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
AN ENDEAVOUR TO RECTIFIE SOME PREVAILING OPINIONS Contrary to the Doctrine of The Church of England By the Author of The Great Propitiation And A Discourse of Natural and Moral-Impotency LONDON Printed by T. M. for Robert Clavel in Cross-Keys Court in Little-Brittain 1671. THE Author to the Reader I Published about two Years since some Sermons called The Great Propitiation and thereto Added a short Discourse concerning the Apostle Paul's meaning by Justification by Faith without Works About half a Year after there came forth a Learned Book called Harmonia Apostolica written by Mr. George Bull which quite crossing the Interpretation I had given of Saint Paul I was Occasioned by some Occurrences which it concerns not the Reader to know to Write the substance of these Reflections upon it which were Written within less than three Months after it's coming forth without any Design of Printing them And since I had Written this there is Published a Discourse of Mr. Charles Gataker Thomae 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Filii wherein he signifying his dislike of Mr. Bull 's Propounds a third way to Reconcile the Apostles Paul and James What my thoughts are of Mr. Bull 's way you will here see I think he hath in the main spoken right concerning the sense of Saint James But I think Mr. Gataker hath given the right Interpretation of neither and judg that I have said enough in my Book fore-mentioned to make it appear and so hath Mr. Bull in his I grant and lament it that many Important Doctrines of the Reformed Churches are frequently by too many grosly Explained so as to have ill Consequences following from them which if rightly Explained would be found not to Patronize but to disown such Consequences And hence many Learned men seeing the Intolerableness of such consequent Opinions and not being able to Extricate themselves deny Important truths and maintain such Opinions as these following which are the Foundation of the greatest part of Mr. Bull 's Book opposed and would make an intolerable change in the very substance of the Body of Divinity viz. First That there is no Law that threatens Future-death or promised Future-happiness but the Gospel or Law of Grace Secondly That the Jewish Law or Law of Moses had only Temporal Promises and Threats and required only External Obedience Which yet you will see I grant in one Limitted sense of it to be true Thirdly That no Law of God whatsoever requires perfect Obedience and so no man is bound to live perfectly or free from sin Fourthly And that for this Reason because no man is bound to do what he cannot do Which Reason is only true in a sense nothing to the purpose but it is dangerously false to deny a man is bound to do what he cannot do in another sense viz. Upon the account of his Morally insuperable wickedness as I have else-where at large shewed Fifthly That for any Evidence we have from Scripture to the contrary men after Conversion or after the receiving of the Gospel do live perfectly or without sin or do as much as any Law of God requires from them Sixthly That the effect of the Grace of the Spirit is something that if denied to men enjoying the Gospel they would be excusable or blameless in not obeying the Gospel Also These following Expositions would alter the very substance of the sense of most Important parts of Scripture First That the Apostle Paul doth not dispute against Justification by perfect Obedience to the Law as being impossible to man in this Life Secondly That our Lord in the 5th of Matthew doth not vindicate the Law from corrupt Interpretations but adds to it making that the meaning of it that never was so before Take notice I charge not this last mentioned Exposition as maintained by Mr. Bull though it be by many others and though it must follow by consequence if what he maintains be true viz. That Moses's Law had no Internal Precepts I judg what I have here written may be of use for the clearing of those in Dispute and many other passages of Scripture and for the Confutation of many dangerous Opinions or I should not have permitted it's Publication I shall not here needlesly use Protestations concerning my Fidelity in representing by a Translation Mr. Bull 's Discourse since it is commonly accounted a sign of Guilt to cleer one's self before accused If any should suspect me of Disingenuity herein let me desire them to read the passages here replyed to out of Mr. Bull 's Book it self And to encourage so far as my word will pass them that have it not to procure it I shall say that much of it is well worth Reading and that I am far from passing that censure on the rest of the Book which I do on the parts here replied to May but what is here written be so read and considered without prejudice and passion which may well be expected from ingenuous Lovers of Truth that it may have free Influence upon mens understandings according to the