than God requires likelier to hold Perfection Whether is a man that holds that God's Law requires him to Love and Serve God with all his Heart and Soul and Strength likelier to hold Perfection in this Life or a man that holds that Luke-warmness is no sin As a great Doctor * Doctor Taylors Ret. of Prayer Serm. 5. pag. 46. doth in these words There is but one thing in the world that God hates beside Sin and that is Indifferency and Luke-warmness which although it hath not in it the direct Nature of Sin yet it hath this Testimony from God that it is Loathsome and Abominable And excepting this thing alone God never said so of any thing in the New-Testament but what was a direct Breach of a Commandment This Author takes much pains pag. 327. c. to prove that the Church of England in the Eleventh Article of Religion by these words viz. We are accounted Righteous before God only for the Merit of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ by Faith and not for our own works or deservings Wherefore That we are Justified by Faith only is a most wholsome Doctrine and very full of Comfort I say by these words doth not attribute any Efficacy or Dignity to Faith more than to other Virtues in the business of Justification Now I dislike not this attempt at all and so shall say nothing here To conclude The Reader may hence see how Improbable that is which he tells us in his Epistle Dedicatory to the Reverend Lord Bishop of Glocester saying He did nothing in puttâ—ng out this Book but having fâ—â—â—t consulted him and that it was put out with his Aid or Assistance auspâ—ciâ—s And that the Bishop read deliberaâ—â—ly every Chapter of either Dissertation and approved them with his Vote and adorned them with his Praises Some of this Book is indeed commendable and his Lordship might commend that But it may be observed that we have only this Author's word for this over-high Commendation of his Book and every part of it Who also cannot but be suspected to have had great Temptation to pretend it to gain Repute to his Opinion by so great a Name of so Reverend a Prelate and Learned a Writer FINIS
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.
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
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
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
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