Spiritual and required more yea more necessarily for salvation even Internal Piety and so could not have spoken after that manner of his Righteousness according to the Law in the true important sense of the Law And hence it comes to pass since the Law was used by most of the Jews in those days in this external Political and Ritual sense That the Author to the Hebrews doth almost I think altogether constantly use this word the Law in this sense but confutes their erronious Opinion that held that in this sense it availed to Salvation in a Future-life and shews it in this sense made none perfect as to Conscience or Future-life concern's but only as it threatned violent death and exclusion from Society so the Sacrifices for Expiation reached not to Expiate sins as to Future-life concerns but only to free from the Temporal punishment of Death and Exclusion from the Congregation And hence also it comes to pass that the Apostle Paul often useth the word the Law in this Political sense Though it is apparent he doth not so when he denies Justification by the Law as to Future-life by reason of mens sinfulness as it is apparent he doth in those places that seem opposite to St. James And this Author also confess it For mans sinfulness could not possibly be any reason why men were not Justified as to Future-life by the Law in that Political sense wherein it neither promised Future-life nor threatned Future death You must observe diligently as you desire to understand the Apostle Paul in many places that he often passes from the Conscience strict sense of the Law opposed to the Gospel to the Common-wealth sense of the Law as Gal. 3. and often runs them together as Rom. 7. using the word sometime in one of the senses and intermixing passages that agree to it in the other which I could give you I think a satisfying account of and would indeavour by reciting the particular places but that I am sensible I speak more largely than is suitable for such a short Discourse as I intend Now to draw to a conclusion of this long Digression designed to help you to understand many Scriptures Since so many took the Law in this low sense as requiring so short an obedience and foolishly promised themselves that Eternal happiness in the observance of it so far which it never promised them It is no wonder that you find so many extenuating Expressions of it in this sense Not that any such Expressions extenuate it as the Common-wealth Law for it was an excellent one imposed by the only Wise God and fitted to the temper of the Jewish people and to Typifie the great things But they extenuate it 1. As a way of Salvation for it promised no such thing made nothing perfect as to Conscience and Eternal life though observed with the greatest exactness 2. It is not extenuated as a shadow or resemblance Typical of the great things for it was a wonderful perfect Shadow and Type But it is extenuated as being but a Shadow which the the Jews would have to be the very substance the way of Salvation it self of the great concernments a poor and beggarly Rudiment or * I could I think give satisfying Reasons that thâ— Law in this sense only is by the Apostle called a School-master to teach the first beggarly Letters or Elements and so to ceaâ—e its imployment and not at all in the strict Conscience sense Element or rude first Draught or representation of the great Realities 3. As that which was but Temporary and to vanish away as this Typical Common-wealth Law was to do at the fuller Exhibition of the things it was but a Type of 4. This is called the Letter the very outward Letter of the Old Testament for the most part though yet frequently otherwise holding forth the Law in this Common-wealth sense with the rewards prosperity in Canaan and the threats Temporal death And in its being called the Letter it is opposed to the Internal and Spiritual meaning of that Law as it was the strict Law and the Gospel and to this cleerer Dispensation of both the Law and Gospel under Christ and called the Oldness of the Letter being the Old common way they had been taught by their Doctors and educated in For the Gospel and more Spiritual way of the Mosaic-Law was New and strange to them as you may perceive by John the Baptist's Doctrine of Repentance for the Remission of sins being rejected by the Pharisees as well as this cleer Dispensation under Christ though that was the true way of Salvation from the beginning ever since mans fall 5. The Law in this sense is said to kill and to be a Ministry of condemnation though not only in this sense I suppose but also in this sense taken in Conjunction with the strict Law of Works revealed in by and with this Law It is said to kill and condemn 1. Because this Law did condemn with Temporal violent death every one that did neglect any such external Work whatsoever But did not justifie to a prosperous life in Canaan any but they that observed every puntilio of it 2. Or rather since the Apostle useth sometimes to run the Law in the strictest sense exacting perfect Obedience and the Law in this Political sense together The Law may be said to condemn and to be a Ministry of condemnation because the Law did as the Original strict Law of Works in reality though not in their Opinion condemned every man that did not all whatsoever required yea that fail'd in obedience to any Internal command and did also condemn as to Conscience all External failings which they also held but did not quicken or revive or justifie any as to Future-life Not the Political Law through it's own weakness and default having no such Promises to any performances whatsoever Not the Law in the strict Conscience-sense through mans default because all are sinners 3. This Law taken still conjunctly may be said to condemn and kill men in another respect Taken politically it condemned men and killed them as to Eternal death by occasioning men or rather men taking occasion by it to go on in all Internal wickedness securely even to condemnation by the Law in a higher sense because the Law in this Political sense never forbad those sins that is did not forbid them with its penalty of violent death and they took occasion hence to think such inward Impiety was not forbidden by the Law in any sense nor such inward Piety required to their Salvation which may be the meaning of Rom. 7. 8 11. and so fell under Eternal condemnation through the neglect of such Piety It proved to them a Ministry of condemnation in the event through their own fault they abusing this â—itual Political dispensation against the end and aim of it 6. The Law also in this sense is said to be-get Bondage and Baseness and Servility of Spirit even disingenuous and unfilial Tempers
on verbatim thus But how doth the Apostle gather this Pag. 264. from the words cited I answer Some think that this Argument is placed in the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was accounted or imputed as if the word signified graciously accepting or accounting according to Grace and Favour and that it signifies accounting or rewarding according to Debt either never or very Improperly Whence Erasmus Interpreteth the word acceptum fert adding Est autem acceptum ferre pro accepto habere quod non acceperis quae apud Jureconsultos nifallor vocatur acceptilatio That is the word imputed it self signifies such a Law acceptation as when one grants he hath received a thing and acquits as if he had received it when indeed he hath not received it Many most learned Pag 265. Interpreters follow this Interpretation of Erasmus thus forming the Apostles Argument If the reward had been given to Abraham of debt it would not have been said God Imputed Righteousness unto him For Imputation denotes gracious and free Donation But the Scripture saith God Imputed Righteousness to Abraham Ergo c. But this Interpretation doth not please me since it is manifest from the Scriptures that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 used in the Old Testament and also the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 used by the Apostle in the Greek and which answereth to the Hebrew word are used concerning the Imputation of a thing to or for sin 2 Sam. 19. 19. which every one will grant is Imputation in Justice yea and the same word often signifies in Scripture a true and just Estimation and Judgment of a thing Deut. 2. 11 20. And it is too manifest that the Apostle himself in the very next verse ver 4. uses this very word for rewarding according to debt Therefore this Argument of the Apostle whereby he infers from the Text cited that the Justification of Abraham was meerly Gracious cannot lean upon the naked signification of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is Accounted or Imputed or Reckoned Since this Objection hath a colourable shew and the right Interpretation of this Chapter Rom. 4. doth depend wholly upon it as I have shewed in a short Discourse of the Apostles meaning and since many Learned men are perplexed so with this difficulty as to be driven to Interpret this place otherwise than right thinking the very word doth not signifie Accounting of Grace and Favour and so that the Apostle's Argument cannot lean on this word And since none that I know of have attempted to Answer it I shall speak largely in Answer to this that I may speak satisfactorily I know the Hebrew and Greek words in dispute are Polysema have divers significations just as the English word Account also hath For they signifie properly and in the first sense meerly the immanent Acts of the Understanding as to Think Esteem as also the immanent acts of valewing computing Sums together devising inventing though not so primarily Now when these words are used in this sense they may be according to the reality and truth of things or not according to the reality or truth of things If there be an Accounting or Esteeming in this sense not according to the reality and truth of things it is an errour of the Understanding and a fault or weakness though it can neither be an Act of Kindness or Severity and so cannot be ascribed to God his Judgment and counting and valuation in this sense being always according as things are But the words cannot have this proper sense here as is apparent for imputing Righteousness is either an Act of Mercy or Justice For Acts of Justice and Mercy belong not to the Understanding nor are Acts of that for they proceed from the Will and are not neither meer immanent Acts of the Will but transient Acts proceeding from it and caused by it Therefore let this proper and most common use of the words pass as not capable of being meant in such Speeches Sometime these words are used not for Acts of the Understanding as I said But for the Rectoral transient Acts of Rewarding or Punishing of dealing Kindly or Severely Graciously or Justly For these words when used of such transient Acts are capable of either of these significations and which of the significations they have in particular places is known readily by seeing whether it be some good or evil that is reckned or imputed or whether it be some good or evil thing that is not reckned or not Imputed But let these words when used in this Rectoral law-Law-sense be used in whether of the senses they will viz. of doing Justly or Mercifully Severely or Graciously yet this is true of them that they always signifie the accounting or imputing something that is not in reality the thing that it is accounted or imputed for but only by a kind of Law Construction or Acceptilation or the not accounting or not imputing the thing that is that in reality which it is not accounted or not imputed for Now if this be true which I shall after make appear by producing all the places of Scripture where the word is used in any sense different from a meer Act of the Understanding then it follows that when ever we read of Imputing or accounting to a man a thing that is a good thing as here Righteousness or Reward then it is an act of Grace or Law acceptilation and kindness and that God might justly have done otherwise because the word Implys a man had not that Righteousness that perfect Innocency that was accounted to him And also when ever we read of God's not Imputing or not accounting that which is evil to a man as Sin Iniquity then it was an act of Kindness or Grace because the very word Implys the man had that sin had done that evil that was not accounted to him Now to make it appear that these words when they do not signifie a meer immanent Act of the understanding but are used in the sense of doing good or evil kindly or severely yet they always signifie the accounting something that is not or not accounting something that is the thing respectively as I have said First Let these Scriptures be considered wherein the words are used in the Penal or Inimical sense and not in the Benigne rewarding favourable sense Lev. 7. 18. Where speaking of a mans Peace-offering It is commanded that he eat all he eats of it in two days and burn the rest with fire If any of it be eaten by the man on the third day the Offering shall not be accepted neither shall it be imputed to him that offereth it That is though he did offer indeed this Offering yet this Offering for an offence committed three days after shall be null and void for any benefit coming to the man by it even as if he had not offered it at all not that Godwill account that in reality he did not offer it So Lev. 17. 4. If any man kill