evidence it brings I shall not much doubt of it's good success in composing many differences in Opinion Which is the Prayer of the Author ERRATA PAge 27. Line 17. Read so speak Marg. r. Heavenly p. 34. l. 16. after here r. in p. 67. l. 23. instead of also r at Sinai p. 75. l. 17. after fatuus r. of a new Covenant p. 90. l. 5. for was r. as l. 6. r. on us p. 108. l. 25. after ask r. as I would ask p. 125. l. 20. for Arguments r. Argument p. 168. l. penult r. exiguum p. 171. l. marg 20. r. Adulterio p. 208. l. 15 for to r. do An endeavour to Rectifie some prevailing Opinions THe Learned Author's design is very commendable viz. To reconcile such seemingly contrary Expressions of the Apostle Paul and James as these You see therefore that a man is justified by Works and not by Faith only Jam. 2. 24. We conclude therefore that a man is justified by Faith without the works of the Law Rom. 3. 28. which Scriptures he sets down before his discourse as the Chief or Examplaâ—s of the chief Places he designs to reconcile He divides his whole Discourse into two Dissertations The first whereof is about the meaning of the Apostle James in such Expressions as that cited and is so short as not to take up a fifth part of the Book The second about the sense of the Apostle Paul in his seemingly contrary Affirmations taking up all the rest of the Book His whole first Dissertation concerning the sense of the Apostle James in affirming Justification by Works as a condition is Acute Solid and Cogent yea and so is all generally in his second Dissertation to the 5th Chap. and part of it he spending those Chapters in discovering the weakness and falsehood of the attempts of many designing to reconcile such places and in proving the Apostle Paul means not one single virtue by Faith but the whole
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
and facilly gathered that all are sinners and cannot be justified by the Law that is without pardon of sin hainous sort as will easily appear to any one viewing the place Secondly If you enquire concerning the Persons charged by him they are as well Gentiles as Jews v. 9. 19. 23. but both considered as they were before and without the Grace of the Gospel which is even manifest from the scope of the Apostle whose purpose it was to stir up both Jews and Gentiles convinc't of their guilt and misery to seek and embrace the Grace of the Gospel Therefore Paul contends that both Gentiles and Jews considered in this estate to be all under sin You will Object But there were some at least amongst the Jews who liv'd a holy and unblamable life before the Faith of Christ or their faith in Christ and a life most alien from the Vices which the Apostle here reckons up and from all of the like kind such as were Zachary Elizabeth Simeon Anna and others I answer I confess it yea I do not doubt but amongst the Gentiles †I dare not affirm this For then I must hold their Salvation whereas I read Salvation is of the Jews and that the Gentiles were without hope without God in the world Neither yet daâ—e I say that none did thus sincerely also there were some who abhorred the Vices here mentioned and also did sincerely and from their hearts love and follow Coluerunt Virtue and Righteousness so far as it was known to them And both right Reason and St. Paul himself perswades me to be of this Opinion who doth not obscurely teach it himself Rom. 2. v. 14 15 26 27. But because the Objection is made only concerning the Jews I will answer only concerning them leaving it yet to the Reader to accommodate or fit the same Answer to the Gentiles mutatis mutandis changing what is to be changed I say therefore that First These Pious men amongst the Jews were very few and being compar'd to others as a drop in the Sea and therefore the Apostle was to take no great notice concerning them But it was reasonable that the great scarcity of good men should as one speaks give its testimony to the numerosity of the wicked And certainly universal speeches of this sort that the Apostle here uses do often occurr in Scripture which yet it is certain are †That is all put for the most This then is to say that the most men are guilty of sins deserving Eternal death and needing pardon by Christ but he contradicts this sence after Hyperbolical see John 3. 32. Isa 66. 23. Joel 2. 28. Acts 2. 17. Psal 14. 23. 145. 14 15. Phil. 2. 