a Beast in Sacrifice and bring it not to the door of the Tabernacle Blood shall be imputed to that man he hath shed Blood and he shall be cut off from among the people That is he shall be accounted in Law a Murtherer Murther shall be Imputed to him viz. He shall in judgment of Law be accounted a Murtherer so far that the same punishment shall be due to him and Inflicted on him that would have been due if he had committed Murther not that he had in reality or was esteemed in reality to have shed Humane blood Philemon vers 18 19. where there is a word near akin to this but not altogether the same If he have wronged or oweth thee any thing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Impute it Account it to me I will pay it Not that he did owe it or had wronged him or that he would have him count that in reality he had wronged him or ought it to him but require it of me I put my self into that state in reference to Law as if I did owe it or had wronged thee Secondly Consider these following Scriptures where these words are used in the favourable Rewarding-sense 2 Tim. 4. 16. I pray God this viz. fault may not be imputed or accounted to them That is I pray it may be pardoned that it may be accounted as if it had not been committed not that he pray's God to think really that they never committed the fault which would be to admit an errour into his understanding but that he would graciously pardon it and consequently no more punish it than if he judged it not committed Numb 18. 27 30. This your Heave-offering shall be accounted or imputed to you as the Corn of the Threshing-floor That is whereas the people are commanded to offer their Tithes and their first-Fruits to God or they cannot without Sin and a Curse enjoy the rest Now saith he to the Levites If you pay this part the giving of this shall by Gods favour be available in Law to your benefit and comfort in freeing you from a Curse in imploying all the rest to your own use as if you had given such Tithes and First-fruits of your own Husbandry as the people do Not that God would account it really the Corn of their own Threshing-floor the First-fruits of their own Husbandry Rom. 5. 13. Where a different word is used but next a-kin to this Sin is not imputed where there is no Law That is could one suppose per possibile vel impossibile that there should be sin committed by a man without a Law it would not be Imputed he would not be guilty obliged to suffer would not be treated as an Offender Rom. 4. 11. That Righteousness might be imputed to them viz. the Gentiles also That is That though they be sinners and so have not Innocence and Righteousness in reality yet it shall upon their becoming Christians be Imputed to them Rom. 2. 26. If the uncircumcised keep the righteousness of the Law his uncircumcision shall be accounted for circumcision That is though a man be not Circumcised and so be one that you much despise yet if he live holily he shall be respected by God to all intents and purposes as if he had been Circumcised Rom. 4. 8. cited out of Psal 32. Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute iniquity implying there is iniquity but he will pardon it and not impute it Interpreted by that his sin forgiven therefore it Implys there is sin but not Imputed Not that God accounts he never committed it These words are also used in the Scriptures following but are used in something a different sense from the words fore cited because as you may observe they are not capable of being Translated by the word Impute as these above mentioned all are viz. Job 33. 10. Chap. 19. 11. Chap. 13. 24. He counteth me for his enemy Gen. 31. 15. Are we not accounted of him strangers Job 19. 15. My Maidens accounted me for a stranger Hos 8. 12. I have written to them the wonderful things of my Law but they were accounted strange things Psal 44. 22. cited Rom. 8. 36. We are accounted as sheep for the slaughter Now this may apparently be said of these Scriptures that either the word signifies a meer Thinking a meer immanent Act of the Understanding without any thing of favour or disfavour as one may Interpret some of these places or if not they apparently imply as any may perceive upon considering the places that the thing was not so in reality as accounted It would be too high in me to say I am certain upon so little pains as I have taken to examine these are all yet I am very confident these are all the places of Scripture where the Hebrew or Greek words are used in any sense distinct from a meer immanent Act of the Understanding except that of Phineas executing Judgement and it was accounted to him for Righteousness and the same words repeated again by this Apostle and by Saint James which are plain to this sence and the two Scriptures which this Author cites that I shall now take notice of This Author refers us only to two Scriptures where the words do not signifie meer thinking to prove that the words are used for accounting according to Justice and not Grace or according to the reality of things But they both of them prove evidently against that which he produceth them to prove The first is that saying of Shimei 2 Sam. 19. 19. Let not the King impute iniquity to me neither do thou remember what thy servant did perversly Here saith he Imputation of sin is of Justice and not of Grace Answ He forgets there is a Negation in this Speech It is not let my Lord impute iniquity to me But let not my Lord impute iniquity Now not to impute Iniquity is the very same thing with imputing Righteousness as the Apostle shews in this Chapter ver 6 8. compared Imputing Righteousness without Works that is without a mans being Righteous and not imputing Iniquity where there is Iniquity are the same Shimei's meaning is though I have committed a great fault and in truth am guilty and unrighteous in this respect yet impute Righteousness to me through Grace by pardon as to this fault or do not impute Iniquity to me put me into that state in reference to Punishment for this fault as if I was Righteous or Innocent as to this fault as if the fault had never been committed He did not mean do thou really account I never did that fault or do thou in Justice and not in Favour not impute sin to me The other Scripture which he brings is as manifest against him as this is which is this viz. ver 4. the very next verse after this Abraham believed and it was accounted to him for Righteousness Now to him that worketh the reward is reckoned of debt and and not of Grace Here saith he the Apostle
1. and of Heavenly things Heb. 9. 28. of the same in another sense Law 's promises of future Heavenly happiness to perfect Obedience and was much suited to put them in mind of the great Concernments of the same Law as pertaining to Conscience and the future Life 2. Still keeping to Temporal Concerns This amazingly-strict Law as to Temporal punishment may be considered as given with or comprehending in it a Remedying-Law as to these Temporal severities viz. As affording pardon upon Sacrifice as to these threatned Destructions for the most Transgressions not for all as one may be apt to wish for Type-sake for the community must not be sundamentally prejudiced to make a Type more full by pardoning all offences as to Temporal punishment upon sacrifice And so this Political Temporal-Law was I will not say the Gospel it self for it was not but if I may speak a little Gospel in reality a Law of Pardon as to the Temporal punishment threatned and a Shadow or * I doubt not but the Book of the Law in the Temporal sense I am now upon being sprinkled with blood was a pattern of the Laws in the Eternal sense I shall after speak of being sprinkled with a better sacrifice and that the Law in this last sense was one of those healy things spoken of Heb. 9. 19. 23. Though the Heavenlâ— things mentioned do most immediatelâ— denote the more clear Dispensation of the Gospel then in being when those words were written pattern or Representation of its own materially considered Gospel favour in admitting Transgressors of it to favour as to its Obligation to Future and Eternal punishment by pardon upon the account of a great Satisfaction to come which such sacrifices Typified Now it is apparent that the Law and Covenant or Testament of Moses is often taken in the New Testament in this sense viz. For the Law under this consideration so far as it threatned only what might be remitted by Sacrifice or threatned what was denied by it to be remitted upon Sacrifice Yea no man can possibly give any rational account of the meaning of the Author to the Hebrews in the places where he speaks of the Law but by affirming he takes it in this sense as Chap. 7. 8 9 10. For the Law only in this sense was Typical and not at all Typical but the reallity in the sense I shall after speak of it in He shews the Law made nothing perfect as to Conscience or future Concernments and that Sacrifices did not Expiate any further than as to the purifying of the Flesh that they might come into the Congregation and to the taking off of Temporal guilt and Punishment but not as to Eternal or Future-life punishment or coming to the Congregation in Heaven and also shews that they were a commemoration 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of Sins as to Conscience and the Future punishment but not an Expiation Heb. 10. 3 4. And that they did so far viz. as to Temporal punishment and being excluded the Congregation really Expiate being offered in the offender's stead And else indeed they could not have been Typical of the great Expiation if they were not Expiations as to some things themselves no more than the Brazen-Serpent could have been a Type of Christ's Healing or Saving if it had never healed any So the Law of Moses is taken also Acts 13. 39. By him all that believe are justified from all things from which you could not be justified by the Law of Moses That is from all such great Crimes as Idolatry Murder c. for which there was no pardon in the Law of Moses taken in this sense but such were to die without mercy no Sacrifice being appointed or accepted in their stead Though yet there was pardon for such by the Law of Moses taken in the sense I shall speak of it in viz. In the sense wherein it was the Gospel made in the Blood of Christ and in the sense wherein David was yea and all others were Justified and Saved by it For it is apparent that a man might go to Heaven upon true Repentance by that Law taken in the consideration I shall ere long speak of it in that Temporal death without mercy Heb. 10. 28. was due to by that Law no Expiation being allowed for his sin he sinning contemptuously or presumptuously or with a high hand in the sense of those words Numb 15. 30. which are Heb. 10. 28. interpreted by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He that contemptuously sinned against or set-at-nought Moses Law i. e. in some stubborn and vain-glorious way or he committing Idolatry Adultery or Murder or some other particular Crime excluded as Blasphemy Witchcraft Cursing or Smiting his Father or Mother defiling the Sabbath or being a stubborn and rebellious Son As for Instance David was pardoned and went to Heaven and he never offered Sacrifice for those his Crimes for there was none appointed or admitted in such case for he was by that Law in the sense in hand to Die without mercy and should have been put to Death had there been any Superiour Authority on Earth to do it except some Prophet had come from God who being chief Rector could dispense with his own Laws to tell such Authothority that God had pardoned him as to Temporal punishment or God had some way notified he would not have the Law executed on him And it is also apparent that a man might be guilty of no Fault threatned by the Law in this sense but what was fully Expiated by his Sacrifices as to Temporal violent Death and Exclusion from Society and yet go to Hell being no true Penitent or sincere Servant of God Because all the Crimes that a man might possibly be only guilty of might be Expiable and newly Expiated by Sacrifice so far as their Sacrifices could expiate though he never truly repented It was only in some few cases of Injustice that there was Confession to the party and Restitution to the party wronged required else this Sacrifice was not accepted to Remission as to Temporal guilt Lev. 5. 5. Chap. 6. 2 3 4 5. I would have spoken more largely and particularly of the Law under this Consideration and have given an accouâ—â— here why the Apostles sometimes take it only in this sense which I suppose I shall do some-where upon occasion before I have done but I am sensible I am something out of my way in speaking so largely here as I have done And now I have thus spoken I can make little more than this use of it should I keep strictly to speaking of the places of the Apostle in dispute than to lay it quite or almost aside and to make it appear that the Author had done well unless he had spoken more exactly of it to have done so and to wish every one would do so viz. would lay it aside for interrupting them when speaking or thinking of the Apostle Pauls meaning in most of the places in dispute viz.
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
all that you do v. 10. You stand here this day all of you before the Lord your God your Captains your Elders your little Ones your Wives that you should enter into Covenant with the Lord thy God and into his Oath which the Lord maketh with thee this day that he may Establish thee to day for a people to himself that He may be unto thee a God as he hath sworn unto thy Fathers Abraham Isaac and Jacob i. e. to give their Seed this good Land And tells them If they forsake God and God bring on this Land the curse of the Covenant written in the Book of this Law and make it like Sodom and Gomorrah and men shall say What means the heat of this great Anger It shall be answered Because they have forsaken the Covenant of the Lord God of their Fathers which He made with their Fathers when he brought them out of the Land of Egypt that is which he made almost Forty years since with the Fathers of this Generation at Sinai v. 21 25. And He spends the next Chapter which the Author makes part of his New-covenant partly in telling them God would when cast out of their Land for their sins yet admit them again to it if they repent and turn as He told them before also what ever this Author saith of that admitting no Repentance as you may see apparent Lev. 26. 40 41 44 45 46. Yea this place of Leviticus which is said expresly to be spoken at Sinai v. 64. is rather more express for Repentance being accepted than this the Author so much insists on And partly in telling them that he hath told them plainly what the Laws of God are which if they observe they shall live and need not go beyond the Sea to enquire what they may do to be happy and partly in warning them to keep these Laws The whole contents of this Book of Deuteronomy to the end of this Thirtieth Chapter was not only spoken to the people within a Month before his Death which is apparent but it is very probable within a few of the first days of the Month the latter part of the Month being taken up with his writing it Chap. 31. 9. And giving a charge to the Priests and Levites and in his presenting himself with Joshuah before the Lord in the Tabernacle that God might give Joshuah a charge Chap. 31. 9 10 14 15. and in Speaking and Writing the Song called Moses Song and teaching the people it v. 22. And in blessing the people Chap. 33. And observe This Deuteronomy this Fare-well Speach of Moses all of it however to the 29th Chapter was when Moses had written it given to the Priests with a command that it should be Read in the hearing of the people met together every Seventh year as being very sutably Pen'd for their Instruction Chap. 31. 9 10 11 12 13. And it is commanded that when they should have a King that he shall in the beginning of his Reign Write out a Copy of this Book Chap. 17. 18. The last Chapter of this Book was added by some other than Moses as is apparent It 's likely by Joshuah You see now there is no colour to pretend that the Covenant spoken of Deut. 39. 1. means only that Chapter and the following much less that these Two Chapters only of all Moses writings have only Spiritual commands and Spiritual promises and give way and make Promises to Repentance For as for the Spirituality of the Laws in this Chapter it doth not Recite the Laws they were here engaged to obey not so much as the Ten Commandments whereof some are sure Spiritual commands and the sincere observing of them is certainly the condition of the Gospel but shew plainly This Covenant obliges them to keep all the Laws given at Mount Sinai And for the Promises and Threatnings they are expressed in as Terrene Expressions here as in most other places And as for this of Repentance see Lev. 26. 40. When they shall be in Ages to come almost destroyed with Judgments threatned for their sins if they shall confess their Iniquities and the Iniquities of their Fathers v. 41. And if their uncircumcised heart be humbled and they then accept the punishment of their Iniquities I will not cast them away but will remember their Land v. 45. I will for their sakes remember the Covenant of their Ancestors whom I brought forth out of the Land of Egypt that is This at Sinai for none other of their Ancestors were brought out of the Land of Egypt v. 46. These are the Statutes and Judgments and Laws which the Lord made between him and the children of Israel in Mount Sinai So Deut. 4. 29. If ye shall be scattered for your sins amongst the Heathen being driven out of your own Land and shall there serve other Gods of Wood and Stone If from thence thou shalt seek the Lord thy God thou shalt find him if thou seek him with all thy heart and with all thy soul v. 31. For the Lord thy God is a merciful God Exod. 34. 6. He proclaimed himself thus from Sinai The Lord the Lord gracious and merciful forgiving Iniquity Transgression and Sin c. As for Deuteronomy 29. 1. These are the words of the Covenant which the Lord commanded Moses to make with the Children of Israel in the Land of Moab beside the Covenant which he made with them in Horeb It seems apparent to me that this verse hath reference to the Laws and Precepts before Recited by Moses in his past Oration to the people and the meaning of the words is this These fore-Recited Commands are the Laws which the people covenanted to keep which covenanting of the people the Lord commanded Moses to require from them in the Land of Moab beside that covenanting which Moses required from the people in Horeb. Which I will make plain in Reciting these words again with the sense they are used in in other Scriptures These are the words that is the Laws or Precepts for so words is used apparently v. 9. and 2 Kings 23. 3. Deut. 27. 26. Exod. 24. 28. So also the Ten Commandments are called the Ten-words Deut. 4. 13. and Chap. 10. 4. And the Words Exod. 20. 1. of the Covenant By Covenant is here meant the peoples promise to obey the peoples actual Engagement so the word Covenant is used 2 Kings 12. 17. and Chap. 23. 3. and 2 Chro. 15. 12. which that is which Covenant which actual Promise not which words for that the Hebrew word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 used appropriately for making a Covenant will by no means bear So that it is an apparent Errour in the Septuagint to read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 refering to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The meaning is * I had written this before Mr. Pool's Elabâ—â—tate and useful Synopsis was published and upon â—eading the Criâ—icks and some others could find none concurring with me but now in his Book I find
people were to hear them and also to take heed how they heard and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees They were to embrace their Doctrine only so far as they sate in Moses Chair and taught Moses's Doctrine truly Sixthly Christ expresseth the saying opposed or added to by him in the very words of the Ten Commandments Therefore to say he speaks by way of Opposition and not of Addition would be to say he opposes the very Commandments Answer 1. He doth so only in one place of this Chapter viz. ver 27. Thou shalt not commit Adultery 2. Any one may yet perceive by his following Opposition what it is he meant by those words and what it is he opposed viz. Not the very Law or the true sense of the Law but that Exposition of the Law which laid the stress on the word commit as if it meant only commit with the outward Fact and forbad nothing else And it is apparent the Scribes and Pharisees so taught The Doctor giveth us another Argument taken from a saying of Saint John which carrieth so little evidence in my opinion that I would not have here set it down but that he seems to lay so great stress not only on this his Interpretation of Christs Words as being as he saith A foundation of a great and weighty Superstructure but also upon that Scripture as being as he saith a remarkable place to prove it The words are these 1 John 1. 5. God is Light and in him is no darkness at all The meaning whereof he saith is this That God is Light and in him is no Darkness at all in respect of his Law and Commandments the rule of mens lives and implies that these had before viz. Christ's teaching some indulgence for some sins and where they had not so yet they had some mixture of Imperfection but now they have none they had before some Vacuities in them which are now filled up by Christ Answer 1. I see no evidence or probability that this is the meaning of these words 2. We read The Law of the Lord is perfect i. e. without Imperfection and is Light i. e. without darkness and this was spoken of the Law before Christs Teaching 3. I cannot understand the consistency of these words That the Law and Commandments the Rule of mens lives had before Indulgence for some sins If no Law forbad them they were not sins or if it did not forbid them under the penalty of Future-death then they were not sins For I have I suppose made it appear it threatned Future death to all sins and else none were pardoned those sins as to Future death because they did need no such Pardon 4. Nor can I understand the words following That where the Law the Rule of mens lives did not allow Indulgence for some sins yet it had some mixture of Imperfection I cannot imagine how this appears for none will surely say it appears in this that it did not require some thing the Law now requires as Baptisme and the Lords Supper for that will no more prove the Law imperfect then then that the Law of God is now imperfect in not requiring circumcision whereas the Law did then as it doth now require all to obey whatsoever he should any way whatsoever command them and that under the penalty of Future-death 5. You may see by what hath been said That the Law not as referring to Conscience and Future-life but as the Jewish Common-wealth Law did allow or indulge some things that is so far as not to threaten violent death to them at all and so in this Common-wealth sense did not forbid such Practises at all which yet the Law in the most Important and Conscience sense did forbid and so were sins threatned with Future-death As for example The putting away a Wife for any cause and Heart-murther and Heart-adultery Also I have made apparent that the Scribes and Pharisees the Jewish Doctors taught and it was an Opinion ordinarily received amongst the Jews in the days of Christ and his Apostles that if men were but justi ad legem that is righteous so far as to be free from such things as Temporal death was by the Law of the Land remedilesly threatned to and had offered Sacrifice for such as the Law allowed it for they were either as righteous as any Law of God in the utmost rigour required them to be or however at the least as righteous as the Law of God in the indulgent Gospel-sense required them as necessary to their Future salvation And that Christ opposeth in this Chapter the common Jewish conceit taught by their Doctors And without doubt there was no Jew ever saved by that Law of Moses taken in the Gospel-sense as all good men that lived under it were that did not more than was required by that Law in the strictest sense as the Law of the Land threatning violent death to be Executed by the Magistrate As for example that did not love and fear God and endeavour inward Holiness and the repressing of the inward sins which the Law in the Political sense required not And again All saved by that Law did far less than was required by that Law as the Original strict Law under the penalty of Future-death For all saved were pardoned as to Future-death as to some Heart-sins which could not be if such sins were not Threatned with Future-death Now upon this false foundation viz. That the Law of God as to Conscience required no more than it required as the Law of the Land was without doubt built that Interpretation of the 18. ver of Psal 66. given by the Ancient famous Rabbi David Kimchi who upon the words which are these If I regard iniquity with my heart the Lord will not hear me gives this as the meaning viz. Though I shall see Iniquity in my heart which I am forward to execute in fact Though God do see it yet he will not hear it meaning he will not impute it to me for sin For God doth not charge a wicked Thought for a wicked Act except only a wicked Thought against the Faith and true Religion so as to worship Idols For this such Doctors did hold to be sin threatned with Future punishment though it proceeded not to the Fact but not any other wicked Thought or Intention And it seems apparent the Apostle Paul took the Law in this Vulgar sense when he saith Phil. 3. 6. He had been a Pharisee and touching the righteousness which is of the Law blameless That is he had lived without fault so far as the Law required in that sense wherein the most Jews then and he himself formerly being so taught by his Master Gamaliel understood it viz. in this external Political sense And though he had formerly accounted that perfect Obedience to the Law or however all required to his salvation yet now he looketh upon such Righteousness as insignificant as to Future salvation and understood the Law was truly
yet through their abuse of this Political Law making all that it required in this sense to be all required of them As for instance How is it possible but the Popish Doctrines believed should produce and foment such servility of Spirit that place all necessary to Salvation in Externals in the opus operatum in Penances and saying so many Prayers though by way of penalty and undergone by them as ingrateful Penances That teach it is no matter for loving God as some do expresly or Teach as generally they do which amounts to the same That Attrition is enough for Pardon and Salvation without contrition provided they have but the Priest's Absolution joyned to their Attrition explaining Attrition by trouble or affrightment for sin upon the account only of danger to our selves by it without any sorrow for sin as an offence of a good God So here we may without doubt say that they that understood the Law as requiring only such External Obedience without Love or any Internal and so did perform the External without any * Luke 11. 