21. c. Secondly Those few that were Righteous under the Law did not receive their Righteousness from the Law but they owed it to Gospel-grace which even before the Promulgation of the Gospel did indeed more sparingly and rarely put forth it's force through all past-Ages In a word they were led with the Spirit of the Gospel and not of the Law and so deserved to be accounted with those who are not of the Works of the Law but are of Faith Whence the Author of the Epistle to the Hebrews shews that all the works of Pious men who shine in the History of the Old Testament proceeded not from the Law but from Faith Thirdly It is †Sure this is too easie a word that it is likely such did commit such a sin as to deserve Eternal death so as to need Christ and Pardon likely that those few did not so carry themselves through the whole course of their lives but that they some time fell into some sins or into some more hainous sin and worthy of death Yea this is to be accounted for certain †This doth not prove his Opinion for though these did not yet it is probable Some did live without any hainous sin in his sense in the whole course of their lives and so did not need pardon as to Eternal guilt by his opinion because it is expresly read concerning those very men to whom in the Old Testament an unblamable and perfect observation of the Divine Law is ascribed That sometimes they fell into some sins and those enormous ones and most worthy of Death as of Asa 2. Chron. 16. Of David 1 Kings 15. 5. Of Josiah 2 Chron. 35. 22. And I think that which follows with the Apostle v. 23. must be interpreted to this sense viz. All have sinned and come short of the Glory of God That proposition seems plainly Universal so as to except none implying there is no man who hath not been guilty of some sins or of some more hainous sin either some one time or for some time Sive aliquando sive aliquandiu And this seems to be that very thing which the Scripture in many places asserts as for Example 1 Kings 8. 46. For there is no man who doth not sin 1 John 1. 8. If we say we have no sin we deceive our selves and the Truth is not in us Which speech that it ought to be understood of sins properly so called not only of lighter faults and also that it is Universal the very matter shews and the things which are after Pag. 118. added in that Epistle Chap. 2. v. 12. wherein also that is to be noted that St. John speaks in the Praeter-tense If we say we have not sinned viz. before the knowledg of the Gospel that is to say The holy Apostle would have the Christians to whom he writes diligently to take heed to themselves of the fault of an ingrateful mind And that they would not attribute this that they are purged from Vices either to themselves or the Law of Moses or Nature but only to Gospel-grace Otherwise he doth not seem to deny but that after the knowledg of the Gospel and its Grace received some could be without sin so as the word Sin is taken by him not so as it should signifie meer Ignorance or suddain Motions but those evil acts which have tractum a continued course as Grotius speaks and do not go before deliberation yea he doth not obscurely hint that this is possible 1 Epist 2. 1. Where he doth seriously exhort Christians not to sin Perhaps one may reply that the Apostle in the aforesaid Chapter v. 3. doth use the Present tense If we say we have no sin c. Therefore he implies That no man even after the Faith of the Gospel is free or can be free from those sins more properly so called But the answer is easie for to have sin and to sin or to do sin do not signifie the same Because to have sin as Grotius saith rightly is not now to be in sin but to be guilty or to be made guilty for sins formerly committed as doth most manifestly appear from John 9. 41. and 15. 22 24. The sense therefore is If we say that we have not hainously
to say he will surely hardly pardon such great sins as mine are How can he with safety to his Justice Now further to enable any to answer many Scriptures which this Author brings to maintain his extenuating Expressions of the Law Though such Scriptures are not immediately serviceable to discover the Apostle's meaning where he ascribes Justification to Faith in opposition to Works else I would have taken more particular notice of them Remember what I spoke before that sometimes not only the Author to the Hebrews but this Apostle in speaking of the Law understands by it the Jewish Common-wealth Law threatning Violent Immature Temporal death to all External visible sins and in some cases allowing Sacrifices in the stead of this violent death in other cases not And the occasion of the so using the word Law which you may possibly think very Improper when speaking of Conscience-concernments is this It was the common yea almost Universally professed Opinion of the Jews sometime before and about those days of the Apostles taught them by all their Rabbies As this Author also affirms pag. 306. That the Law did not threaten Future punishment to any sins but to those that it as the common Law of the Land threatned Temporal violent death to to be Executed by the Magistrate And that the Law required no more to Future salvation than so much as was made necessary by it to escape violent death And also that the expiation of their Sacrifices which were for faults granted by them to be sins threatned by their Law with Future death reached so far as to expiate and absolve them from sins as to Future punishment which Opinion the Author to the Hebrews at large opposes And since they could not but grant that there were commands of inward Holiness forbiding Heart-adultery and Heart-murther and meer inward coveting as the Tenth Commandment and commands to fear and love the Lord and walk in his Ways and keep his Commandments with all their heart and soul Deut. 10. 