42. The Pharisees tithe Mint c. and pass ever Judgment and the love of God Observe this Love is called Faith Mat. 23 23. And by both Faith and Love is meant Internal worship love to God which makes his Commands for being grievous were void of filial ingenuous Dispositions Though I grant some Scriptures of the like import may possibly be aplicable to the whole Mosaic-Dispensation even as it was the Gospel as being a more servile and burthensom way by reason of the multitudes of the ritual commands which they were bound by it carefully to observe universally which had no Intrinsical goodness in them to command them to right reason and ingenuous lovers of God and Holiness But meerly the Authority of the Law-giver and so the motive to perform such could not but be comparatively to this Dispensation we live under more eminently from fear in good men as doing them because they must do them and not because the doing them was that which a gracious heart would chuse through Religion and love to Holiness to promote and increase Holiness the Image of God in his soul which may be said of almost all the Precepts under this present cleer Dispensation of the Gospel and so some such Speeches may be understood comparatively as I said before though I incline you see to Construe them positively and absolutely in the most places But now to conclude First There was a sense wherein the old Testament-Dispensation and Law of Moses was really or held out really the strict Law of Works as to Eternal concernments threatning Future death to every sin And the Apostle indeed excludes any from being Justified and affirms all to be condemned by it in this sense because all are sinners But this is not said to vanish away for it remains in force unto this day yea and for the substance of it will do so to all Eternity This is never affirmed to be Carnal but is Spiritual This indeed gives no life though it was a Law to life but that it gives none is not through its own want or default but through no mans performing the condition This was no Shadow or Type or beggarly Element Secondly There was a Sense yea and this was the chief Important sense wherein the Old Testament Dispensation or Law of Moses was the Remedying-Law or the Gospel-promising Pardon as to Future-life of all Transgressions of the Law in the strict sense upon Repentance and sincere Endeavour to obey all Gods Commands Internal and External The Apostle never speaks against the Law in this sense however no way except comparatively to this cleerer Dispensation but call's it the Promise the Righteousness of Faith which He and other Apostle's Preached The Promise which was Yea and Amen in Christ This is not said to vanish away but is made more clear in the Dispensation of of it under Christ This was no Shadow nor Type but the very Gospel or Law of Grace and Pardon it self The perfect Law of Grace converting the Soul and giving life to men converted This was the Law of Grace that Moses Samuel and David yea and the same for substance that Abraham was justified and saved by For it was this That if men did sincerely repent of their sins and believe Gods Testimonies and Love and Fear and Serve God and endeavour to do all God required of them without alowing themselves in any known sin they should be saved notwithstanding their sins and the Future punishment due to them by the Law in the strict sense And this is the substance of the Gospel or Law of Grace now If it should be asked How cometh it to pass that the Author to the Hebrews should use the words The Law of Moses first Covenant-Testament and Law in this Political and not in this Conscience-sense The account is easie Because his business in that Epistle was against those Judaizers that would impose it on Christians to comply so far with the Jews however to avoid Persecution For the Jews in those days were the chief Promoters of all their Persecutions as to keep the Law of Moses in the sense wherein it was now ceased and they were not to keep it Therefore he taketh no notice of the Law in the Conscience-sence wherein it was agreed by both or however known to be held by him to be incumbent on Christians for the substance of it but he in speaking against the Law of Moses means the Law of Moses in that sense wherein it was ceased being but a Shadow and shews that in this sense it had only Temporal promises and advantaged only to the purification of the Flesh and escaping Temporal calamities Now to reply it had also another sense would be true but nothing to the purpose since it had not in this sense wherein he opposed it I suppose you now see that it is far from Truth which this Author affirms viz. That the Apostle Paul charges the whole Mosaic-Dispensation with the defect of having no Promises of a Future-life I have taken liberty to speak largely of these things because I know of none that in my weak opinion do speak satisfactorily or truly of them And I have much confidence that none can give any true tollerable Interpretation of such Passages of the Apostle's used in Derogation to the Law without such Notions and Distinctions of the Law as I have here described and explained and also I hope that any one of ordinary abilities for such things may holding to these Notions of the Law give a rational and satisfactory account of the most Scriptures of such derogatory import And now to go on with the Words of the Author who having before told us that the Apostle's Argument against Justification by the Mosaic-Law was from the double defect of the whole Mosaic-Law or Dispensation to sanctifie men First from an External defect that it promised no Future-life Now he comes to speak of
himself useth the word reckoned for reckned of Debt And therefore the word reckned doth not signifie reckned of Grace of it self Answ It is so apparent that any one may see it by perusing the place That these words Now to him that worketh the reward is reckned of Debt and not of Grace are an Argument to prove somthing said before as appears by the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Translated Now and do lean upon this implied Foundation to make them Argumentative viz. That so the word reckned cannot signifie when he saith God accounted it to him for Righteousness but signifies accounted it of Grace The Apostle's Argument is this If the reward had been given to Abraham for his Works as being a righteous man in the strict sense free from all sin or failing in obedience it would not have been said that God imputed Righteousness to him which implies his being destitute of it And he proves the consequence thus For to him that worketh that is that Meriteth or is Righteous by his own works the reward is accounted of Debt and not of Grace and so it leans upon this as being a thing apparent in it self that so the word Accounted cannot signifie but signifies accounted it of Grace and Favour imputedrighteousness to one not righteous like not imputing sin to one which implys the man a sinner And the Apostle in the following verse shews that it is all one as if it had been said Abraham believed God and upon his believing God did not impute sin to him And saith that if the Idolatrous unrighteous Gentiles believe as he did Righteousness shall be imputed to them or sin shall not be imputed to them Suppose we had read expresly these words Shimei repented or confessed his fault and David imputed it to him for Righteousness would it not have been all one as to say David did upon the Repentance or Confession of Shimei not impute sin to him And would it not be the same as to say David pardoned Shimei upon his Repentance or Confession and would not all these words imputed Righteousness imputed not Sin and Pardoned equally imply Shimei was a sinner or one unrighteous and consequently an Act of grace and savour in David so to do The Author having as you have seen given us his reason why he cannot be of their mind that say the word implys reckoned of Grace He in the next words tells us how the Apostle gathers out of that Scripture Abraham believed God and it was counted or imputed to him for Righteousness that the reward was not imputed to Abraham of Debt as a reward is given to Labourers but of Grace Thus I judg therefore that the Collection Pag. 265. of the Apostle whereby he infers out of that Citation That the Justification of Abraham was meerly Gratuitous doth not lean upon the naked signification of the word was Imputed But partly upon the nature of the thing which is said to be Imputed to Abraham for Righteousness and partly on the former state and quality of the person Abraham to whom it is said to be Imputed First The nature of the thing Pag. 266. The thing which is said to be Imputed to Abraham for Righteouâ—ness was Faith and Obedience springing from it Now the obedience of Faith doth exclude all Merit all together in its own Notion For the obedience of Faith supposeth a gracious Revelation of God first made to the Believer and so such Promises as do by their own excellency strongly excite a man believing them to perform that obedience to God by which as by the condition the good things Promised are to be attained and such Promises as do not only equal but far excel the whole labour though very great which is undertaken through the belief of them So it was plainly in the Example of Abraham He indeed believed God but first God had revealed himself to him in a gracious extraordinary manner Acts 7. 2 3. He had obeyed the Divine command in calling him to a long perilous Journey but God had added Wings to his Journey promising such huge good things which might even fill a decriped old man with youthful strength and might animate him to bear any trouble cheerfully Whatsoever therefore Abraham did worthy of praise he ought to ascribe it to the gracious Revelation and the liberal Promises made to him by God of his meer Mercy therefore there was no occasion for Abraham to glory No Merit The Apostle seems to have respect to this ver 5. where when that which was denied of one working viz. the reward to be given him of Grace * This is his mistake and not the Apostle's was to have been repeated in the following Opposition and to have been affirmed of one believing thus but to a man believing the reward is reckned of Grace But the Apostle doth quite otherwise saith he to one believing his faith is imputed for righteousness as if he should say upon that very account that his faith is imputed for righteousness his Justification is meerly gracious since Faith in it self sounds forth Grace and excludes Merit Here now I must but as on the Pag. 267. bie a little dwell upon the words of the Apostle ver 4. To him that worketh the reward is not reckned of Grace but of Debt Which place that it may be the better understood two things are to be enquired 1. What the word working signifies 2. What the word Debt signifies For the first He that worketh denoteth him that worketh of himself and by his own strength being assisted with no Divine aids For he that worketh by the Grace of God he doth not so much work as the Grace of God in him 1 Cor. 15. 10. Gal. 2. 20. And the Context of the place confirms this For beside that the Apostle as we have seen doth professedly dispute of the works of Abraham which he performed according to the flesh in the beginning of the Chapter That is also chiefly to be observed that he that worketh is opposed to him that believeth that is that from the belief of the Divine Promises and so whose works are to be ascribed to the Divine Grace which stirred him up to work with most great and liberal Promises also adding a great efficacy of his Spirit which also is received only after and by Faith Now in the second place to speak of these words of Debt no reason permits that they should be taken rigidly * There is all reason to take words strictly and properly when it can be done and not to fly to this Authors expression it may seem as it were of Debt And had this Author given the true sense of this Chapter he might have taken the words strictly thus If of perfect obedience to the Law then of Debt and not of Grace meaning by Grace Forgiveness and if of meritorious Works then of Debt and not of Grace in any sense strictly For the reward of Eternal life cannot be
AN ENDEAVOUR TO RECTIFIE SOME PREVAILING OPINIONS Contrary to the Doctrine of The Church of England By the Author of The Great Propitiation And A Discourse of Natural and Moral-Impotency LONDON Printed by T. M. for Robert Clavel in Cross-Keys Court in Little-Brittain 1671. THE Author to the Reader I Published about two Years since some Sermons called The Great Propitiation and thereto Added a short Discourse concerning the Apostle Paul's meaning by Justification by Faith without Works About half a Year after there came forth a Learned Book called Harmonia Apostolica written by Mr. George Bull which quite crossing the Interpretation I had given of Saint Paul I was Occasioned by some Occurrences which it concerns not the Reader to know to Write the substance of these Reflections upon it which were Written within less than three Months after it's coming forth without any Design of Printing them And since I had Written this there is Published a Discourse of Mr. Charles Gataker Thomae 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Filii wherein he signifying his dislike of Mr. Bull 's Propounds a third way to Reconcile the Apostles Paul and James What my thoughts are of Mr. Bull 's way you will here see I think he hath in the main spoken right concerning the sense of Saint James But I think Mr. Gataker hath given the right Interpretation of neither and judg that I have said enough in my Book fore-mentioned to make it appear and so hath Mr. Bull in his I grant and lament it that many Important Doctrines of the Reformed Churches are frequently by too many grosly Explained so as to have ill Consequences following from them which if rightly Explained would be found not to Patronize but to disown such Consequences And hence many Learned men seeing the Intolerableness of such consequent Opinions and not being able to Extricate themselves deny Important truths and maintain such Opinions as these following which are the Foundation of the greatest part of Mr. Bull 's Book opposed and would make an intolerable change in the very substance of the Body of Divinity viz. First That there is no Law that threatens Future-death or promised Future-happiness but the Gospel or Law of Grace Secondly That the Jewish Law or Law of Moses had only Temporal Promises and Threats and required only External Obedience Which yet you will see I grant in one Limitted sense of it to be true Thirdly That no Law of God whatsoever requires perfect Obedience and so no man is bound to live perfectly or free from sin Fourthly And that for this Reason because no man is bound to do what he cannot do Which Reason is only true in a sense nothing to the purpose but it is dangerously false to deny a man is bound to do what he cannot do in another sense viz. Upon the account of his Morally insuperable wickedness as I have else-where at large shewed Fifthly That for any Evidence we have from Scripture to the contrary men after Conversion or after the receiving of the Gospel do live perfectly or without sin or do as much as any Law of God requires from them Sixthly That the effect of the Grace of the Spirit is something that if denied to men enjoying the Gospel they would be excusable or blameless in not obeying the Gospel Also These following Expositions would alter the very substance of the sense of most Important parts of Scripture First That the Apostle Paul doth not dispute against Justification by perfect Obedience to the Law as being impossible to man in this Life Secondly That our Lord in the 5th of Matthew doth not vindicate the Law from corrupt Interpretations but adds to it making that the meaning of it that never was so before Take notice I charge not this last mentioned Exposition as maintained by Mr. Bull though it be by many others and though it must follow by consequence if what he maintains be true viz. That Moses's Law had no Internal Precepts I judg what I have here written may be of use for the clearing of those in Dispute and many other passages of Scripture and for the Confutation of many dangerous Opinions or I should not have permitted it's Publication I shall not here needlesly use Protestations concerning my Fidelity in representing by a Translation Mr. Bull 's Discourse since it is commonly accounted a sign of Guilt to cleer one's self before accused If any should suspect me of Disingenuity herein let me desire them to read the passages here replyed to out of Mr. Bull 's Book it self And to encourage so far as my word will pass them that have it not to procure it I shall say that much of it is well worth Reading and that I am far from passing that censure on the rest of the Book which I do on the parts here replied to May but what is here written be so read and considered without prejudice and passion which may well be expected from ingenuous Lovers of Truth that it may have free Influence upon mens understandings according to the evidence it brings I shall not much doubt of it's good success in composing many differences in Opinion Which is the Prayer of the Author ERRATA PAge 27. Line 17. Read so speak Marg. r. Heavenly p. 34. l. 16. after here r. in p. 67. l. 23. instead of also r at Sinai p. 75. l. 17. after fatuus r. of a new Covenant p. 90. l. 5. for was r. as l. 6. r. on us p. 108. l. 25. after ask r. as I would ask p. 125. l. 20. for Arguments r. Argument p. 168. l. penult r. exiguum p. 171. l. marg 20. r. Adulterio p. 208. l. 15 for to r. do An endeavour to Rectifie some prevailing Opinions THe Learned Author's design is very commendable viz. To reconcile such seemingly contrary Expressions of the Apostle Paul and James as these You see therefore that a man is justified by Works and not by Faith only Jam. 2. 24. We conclude therefore that a man is justified by Faith without the works of the Law Rom. 3. 28. which Scriptures he sets down before his discourse as the Chief or Examplaâ—s of the chief Places he designs to reconcile He divides his whole Discourse into two Dissertations The first whereof is about the meaning of the Apostle James in such Expressions as that cited and is so short as not to take up a fifth part of the Book The second about the sense of the Apostle Paul in his seemingly contrary Affirmations taking up all the rest of the Book His whole first Dissertation concerning the sense of the Apostle James in affirming Justification by Works as a condition is Acute Solid and Cogent yea and so is all generally in his second Dissertation to the 5th Chap. and part of it he spending those Chapters in discovering the weakness and falsehood of the attempts of many designing to reconcile such places and in proving the Apostle Paul means not one single virtue by Faith but the whole
the 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.
Moses and that in so doing in excluding them he doth also reject the corrupt Interpretations or Opinions which the Scribes and Pharisees had fastned on this Law or added to it And also that the Apostle though speaking little about it and on the bie doth implicitly affirm that Works done according to the Law of Nature and proceeding from the strength of Nature doth avail nothing to Salvation Chap. 7. He tells us what works of the Laws of Moses in these words pag. 101. This Law consists of two Parts viz. of Moral and Ritual Precepts The Apostle without doubt had respect to them both For that he speaks also of the Moral Precepts of the Law of Moses whatever some say to the contrary is too manifest out of his own words Rom. 3. 20. Wherefore by the Works of the Law shall no flesh be justified in his sight for by the Law is the knowledg of sin From whence it may be gathered that it is that Law by which is the knowledg of sin whose works he he excludes which without controversie is spoken of the Moral-Law written in the Decalogue For so the Apostle expounds himself Rom. 7. 7. citing that out of the Decalogue Thou shalt not Covet So Rom. 3. 31. Do we destroy the Law by Faith God forbid yea we establish the Law Now the Ceremonial-Law can scarce be said to be established by Faith The Law worketh wrath For where there is no Law there is no Transgression is chiefly true of the Moral-Law For almost all Transgressions are against the Moral-Law therefore the Dispute of the Apostle pertains also to the Works of the Moral-Law In the mean time I must add this that the Works of the Moral-Law are not simply excluded by Paul from Justification but only so far as they were prescribed in the Mosaic-Covenant and were made part of the condition annexed to this Covenant It is certain that no man could come to true Justification by the Mosaic-Covenant by Works of the Moral-Law though they were rightly yea and exactly performed according to the Rule of the Law because it promised no true Justification at all That is Justification joyned with Eternal-Life For that great Benefit comes only from the Covenant of Grace made in the Blood of the Mediator So that if you respect the Mosaic-Covenant even the works of the Moral-Law are together to be excluded from Justification and are indeed excluded by the Apostle I know you are at a loss about the Author's meaning what he means by this Mosaic-Covenant that no man could be justified by as to Future life though free all sin and perfectly obeying the Moral-Law because this Mosaic-Covenant promised no Justification as to Eternal life upon any terms whatsoever Now because you will not understand what he saith here on the two Arguments he brings in the next words which he pretends are only the Apostle's Arguments against Justification by this Mosaic-Covenant and that this is all the Law and Covenant that the Apostle proves against Justification by I will bring together here all that he saith to tell us what he means by the Mosaic-Covenant that there is no Justification by as he saith as to a Future life though there was as to this Life and you will see it apparent that he means by it only that Law or Laws which I before cited out of him by the name of an Original-Law and Remedying-Law which threatned a violent Temporal death to the Transgressors of the Law and promised upon offering a Sacrifice they should escape such violent Temporal death but promised nothing of Happiness in a Future life if they offered such Sacrifices or Pardon of those sins as to a Future life He apparently either means this Remedying-Law only or both together the Original-Law as it threatned a violent Temporal death and the Remedying-Law freeing from a violent Temporal death upon the death of a Beast And he thinks that the Law taken in such a sense as to threaten Eternal death or promise Eternal life was the Gospel it self and that Paul doth not dispute against being Justified by any such Law And that the Law given from Mount Sinai however had no Promises or Threats of a Future life not so much as obscure ones and he builds the sense he gives of the Apostle Paul upon this Foundation You have seen this passage already where he saith it promised no Eternal life-Justification to any whatsoever though Sinless and perfectly keeping the Law Pag. 208. The Promises and Threatnings of the Law were only Temporal and Earthly Pag. 210. And the Precepts did wonderfully accord with the Promises Pag. 212. He speaks largely to prove this The Apostle doth in many places tax this defect of the Mosaic-Law that it had no promise of a Future life And hither some refer that Text Rom. 8. 3. where it is said The Law was weak through the Flesh i. e. say they It contained only carnal Promises But I chuse rather the common Interpretation viz. of Flesh for Sin The 5th verse of the foregoing Chapter is more apposite where the Law is called Flesh for those words When we were in the Flesh must be expounded When we were under the Law as is manifest from the Antithesis which they have to Vers 6. and also from the scope of the whole Chapter And the Mosaic-Law seems to be called Flesh not only because the most of the Precepts were carnal only and External but also because the Promises with which this Law was enforced did not look beyond this Carnal life To the same sense Grotius expounds the words of the Apostle 2 Cor. 3. where he calls the Law a Ministry of Death because all its Promises were ended with Death without any hope of Restitution So v. 6. The Law of Moses is said to kill viz. as the same Grotius notes As the Hebrew word to make alive is used of him who did not kill a man Exod. 1. 17. Judg. 8. 19. So that is said to kill which leaves a man to die and doth not free from Death But that I may confess the truth I rather believe these Phrases to Kill and a Ministry of death to signifie something else viz. the written Law of Moses to make men Obnoxious to Divine anger and Eternal death if it be alone and destitute of the Spirit not through its †It is well he here grants it is through the default of the Man and not fâ—om the Law but this destroys his cause and He a few Lines after contradicts this own fault but through the infirmity of the Flesh The Apostle's words Gal. 3. 13. seem more clear The Law is not of Faith but he that doth them shall live in them That is the Law neither requires Faith neither doth it promise those things which require Faith or Belief properly so called which is the evidence of things not seen Heb. 11. 1. Rom. 8. 24. because it promises only good things of that sort which are things of Sense and
belong to this visible World but saith not a tittle concerning a Future life It excites us not to Piety with any promises of this sort but requires that we do its commands not adding any such promise to excite us Only saying Thou shalt live here a prosperous and fortunate life as appears Lev. 18. 5. but that place Gal. 3. 21. is most clear If there had been a Law which could have given life verily Righteousness should have been by that Law The Law is said to give or do what it promises The sense thereof is If the * Here He lays the fault on the Law and denies it virtually to be the fault of the Man unsaying what he had said before Law had had promises of life viz. Eternal then men could have attained by the Law true and perfect Righteousness or true and perfect Justification that is Justification conjoyned with Eternal life But the matter was far otherwise the Law contains only promises belonging to this Life Being no better supplied with proofs than with these out of the Apostle Paul he brings some out of the Author to the Hebrews and might have brought many more and clearer to shew that Author means by the Law the Law of Sacrifices which Sacrifices did only expiate Temporal guilt as real propitiatory Sacrifices and not at all guilt as to Eternal punishment but only Typified that which did Pag. 215. Quest Is there no promise of Eternal life extant in the Old Testament Answ Either you mean by the Old Testament the Covenant made in Mount Sinai or all things contained in Moses the Hagiography and the Prophets If taken in the latter sense it may perhaps be granted there are some not obscure hints of a Future life though not a clear and express Promise of Eternal life But these hints such as they were were only Praeludiums and Anticipations of Gospel-Grace They did not belong to the Law For the Law as it is considered by the Apostle in his Disputations with the Jews doth properly denote the Covenant made in Mount Sinai Gal. 4. 24. And that had earthly Promises and earthly only It is true indeed that those earthly Promises added to the Law of Works were signs of those good things which did follow the Law of the Spirit and those were comprehended in them in the intention of God himself It is also true that there are extant some general Promises or Promises made in general terms in the Law it self in which it is manifest that Eternal life not only might be but was contained in Gods Intention As I will be thy God and I will Bless you For who doubts but in these Promises thus generally pronounced there might be contained every sort of good things yea those which come only after Death For God to be willing to be one's God what is it else then God to be willing to embrace a man with Divine good Will Now Divine good Will or Benignity worthy of God What is it else than the highest Benignity and than which there can be no greater or further And therefore with a Benignity most long in duration that is Eternal most powerful in Operation and therefore freeing from Death and Destruction For it is manifest by the Interpretation of Christ himself and his Apostles that Life-eternal in the Intention of God was comprehended in these words see Mat. 22. 31 32. Heb. 11. 16. 2 Cor. 6. 16 17 18. compared with Chap. 7. 1. Rev. 21. 3. 7. But these things do not suffice that we may say that Life-eternal was promised in the Mosaic-Covenant For Promises annexed to a Covenant ought to be clear and express and such as may be understood by either Party but it was almost impossible that any one should understand these Typical and general Promises without some adventitious Interpretation Again this Eternallife shadowed with Types and comprehended in these general Promises was not given to the external Righteousness required in the Letter of the Law but to that spiritual Purity and Piety of which this other External was only a shadow For even as Eternal good things lay covered under the bark of Temporal good things so also the Bodily-Religion prescribed in the Law was a Shadow and Type of Spiritual-Righteousness to be revealed more clearly in the Gospel In a word the Law considered Carnally and according to the Letter neither required Spiritual-Righteousness nor promised Eternal-life but being considered Spiritually was the very Gospel it self neither doth the Apostle move any controversie about here it being so taken Pa. 232. He again largely tells us what Law it was that the Apostle only meant when he exclude's the Law and Works of the Law from Justification where denying the Spirit to be given by that Law he thus speaketh If by the Law you understand the Covenant made in Mount Sinai and given to the Israelites Moses being the Mediator which I have even now said is the most proper and genuine Acceptation and Notion of it in Paul's Epistles it is manifest it contained no Promise of the Holy Spirit But in other Books of the Old Testament yea and in the writings of Moses though not in the Mosaic-Covenant it self we may find a Promise cleer enough of giving the Grace of the Holy Spirit to the Israelites as that Deut. 30. 6. The Lord thy God shall circumcise thy heart and the heart of thy Seed to love the Lord thy God with all thy heart c. Now this cannot be done as all that differ from Pelagius confess without a great force of the Holy Ghost But this did belong to the Gospel-Righteousness which first Moses himself and after other Prophets did shew to lie under the Bark of the external Rites and Ceremonies for the Righteousness of Faith which is manifested in the Gospel was in times past testified by the Law and the Prophets as the Apostle expresly affirms Rom. 3. 21. Yea I will shew you further that this was part of the New Testament promulgated by Moses For that the Covenant made with the Jews Deut. 29. and 30. in which these words are found was plainly distinct from the Covenant made in Mount Sinai and also doth contain a Renewing of the Covenant made with Abraham that is of the Gospel-covenant then more obscurely Revealed may be Demonstrated by many Arguments First It is expresly said Deut. 29. 1. that the words which there * It is not said the words which follow I rather think that the Expression these are the words of the covenant meaning the laws or Precepts of the Covenant hath reference to the Laws before recited in this Book of Deuteronomy rather than to the words following in this Chapter And that this Verse if a right division had been made should rather have ended the former Chapter than have begun this follow were words of the Covenant which the Lord commanded Moses to make with the Children of Israrael in the Land of Moab besides the Covenant which he made with