12. Chap. 11. 13. And it would not be Sense or it would be Remiss sense to say that keeping the Commandments as for example of not doing Murder or not committing Adultery with the whole heart was only to abstain from the outward Fact without avoiding the occasions beginnings or causes thereof They held these were not properly Commands that any penalty of Exclusion from Heaven or that Future-life death was threatned unto But that these Precepts were only Councels recommended to them that had a mind to do the best and that it was commendable and men did well to observe them but the refusing to obey these was not sin by their Law nor punishable with any Future misery And the Scribes and Pharisees the wicked Doctors of this and some former degenerate Ages making it their study almost unanimously to excuse themselves and others from inward Piety which they were resolved against as being the most difficult part of true Religion and most ingrateful to flesh and blood might have this pretence from the Law it self to maintain their Flesh-pleasing exposition of the Law to quiet their own and others Consciences in the neglect of inward Purity viz. There is no violent penal Temporal death threatned to such sins to be inflicted by the Magistrate as there is to all External sins therefore it is likely there is no Eternal or Future punishment threatned by the Law for such there are no Expiations appointed for such sins surely therefore they are no sins and need no Expiations These Pharisaical Doctors did hold their Law promised Future-life and threatned Future punishment but * I shewed you at the beginning four true senses of the Jewish Law all intended by the Law-giver But the Pharisaical Jews maintained a fifth sense and that a false and pernicious one viz. That their Law promised the Future-life happiness to their observing the Law Politically and Externally taught the people that if they were but justi ad legem righteous according to the Law in the sense that Seneca useth the word saying Exignum est ad legem bonum esse that is Righteous so far as the Law of the Land was to compel them by Temporal punishment as all those were that had committed none of those Crimes that were excluded from attaining Temporal pardon by Sacrifice and had offered Sacrifice for their other External faults they were as perfectly righteous before God as their Law in any sense required them to be So because the Law as the Law of the Land appointed no punishment for one that put away his wife for any light cause so he did but set her wholly at liberty by a Bill of Divorce to marry another they were taught it was no sin so to put away a Wife Mat. 5. 31. Also because the Law as the Common-wealth Law gave men liberty to require an Eye for an Eye and Tooth for Tooth and if they so required it the Magistrate was bound to Inflict it Deut. 19. 21. They were taught it was no sin to seek this revenge in any case And so that the Commands of forgiving Injuries were but Counsels as Prov. 24. 29. and Chap. 20. 22. Say not I will do to him as he hath done to me Lev. 19. 17 18. Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thy heart thou shalt not avenge nor bear any grudg c. But shalt love thy Neighbour as thy self Rev. 25. 21. If thy enemy hunger give him meat c. Exod. 23. 4 5. If the Ass of thy enemy wander or be faln under his burden bring him back or help him up Which Opinion of theirs Christ confutes Mat. 5. v. 21. You have heard that it hath been said by them of old or to them of old thou shalt not Kill and whosoever shall Kill shall be in danger of the Judgment That is you have been told it as a Tradition taught by the Ancients or to the Ancients by some Ancient Rabbies that you break not any Law of God nor incur danger of Future torments by anger hatred or approbrious speeches but only he that actually kills shall be in danger of Future punishment of the Court of Judgment the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which litterally signifies is in danger of the Court of the 23 Elders that sate in the †Deut. 16. 18. Chap. 19. 11 12. Gates of the City and put Offenders to death by the Sword Now since Murtherers in Fact were to be put to death only not they that only hated or reproached another the * Damnat Christus in Pharisaeis quod legis Doctrinam ad Politicum or dinem transtulerant ut sufficeret externis officiis defungi Ita fiebat ut se ab homicidio absolveret quisquis hominem manu non occiderat Se purum castum putaret coram Deo quisquis Adulteria corpus non polluerat Hâ—c vero erat minime ferenda Legis profanatio quum certum sit spiritualem Dei cultum a Mose requiri Deus
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