them in Horeb They weakly trifle who here understand * Such an Interpretation is not so weak and trifling but had I no other evasion I would fly to it rather than affirm here as this Author doth a new Covenant on Gods part having quite different Precepts Promises and Threats a renewing of the Covenant made in Mount Sinai and do contradict the most plain words of the Text. Neither can the words of the Covenant made in Mount Sinai repeated and renewed in any sense be called the words of the Covenant which God made besides that he had made in Sinai Secondly It is expresly said * It is only said That he might be to them a God as he promised them meaning from Mount Sinai and also had sworn it before to Abraham c. as appears Lev. 26. 45 46. and from many other places Exod. 19. 5 6. Deut. 26. 15. 18 19. that this Covenant is altogether the same with that which God made and confirmed by Oath with the Israelites Ancestors to wit with Abraham Isaac and Jacob v. 12 13. which Covenant was the very Gospel something obscurely revealed as Paul saith Gal. 3. 16 17. Thirdly Paul cites some words of this Covenant as words of the * So Paul doth cite these words Lev. 26. 12. I will walk among you and will be your God and you shall be my people which words weâ—e spoken at Mount Sinai as appears by v. 46. as a Gospel-promise as indeed they were 2 Cor. 6. 16. and begins the following Chapter thus Having these Promises let us cleanse our selves c. Gospel-covenant which holds forth the Righteousness of Faith see Rom. 10. 6. c. compared with Deut. 30. 11. I am not ignorant that some determine these words to be accommodated to the Righteousness of Faith only by way allusion But I cannot believe them since Paul manifestly alledges these words as the very words of the Righteousness of Faith that is as the very words of the Gospel-covenant in which this Righteousness is revealed And that I may confess the truth I have always esteemed these Allusions to which some flie as to the holy Asylum or Sanctuary of their Ignorance for the most part to be nothing else then manifest abuses of the Holy Scripture Fourthly All the things contained in this Covenant do wonderfully fit or agree to the Gospel 1. As for the Precepts there are only commanded here * There are no particular Laws recited not so much as the Ten Commandments in these two chapters which he will have to contain this whole Covenant things belonging to Manners and which are in their own nature Honest there being no mention here made of those Rites whereof the whole Legal-covenant is almost full which being considered according to the words may seem childish and further the whole obedience which is here required may be †So may equally all Covenanted by the people at Mount Sinai or required of them by God referred to a sincere and diligent endeavour to obey God in all things Chap. 30. 10. 16. 20. 2. As for the Promises God here promises full Remission of all sins upon Repentance even of the most ‖ So he doth as fully from Mount Sinai Lev. 26. 40 41. heinous Cap. 30. 1 2 3 4. which favour was never granted in the Legal covenant And further the Grace of the Holy Ghost whereby the hearts of men may be circumcised that they may love the Lord with all their hearts and souls is clearly promised v. 6. How far is this from the usual vein of Moses writings Fifthly That Covenant which Jeremiah foretold Jer. 31. 31 32. c. was a Gospel-covenant as all Christians grant and the Author to the Hebrews expresly teacheth Heb. 8. 8. Now all those things which the Prophet foretels of that Covenant do †Allusions being too much built on may be Illusions exactly answer to this Moabitish-covenant Jeremiah calls his Covenant a new Covenant altogether different from that which God plighted with the Ancestors of Israel going out of Egypt Moses saith the same of the Moabitish-covenant Jeremiah gives this cause why God would make a new Covenant viz. because they brake the Old wanting Gods powerful Grace The same reason Moses gives here of making this new Covenant Deut. 29. 4. Jeremiah's promised circumcision of heart so this That promised Remission of sins Jer. 31. 34. So this Deut. 30. 1 2 c. Jeremiah speaks of the clearness and facility of the Precepts which are contained in the New-covenant that they might know and obey them without much search and labour So doth Moses Deut. 30. 11 12. compared with Romans 10. 6. All these things seem very clear to me I have dwelt something long upon these things Both that it may be manifest hence that all things in the Mosaic-writings do not belong to the Mosaic-Covenant properly so called And to shew how necessary it is to restrain the old Law properly so called only to the Covenant made in Mount Sinai And also chiefly that the Wisdom of God might appear in dispencing the Covenant of Grace God had made that gracious Covenant with Abraham many years before the giving of the Law to which Covenant it afterwards pleased him to add another Covenant made up of many painful Rites and Ceremonies by which he might keep in their Duty that is restrain from the Idolatrous-worship of the Heathen the rude and carnal posterity of Abraham lately brought out of Aegypt and so too much addicted to Paganish Rites and Superstitions But the most wise God foreseeing that this People of a foolish or hard-heart obtusi pectoris would not understand his purpose after he had made this carnal Law He commanded Moses that he should promulgate a New-covenant to the Israelites or rather that he should renew that Old-covenant which he many years before had made with Abraham which did chiefly require spiritual Righteousness and was full of Grace and Mercy That from hence the Jews might know that the Abrahamatical-covenant was yet in force even after the Ritual-Law was made and also was to be accounted for the Covenant by which only their Salvation was to be attained see Gal. 3. 17. Who would not here cry out with the Apostle Oâ— the depth of the Riches and Wisdom and Knowledg of God! Since this here recited hath some dark shew of proof I shall before I go any further manifest that the Author is notoriously mistaken in affirming that the Covenant made in the Land of Moab was not the same for substance repeated with that made at Horeb or Mount Sinai but a Covenant having quite different Promises and Precepts the one carnal and earthly the other Spiritual and Heavenly and also in thinking that these two Chapters 29th and 30th comprehended the whole Covenant made in the Land of Moab Let these things be considered A Covenant in the strictest propriety of the Word is a mutual Engagement of Parties two at the least
Pâ—scaâ—or interpreting the words beside the Covenant thus Praeter actionem illam qua foedus fuit pactum which can mean nothing but the peoples Engagement which actual promise of the people the Lord commanded Moses to make with the children of Israel that is which the Lord commanded Moses to cause the children of Israel to make for so this phrase and word is expresly used Josh 24. 25. Joshuah made a Covenant with the people that day that is caused the people to promise obedience to the Lords Commands that day The like sense the word hath so far as concerns the Covenanting of the people 2 Kings 11. 17. in the Land of Moab beside the Covenant that is beside their actual promising which Moses made with them that is caused them to make at Horeb or Sinai But suppose this Verse should have reference only to the following Verses in this Chapter and the following his meaning can only be These are the words whereby he engaged the people in a Covenant distinct from the words whereby Moses engaged them in a Covenant to the Lord formerly We find Joshuah a little before his death again engaging the people in a Covenant to obey Gods Commandments and useth Words and Exhortations different from these in this Chapter in engaging them Suppose we had read such words as these viz. These are the words of the Covenant which Joshuah made with the people besides the Covenant which Moses made with them at Mount Sinai and in the Land of Moab This might import that it was a distinct Engaging of the people from the other two but not that it was another Covenant of God having other Promises and Commands and Threats We find the people in Nehemiah's time Nehem. 10. 29. entering into a Covenant But it was into the Mount Sinai-Covenant It was to walk in God's Law which was given by Moses and we may see there it was also to observe Ceremonial and Judicial commands It seems they had not observed this New-covenant of this Authors in these two Chapters of Deuteronomy Object But may not this whole Book of Deuteronomy being spoken in the Land of Moab comprehend a new Gospel-Covenant distinct from the Old at Sinai and so that be serviceable to reconcile those passages of the Apostle Paul in dispute the Author's way Answ No For the Apostle Paul cites Gal. 3. two Passages out of this Book for words of the Law And again There are by far more Promises and Threatnings in this Book expressed in a Carnal Temporal and Terrence stile than in all the Law of Moses beside in Exodus Leviti Numb I am sensible this Ignis fatuus hath led me out of my designed way for I designed here only to bring in those Passages together without any reflection upon them where the Author tells us what he supposes the Apostle Paul means by the Law which he disputes against Justification by and by the Works of even a Law that either hath or at least in the sense the Apostle opposeth Justification by it hath neither Spiritual-promises nor Threatnings nor Precepts There is only one place more and that is pag. 122 123. where he explains the Apostle's meaning by the Law but because I have been long in Reciting these and that wâ—ll methodically be brought in in another place I shall bring it in there and so shall return now to the place where I left off viz. At the end of pag. 102. and shall begin at the top of pag. 103. where he tells us The Apostle useth two Arguments against Justification by Works which two Arguments this Author only prosecutes and so largely that the Setting down and Proving and Explaining these takes up almost two third parts of his whole Book Take his own words Pag 103. The Arguments whereby Paul opposes the Law may be divided into two sorts one into those which belong to the whole Mosaic-Covenant the other into those Arguments which chiefly respect the Ceremonial Law This latter sort of Arguments which chiefly respect the Ceremonial-Law he leaves till near the end of his Book and then spends but few Lines about them as not being as he saith controverted by Christians The Arguments of this first sort whereby the Apostle fights are especially two and those are taken from a double defect of the Mosaic-Covenant viz. From the want both of pardoning Grace and of helping Grace The first Argument of the Apostle respecting the Mosaic-Covenant is drawn from the defect of Pardoning-grace or Remission of sins which that Covenant wanted Where the Apostle shews the Universal guilt as well of the Jews as of the Gentiles and that all are guilty of those sins that there is no true and perfect Remission to be hoped for by this Law It is clear that this is the scope of Paul in the third Chapter of the Epistle to the Romans For there after a long Catalogue of sins charged both on the Jews and Gentiles by the Law v. 10. c. At length ver 20. he inferrs this conclusion Wherefore by the works of the Law shall no flesh be justified in his sight viz. in the sight of God And also the things which the Apostle disputes in the 3d. Chap. of Gal. are to be referred the same way where he proves also by this Reason That all who are under the Law are under a Curse because it is written Cursed is every one that shall not continue in all things written in the Law to do them v. 10. But here I am sensible that upon the very Threshold I am cast upon a great difficulty For it may be doubted here whether this Argumentation of the Apostle doth not lean upon this Foundation that he determines The Mosaic-Law as it was given to the Jews was a Law requiring Obedience wholly perfect and so impossible to be performed and also whether the Apostle conclude that upon this account all men are sinners by this Law and by and for their sins guilty of eternal Death and Malediction and so that no man can be Justified by this Law Thus indeed the most think affirming that the Law of Moses did oblige if not absolutely yet †Conditionally is no good word here For though we may properly say Men shall perish for their sins conditionally except they repent for this is no more than to say the Law that threatens death absolutely shall be executed except they repent yet we must not say that the Law threatens death conditionally except they repent but we must hold it threatens death absolutely repent or repent not and that the Gospel is a distinct Law a Remedying-Law For if God threatned death by the Law only conditionally except they perform the Gospel-condition it would follow that no man is pardoned that performs the Gospel condition it would also quite destroy Christs Satisfaction Though I know many mean well that use such speeches and however far better than the Author that denies any such Law-threat either absolute or conditional conditionally
command of loving God with all the Heart and Soul and Strength must be considered either strictly as I said at the beginning as a Law with it's penalty And so it requires the utmost of a mans natural Ability and no more not as much as an Angel's ability reaches to so that if he fails in the least degree of this he fails so much of love due to God by this Law and is under its curse It is essential to a Law as a Law that it require perfect Obedience to it self and to deny this would be to deny that every Law requires all that it doth require any thing short of this is not all the Law requires If a man do not love God in as high a degree as this law in this sense requires he is from under its Blessing and under its Curse and Condemnation and cannot possibly be Justified by this Law in this sense nor be pardoned by it for no Law can possibly pardon an offence against it self But he may be pardoned by another Law a Law of Grace In this strict sense no meer man in this life not Josiah himself ever loved God with his whole heart so highly as he ought so high as the Law in this sense required however me thinks he should not have pretended it of all the people of Israel in Asa's time but have sought some other sense at least for those words and that might have brought him to the sense I shall now speak of Secondly These words may be considered as the condition of the Remedying-Law made with them for the Merit of Christ then to come as taken with this Gospel lenity that if they love God with the prevailing bent of their Souls or above all other things they shall be pardoned escape the curse of the Law in its Rigour due And in this sense a man loves God with all his Heart and Soul as far as God by his Remedying-Law requires for his Salvation and so obeys the Law taken in this sense perfectly that is loves him so much as it requires as necessary to his Salvation that doth it thus prevailingly though he fail in the degrees he ought to love God by the strict Law and so needs pardon The meaning is not that Asa loved God as much as any Law required from him and so needed no pardon or Christ's satisfaction for failing in any degree of love due to or required by God But to proceed with the next words of the Author I will add this for a Conclusion to Pag 112. this Dispute This my Opinion of the possibility of fulfilling the Law so far as it ever was imposed by God upon men as a Law is not a new upstart Opinion but an Opinion approved by the common Vote of all the Antients who wrote before the Pelagian Controversie had muddied the Rivulets of the more pure and primitive Doctrine Yea and Austine himself though otherwise too hot in this unhappy Controversie did not doubt to confess that God commanded possible things and in this sense only what all particular Believers are able to fulfil Here he cites some Antients for this Opinion that God doth not require what men have no power Pag. 112 c. to do which takes up pag. 112 113 114. almost I grant it is apparent they did hold as I also do that God requires no more than men have the Natural power to do But yet I dare challenge any to name one accounted no Heretick that held this Opinion that follows by evident consequence from the Authors Opinion That every man for that follows by consequence or that every man by that measure of Grace which God communicates to him or is ready to communicate to him may for any Impotency in him to the contrary so live as not to fail in any thing the Law requires so far as to stand in need of pardon or Christs satisfaction for such failings Yea or this Opinion which he expresly holds as you will presently see more fully viz. That after the receiving of the Gospel or Conversion men may for any Impotency on them to the contrary so live as not to sin at all as not to fail at all in obedience to the Law or so as not to do any thing that deserves or is by any Law threatned with Eternal death He goes on From the things which we have Pag. 114. already spoken I suppose it to appear plain enough That the Law of Moses did not require most perfect Obedience that is all manner of sinlessness in the highest degree under the peril of Eternal death and so that the Apostle's Argument is not built upon that Supposition It remains that we consider by what Reason the Apostle proves his Conclusion Therefore I judg saving honour to better judgments this Argumentation of the Apostle to lean upon two foundations chiefly First That all both Jews and Gentiles were guilty of hainous sins and so obnoxious to Judgment and Divine anger this is hinted concerning the Jews chiefly and also of all who did seek Righteousness in the Law as I said before in my answer to the first Objection in that place Gal. 3. 10. But the same is largely demonstrated of all without difference Rom. 3. Where he charges many hainous sins both upon the Jews and Gentiles But that the Context of the whole place may be rightly understood two things are chiefly to be noted one belonging to the Accusation another to the Persons Accused First As for the Accusation it self it is to be Noted that it is not of any kind of sins but they are accused of sins more properly so called that is of hainous sins and worthy of Eternal death This is clearly manifest First out of the words by which the Position or Affirmation of the Apostle which was proved in the former Chapter and is in this Chapter further Demonstrated is expressed v. 9. We have before proved that both Jews and Gentiles are all under sin Where that Phrase to be under sin manifestly signifies to be under the dominion of sin or to be addicted to hainous sins whosoever is such a one is said by the Apostle to be sold under sin Chap. 7. 14. Secondly It is apparent out of the whole Context of the Apostle in which all the sins that are enumerated are of a more * The Apostle indeed doth instance in hainous sins and so the import of his Argument Rom. Chap. 1 2 3. seems this viz. If so be that sins scarce to be named were to be found frequently almost universally polluting even those learned Gentiles Chap. 1. 22. that excelled all other Geâ—tâ—les in knowledg where the study of Divine and humane Knowledg abounded and were great Professors of Wisdom And if amongst the Jews even in the best times the days of David horrid wickednesses were to be found very frequent so that even in a manner the whole body of the people were guilty of such hainous sins it may be well
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-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
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
cordibus non minus quam manibus oculis loquutas est Reus erit judicio Hoc membrum confirmat quâ—d diximus vitium illud reprehendi quod lex Dei quae regendis animis tradita fuit in Politiam conversa erat Calv. in Loc. Doctors hence gathered and taught the people by this Argument that none else was threatned by the Law with Future punishment And so that the Commandment reached no further than to prohibit the External act under a Future penalty and that such speeches as Thou shalt not hate thy Brother in thy heart And Be not hasty in thy spirit to be angry Anger resteth in the bosome of Fools Eccles 7. 9. were but Counsels Now ver 22. Christ teacheth them the true meaning of the Law and since their Rabbies used the word the Judgment to signifie Future punishment he doth so too But I say unto you that he that is angry with his brother without a cause though his anger do not proceed so far as to kill him nor to any outward Expression is yet guilty of Murder in the sense of the Law and so obnoxious to the Future death signified by you to be due to the External act and meant by the Word the Judgment in the former Speech which primarily signifies putting to death with the Sword And he that shall proceed so much further in causless anger as to use only some lesser words of reproach as Racha shall be yet in danger of a greater punishment in the Future-life shall be in danger of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Council of the Jerusalem-Court of Seventy that is of a severer Future-death answerable to the Punishment which used to be inflicted by the Sanhedrim which word came from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 who ordinarily punished Offenders with stoning to death But whosoever shall though not kill his Brother yet proceed so far in wrath as to say thou fool i. e. to use the most Villifying and Approbrious expressions shall be punished hereafter with death * Christ's Speech could proceed no fuâ—ther in keeping to the Metaphor expresssing Future punishment by Jewish courts since no other but the two fore-mentioned inflicted the punishment of death And though it may be Objected that one of these Couâ—ts also put to death by burning however in two cases viz of a Priests daughter committing whoredom Lev. 21 9. And of a man lying with his Wives Mother Lev. 20. 14. Yet these were it is probable crimes seldom hapning so that the ordinary punishment of the highest Court was as it is commonly agreed Stoning And however this would no way have served to have carried on the begun Metaphor which expressed the Gradation of punishments by several Courts since this was a punishment by the same Court and rarely used Now since the Court of Judicature is put in this speech to signifie immediately the punishment of the Court it was most consentaneous to rational Speech to signifie by it the ordinary punishment of the Court And so he expresses the third Degree of Future punishment due to the third and greatest Offence mentioned by him by a burning to death in Tophet that was often used by the Jews to express Future punishment answerable to the being put to death with fire in the Valley of Hinnom which was a more cruel death than by the Sword or Stoning and the meaning of it well known to the Jews though no judicial death and used often by them and sometimes by the Scripture to signifie Future torments And the word should have been thus Translated viz. Shall be in danger of the fire of the Valley of Hinnom or Tophet For as it is Translated it is apt to minister a doubt to the Vulgar as if the two former sort of offences were not by Christ accounted to be threatned with Hell whereas had it been Translated according to the Words it would have been more easie and occasioned no such doubt the Judgment the Council the fire of Hinnom all equally signifying Future death and punishment and only here used to denote Degrees of punishment in Hell Yea and Christ here assigns as great a Future punishment to the least offence viz. Anger as they did to actual Murther Now it will appear to you no great unlikelyhood that the Jewish Doctors gave such a loose Interpretation of the Law if you consider that it is a growing Opinion at this day taught by some of our own Doctors as well as by Socinus that no more was commanded to the Jews however not under the penalty of Future death but only such External obedience And if perhaps there were any Commands in the Old Testament-Scriptures requiring such Internal obedience as is required by Christ in his Sermon on the Mount they were glimmerings of the Gospel and not Universally commanded to all under threat of Eternal punishment but only recommended to them that will do what is best Pract. Cat. pag. 141. Though now since Christs Sermon in the Mount they are acknowledged to be Commands which not to do is a sin and not only Counsels of Perfection which to do is to do better pag. 142. But Doctor Taylor if I can understand him holds that now no Law threatens Hell to the neglect of them but that they are yet Counsels left to a man's choice Unum Neces pag. 48 49. You may find this Opinion maintained by many who pretend that Christ's oppositions Mat. 5. to what hath been said by others were however in several of those sayings referring to the Ten Commandments really Additions to the Law and not vindications of the right true sense of it against false Flesh-pleasing expositions And that the Law till Christ made those Additions to it in his Sermon in the Mount did not as a Law require any however not with any Threat of Future punishment to abstain from Heart-Adultery or Heart-Murder provided it proceeded not to the External fact Now I look upon my self as bound here to answer the Arguments for that Opinion viz. That that is a true notion of the Jewish Law as referring to Conscience and the Future life-state For if this be so All that I here speak thus largely and make apparent chiefly from this Chapter which you will at last I hope see the necessity of for the Interpreting many Scriptures of the New Testament that speak derogatory to the Law will fall to the ground The strongest Arguments by which they prove their Opinion are such as these Pract. Catech. pag. 136. First The most of the Fathers especially of the Greeks before St. Austines time so held Answ 1. I could easily I think make it appear that the most of them held the contrary 2. The most of the Citations produced may be made appear either not to prove that to be their Opinion but are capable of another Construction or they might be forced to that Exposition to maintain now-acknowledged Errours frequent in those days as that it is unlawful under the Gospel to Swear
or War in any case though it was not unlawful by the Law of Nature or the Moral Law Secondly The Fathers give these two reasons for this their Opinion 1. Because Christ under the Gospel gives either higher or plainer Promises than he did before 2. Because he gives more grace now to perform them viz. the Commandments than before he had done The Law given by Moses was a Carnal Law that is weak not accompanied with strength to perform what it requires but the Gospel of Christ the Administration of the Spirit i. e. a means to Administer the Spirit to our hearts to enable us to do what he commands us to do As for the first Reason said to be the Fathers 1. I cannot see it's Cogency 2. The Heathens knew by the Light of Nature that Heart-adultery and Murther and that taking Gods Name in vain in Swearing customarily or Lusoriously or Idle were sins surely then the Jews had Light enough to make them inexcusable in these things before Christ's Sermon in the Mount and so such were sins in them And for Answer to the second Argument I can neither understand the Cogency nor the Consistency of it First It is apparent to me that men are not one jot the less obliged by the Law because of God's not giving them Grace to obey it because I do not think that giving the Natural ability to Obey is to be called giving Grace or an effect of Grace but of Justice so as men could not in Justice be obliged to obey the Law without it Secondly The Law of the Ten Commandments for that is it the Doctor speaks of and only pretends Christs addition to was not in the true Conscience-sense a Carnal Law but a Spiritual Rom. 7. Thirdly If the Jews had no strength to perform what this Law required it must be granted that they were not obliged by the Law to avoid Heart-sins and Thought-sins Fourthly Methinks this undo's all to give this as a Reason why the Jews were not forbidden such Inward-sins as are under Dispute viz. Because they had no ability to perform what the Law commanded For it is to grant the Law did command them to abstain from such things which this Argument is brought to prove it did not forbid till Christ made that Addition Thirdly The word Translated fulfil ver 17. Think not that I am come to destroy the Law or the Prophets I am not come to destroy but to fulfil them signifies to perfect and fill-up that which was imperfect before I Answer It cannot be denied but the word is used in divers significations But setting aside what other things may be opposed to that sense of the Word I shall only say this The surest way to know the sense of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to fulfil in this place is by the word here opposed to it which is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to dissolve or destroy the Law Now it is apparent that by Destroying is meant Enervating and Evacuating the Obligation of the Law by a too favourable Exposition which is called in the Verse following breaking the Commandment and teaching men so to do Therefore by the word fulfil must be meant to assert and maintain it's strictness and obligation to vindicate it from such evacuating Expositions The meaning of the Verse is Think not c. i. e. You will be deceived if you shall suppose that I am come to Teach as your Doctors that are in the greatest Repute do who make it their great business to gratifie you in making the Law to be of very little extent so as not to forbid Heart-sins but to alow those and many evil practices I am not come thus to dissolve the Law but to fulfil i. e. to vindicate it to it 's true sense from such Evacuating glosses Fourthly That these words you have heard signifies you have been taught out of the Books of Moses and It hath been said by them of old time should be read according as the Margent also of our Bibles translates them it hath been said to them of old time that is to the Jews your Ancestors by Moses Answer 1. The words may be read either it hath been said to them of old or by them of old without any inconvenience or alteration of the sense for if said by them of old then be sure to them of old and if it was said to the Ancients then by the Ancients 2. The meaning seems to be These Expositions of the Law have been taught you with a pretence of their †Calv. in Loc. Antiquity as being taught the Ancients by the Ancients i. e. that is some Generations since by Rabbie's 3. But that the meaning should be These things were taught you by Moses in the Ten Commandments But I now either add or oppose this Interpretation to what was the true former meaning seems wonderfully unlikely by this to say no more That this is not the usual phrase of Christ or his Apostles in citing Scripture viz. you have heard it hath been said neither is this †Calv. in Loc. manner of Speech or any akin to it ever used in this sense and therefore seems to be a way of citing Traditional Expositions When Christ citeth Scripture he useth to say You have read Mat. 12. 35. Mark 12. 26 Luk. 10. 26. Not as here You have heard And he useth to say It is written Mat. 4. 4 6 10. Luke 2. 23. and 10. 26. John 8. 17. Chap. 10. 38. Not as here It hath been said Fifthly In these words Except your righteousness exceed the righteousness of the Scribes and Pharisees that is which they think themselves obliged to and teach others that they are obliged to you cannot enter Sure Christ doth not pitch on the names of the Scribes and Pharisees as those that were the greatest Evacuators of the Law by their own hypocritical Practices or false Glosses in some particulars but as the most exact and learned Sect as those that sate in Moses Chair i. e. taught there truly the Doctrine of the Mosaical-Law in that manner as others were obliged to perform it Answer 1. Then Christ doth not bring in these Names here as he is wont to do for he useth to charge them with making void the Law through Traditions 2. It seems apparent he means by the Scribes and Pharisees the same that he doth by those that break the Commandments and teach others so to do 3. I grant they had generally the repute of the strictest Teachers and Livers as to External and less weighty matters of the Law but yet they generally are charged to make void the Law by their Lives and Doctrines as to Internal obedience and most weighty concernments Surely it is not all one as if he had said Except your righteousness exceed the righteousness of Moses Joshuah Samuel and David which they taught other and thought themselves and others obliged to you cannot enter which yet seems to be the Doctors meaning 4. The
said properly to be owing to any man though working most perfectly and also from the meer strength of Nature Neither could that be ascribed to the first man if he had stood in Innocency and had never violated the Divine Covenant with any sin for the reward of Eternal life being Infinite exceeds infinitely the works of any Creature Therefore it is most certain that these words of the Apostle But to him that worketh the reward is not reckoned of Grace but of Debt are not to be understood absolutely and simply but comparatively So that the Apostle signifies that the reward is not given to him that worketh on that manner as I have expressed out of such meer and pure Grace as to one that believeth that is to one working from Faith Therefore this is the sense of the words If the reward of Eternal life should be given by God to him that worketh that is that obeys God and worketh righteousness by his native strength without the Grace of God That may really seem as it were to be given as of debt and there would be to one working at least some shew of boasting But when the reward is imputed to him that doth not work but believeth that is who works nothing of himself but from Faith and after his believing of God graciously revealing himself Here appears Divine Grace illustriously boasting is excluded all merit is cast off Yea here is seen double Grace of God 1. That he works in a man the obedience of Faith by his Grace preceding all Merits of his and also that he imputeth for Righteousness the same obedience to a man which he wrought in him and Crowning it with a great Reward no otherwise than if the man had performed it of himself Whereas this Author pretends that the stress of the Apostles Argument in Rom. 4. leans upon this viz. That if men should do things they have in no sense any ability to do and that in sensu composito while they have no ability to do them If men should do that by their native strength which they have no strength to do this would Merit or have some shew of Merit As if Abraham had believed before God had promised had believed without a Testimony or Revelation or had obeyed before he had any ability to obey this would have Merited or have had some shew of Merit But God promised first before Abraham believed and afforded him strength and all things naturally necessary to produce obedience before he obeyed and so there was no Merit in his Faith and Obedience I confess I am dubious whether I should grant this to be true or not or if I should grant it true whether I should deny any such Suppositions may be allowed in Argumentation since it would require many words exactly to determine this Logical dispute and would also require more Logical acuteness than he or I in these disputes seem to make use of or is fit in this Controversie to trouble the Reader with But to be short I will grant but it shall be only conditionally That this would Merit or have a shew of Merit because it would be to do what God gave him no ability to do yea it would be to do what all generally grant that the Diety cannot do viz. a formal Impossibility But I will grant it as I said only conditionally viz. on condition that he will grant the contrary follows from the same Supposition viz. That if a man should do what he hath no ability to do it would have no Merit or no shew of Merit because it would be so far from Merit that it would be an absurd irrational and foolish act it would be so far from any shew of Merit that it could no way be commendable And because some may think strange of such a conditional concession let it be considered that from a naturally impossible Supposition as this of his is contradictory Consequences may equally follow as I could make appear in almost any Instance Take these Si scirem me mortuum esse essem mortuus And Si scirem me mortuum esse non essem mortuus If I truly knew I was not I should not be And if I truly knew I was not I should be So Si bestia intelligeret esset homo Si bestia intelligeret non esset homo Therefore what Irreverence is it at the least for this Author to fasten such an Argument on the Apostle as that either nothing can be concluded from it or the contrary may equally be concluded from it e. g. If Abraham had been Justified by Works that is according to this Author by doing such works as he had in no sense any power to do he might glory or he had Merited when it might as well at least be concluded he could not have gloried he could not have Merited But yet to prevent the Antinomian Extreme who use to say we must not so much as Suppose things or Argue from Suppositions though only Morally impossible remember I put in the word Naturally saying Suppositions Naturally impossible For it is apparent there may be rational Arguing from a Hypothetical proposition which is not Naturally impossible but only Morally As for Example in such Speeches as these If a man not Elected or to whom God did not Decree to give converting Grace should Believe and Repent he should be Saved If a man accustomed to do evil should do well he should be Saved If a man had turned from sin to God before God converted him it would have prevented many sad Thoughts of Heart Yea this may so evidently be supposed that men's Hearts may and do reproach them that they did not turn to God before God did actually turn them or did give them such Grace as would actually prevail with them because before God did thus turn them or give them the Grace of Conversion they had the Natural ability to Convert and turn to God and only their Moral-Impotency which is voluntary Wickedness hindred them else it would not have been their duty so to turn or their sin not to turn So Paul saith If an Angel of Heâ—ven should Preach any other Gospel he should be accursed And Christ said John 8. 55. If I should say I know him not I should be a lyar like to you And these are rationally allowable Suppositions because an Angel in Heaven hath and Christ on Earth had the Natural power to Speak or Teach falshood though yet joyned with such a Morally insuperable holy rectitude of Will that they could not obtain of themselves so to Speak or Teach And this is not like doing what they have not the Natural ability to do And the contrary doth not here follow from these Suppositions For you cannot say If a confirmed Angel from Heaven should Teach errour he should not be accursed or if Christ should have denied he knew God he would not have been a Lyaâ— which yet might have been said if this had been To do what they had not
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
this phrase continue in all things should signifie most Perfect-obedience or quite sinlesness since such Obedience is impossible to man encompassed with Flesh neither doth it seem consentaneous to Divine equity that any one for the defect of it should be obnoxious to Eternal Malediction Therefore the sense of the Testemony cited is this That every man is Accursed that is is Execrable and Obnoxious to the Punishment threatned by the Law who doth not do and observe perseveringly * Is not this perfect obedience to a Law to do all the Law requires to be done all those things which the Law prescribeth to be observed And he is reputed to do all things who doth not err from the end of the Law who keeps safe the essenal parts of the Law or as others speak who keeps all those Precepts of the Law which contain the substance of Life of which sort are all those Commands which are expressed by Moses in the Curses Deut. 27. In a word who admits nothing into himself knowingly and wittingly against the Law of God although he fails in something either out of Ignorance or Inadvertency That place Jam. 2. 10. being Twin-brother to this gives great light to this place Whosoever keeps the whole Law and yet offends in one point is guilty of all That is is obnoxious to the Punishment threatned to the Transgressors of the Law v. 10. For he that said Do not commit Adultery said also Do not kill c. Here he giveth the true and ordinary Interpretation of this place so largely as to take up pag. 109. and half pag. 110. which is this He that knowingly allows himself in the knowing Transgression of any one Law is as far from Salvation as if he kept none for such a one doth not act sincerely in Obedience to any Law since all Divine Laws have the same Author and Authority Therefore he that knowingly neglects one Law doth not keep other Laws because of Gods Authority in Commanding or because of Gods Command but because he hath not that list through Temptation to break them for if he had as much list through Temptation to break them such a one would break the other Laws He goes on But one may perhaps reply Grant it let that place of James be so expounded Pag. 110. yet the same Interpretation will by no means agree to the Apostle's scope in that place of the Epistle to the Galatians For since the Apostle doth prove all who are of the Law to be under a Curse only by this reason because it is written Cursed is every one that doth not continue in all things c. he doth manifestly hint that no man can continue in all things or that the Law doth require such perfect obedience as none can perform Answer I altogether deny that to be hinted or implyed in the Apostle's Argument Which that it may be made apparent I will reduce it to a Syllogistical form Thus He is accursed who doth not continue in all thing which the Law commands But whosoever are of the works of the Law do not continue in all those things Ergo They that are of the works of the Law are under a Curse The Apostle speaks expresly of Pag 111. those who are of the works of the Law v. 10. That is who seek Righteousness in the Law being ignorant of or despising the Grace of the Gospel whom he opposeth to them that are of Faith v. 9 That is who believe the Gospel and embrace it's Grace and who have attained the Promises or thing Promised of the Spirit whereby they may fulfil the Righteousness of the Law and so avoid the Curse of it v. 14. Of the first sort indeed he hints that they neither continue nor †Then they aâ—e not according to his Argument bound to continue in all c. and so are free from the Curse though they continue not in all c. can continue in all things written but of the second sort he by no means affirms it In a word The Apostle â—â—ver spoke word against man's being able to fulfil the Law in all things by Gospel-Grace so far as it was a Law that is under the penalty of Eternal death is imposed us or ever was imposed upon Mankind since the fall of the first man yea he often acknowledges this possibility as we shall see hereafter There remains another Argument of the Adversaries of which they boast as being most unconquerable taken out of that famous place Deut. 6. 5. Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart and with all thy soul and with all thy strength You may see here say they that the highest and perfectest love of God is required of all in the Law Answer They who fight with this Argument do kill themselves with their own Sword For since God requires no other love than what is done with all the Heart and Mind and with all the Strength it is manifest that nothing is required of us beside or above our strength our strength I mean helpt with that measure of Grace which God communicates to every one of us in this Life or is certainly ready to communicate Now it is certain that we can with all our Pag. 112. strength obey God because it would be a †It is no contradiction but a great truth It is appaâ—ent that a man's culpable Impotency to good is an Impotency of doing something that we have the natural power and strength to do And whosoever doth not understand this must necessarily talk ridiculously about such matters as these in hand manifest contradiction to say we cannot do the thing we can do or cannot do a thing according to our strength The truth of this Answer is established firmly with these following Reasons First Because God promises that he will give to his people that which he requires viz. To circumcise their heart to love him with all their heart Deut. 30. 6. Secondly Because God himself witnesseth that there were some that loved him after this manner so it is said of Asah the King and all the people that they sought the Lord with their whole heart 2 Chro. 15. 2. We read of David that he followed God with all his heart 1 Kings 14. 8. But that is a famous Testimony which the Holy Ghost gives concerning Josiah the King That he turned to the the Lord with all his heart and with all his soul and with all his strength according to the Law of Moses 2 Kin. 23. 25. viz. That is said to be done with the whole heart and whole strength which a man imploys his chief Thoughts and Endeavours about even as we say A man is totus in literis wholly in studies that maketh them his chief business I shall as soon as I have recited all he saith of this nature answer the substance of all But this of loving God with all the Soul being something out of the Road I will answer it here The