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 Exampla [...]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 Gospel-condition, the whole duty re­quired for Salvation, or the obedience of Faith. And I judg thus much of it (which is near one third part of the Book) highly worth the Reading of a­ny that have any other apprehensions of the meaning of James, or that are not satisfied that the Apostle Paul by Faith, means the whole necessary duty of a Christian.

But Quan­tum mu­tatus ab illo. Hectore qui redit exuvias indutus Achillis. now when he begins at the 6th. Chapter of the second Dissertation, to tell positively what the Apostle Paul means by excluding Works of the Law from Justification, and what he means by Works, and by the Law; The sense [Page 3] he fastens on the Apostle is quite re­mote from his meaning, and would not only make the whole discourse of the Apostle, about denying Justification by works, a vain useless Speculation; but also would bring in such intolera­ble Opinions as these following, at least by evident consequence, viz.

First, That no man sins while he lives a truly Christian life, sincerely obedi­ent to the Law; and so needeth no pardon, or Christ's satisfaction for such failings as are consistent with true Chri­stianity.

Secondly, That there is no such thing as pardon of sin possible as to Eternal punishment, or punishment after this Life; neither did Christ satisfie for the breach of any Law as to any Eternal pu­nishment, or punishment after this Life, but onely for Temporal. Not that I af­firm that the Author holds this Opini­on (for it is apparent he holds the con­trary) but this follows by undeniable consequence from his discourse, though he see it not, but will deny this conse­quence.

Thirdly, That there is no possible [Page 4] Argument against Popish perfection or meriting, so far as to need no pardon, from those passages in Pauls Epistles, that deny Justification by Works; but meerly such a vain useless Speculation as this, That good Works done with­out knowledg of, or respect to a future recompence of reward, do not merit; and works done by one that hath in no sense any ability to do them, do not merit.

These four things following seem ap­parently to be the [...], the first great Mistakes; and the occasion of all his Yea, these al­so seem to be the cau­ses of the mistakes of many other very learned Autho [...]s, much of his Judgment, in the pa [...]ticulars, here endeavoured to be Re­ctified. other mistakes of the Apostle Pauls sense, in denying Justification by Works.

1. His denying, that there is any such thing, as any Law of God (setting the Gospel it self aside) made with Mankind to this Tenour or Purport: That he that doth not every thing that God requires of him whatsoever, whe­ther by the Light of Nature, or the Wri­tings [Page 5] of the Old and New Testament, shall be subject to Eternal misery, or misery after this Life; and if men do all that God requires of them; by any way making his will known, they shall be eternally Happy, or Happy after this Life; but he thinks, There is no Law of God that threatens future mise­ry, or promises future happiness, but only the Gospel it self, which is revea­ed in the Old and New Testament: And that any Law threatning future misery (I mean after this Life) or pro­mising future Happiness, is the Gospel it self, whereby men alwayes were and are justified and saved.

Now to prove against this, and that we must hold a Law threatning future and Eternal misery to all sinners, and that all are condemned and none justifi­ed by this Law, and that this Law is distinct and quite different from the Gospel, let these things be considered.

1. If there be no Law distinct from the Gospel, threatning future misery, or misery after this Life, then Christ never satisfied for the future misery that was threatned to any; never died to [Page 6] free any from the wrath to come; from the eternal or future Curse of any such Law; but only from a temporal Curse, or Curse of this Life. The conse­quence is apparent, because he knows not what he says, that should affirm, that Christ was made under the Gospel, to free us from the Curse of the Gos­pel; for the Gospel either threatens nothing (as many hold, but I judg them to err) or, which is apparent, it threa­tens nothing except to them that per­form not its condition, viz. To them that Believe not, and Repent not in this Life, and it is certain Christ died not to Redeem finally Impenitent Unbe­lievers.

Christ's Satisfaction was made to the Law, and not to the Gospel: to free them that perform not the condition of the Law, viz. perfect Obedience; but not to free them that perform not the con­dition of the Gospel. There was in­deed a satisfaction made to the Law, that God might with Justice and Ho­nour, with safety to the Law make this Act of Oblivion, this Law, of Grace, the Gospel: Therefore surely that first [Page 7] Original-Law did threaten eternal death to sinners, and not meerly Temporal punishment, else there cannot possibly be any satisfaction for sin, as to Eternal punishment at all, because the first Law to which the satisfaction was made, did not threaten it. Suppose a Law in force that every Felon shall be sold to work in the Galleys, and the King's Son paid a great price, and, by this, obtained of the King this conditional Act of Oblivi­on to be made, that if such Offenders will serve his Son in the Wars, they should be Acquitted, but if they shrink from such Service, they shall die. Here indeed was a price paid to free them from being Gally-slaves, but none paid to free them from Death; because the first Original Law that was transgressed by their Felony did not threaten Death, but only Slavery. And you cannot say, that the price was paid to free them from the Penalty of the Law of Grace, or Act of Oblivion, which doth threaten Death, but the satisfaction was made to the first Law only; though indeed the Act of Oblivion or Remedying Law, was made upon the account of the price [Page 8] paid in satisfaction for the breach of the first Law.

2. If there be no Law threatning wrath to come, or future misery but on­ly the Gospel it self, then no man can be pardoned, or can need pardon by the Gospel, or the Bloud of Christ as to the wrath to come; for the Gospel af­fords no pardon to its transgressors, that is, to men continuing to death in Impeni­tency and Unbelief. The Gospel in­deed affords pardon to transgressors of the Law; yea, and to transgressors of the Commands of the New Testa­ment, so far as they are transgressions of the Law (and threatned by that general Law, Cursed is he that doth not all, a­ny way revealed to be his duty) provi­ded they perform the Gospel-conditi­ons; but the Gospel affords no pardon at all to them that fall under its curse, by not performing the Gospel-condition. Suppose a Law made threatning every Felon with Death, and suppose a condi­tional Act of Oblivion, or Remedying Law made, that if the Felon read, he shall not die; the pardon is only as to the first Law and Breach of it; for there [Page 9] is no pardon as to this second Law, and Breach of it, for if he do not read, which is the condition of the second Law, there is no pardon for his failing therein. So that if the first Law never threatned Eternal death, there can be no pardon as to Eternal death.

And which maketh it still apparent, is this: Pardon must be by some Law, (else it may be Forbearance, or Reprieve, but no Pardon) and no Law can possi­bly in any case whatsoever, afford par­don of Offences against it self; it is a contradiction to say it may. For, (to answer an objection that may be in your mind) suppose a Law made, threatning the Offenders only conditionally; as threatning death except a man abjure the Realm, or pay a sum of Money; in this case if the person either abjure or pay the Money, here is no pardoning any thing the Law threatned, for the Law never threatned his death abso­lutely. So that you see there cannot possibly be pardon of a transgression from the Law it self, but only from ano­ther Law, a Remedying Law, or Act of Oblivion. Therefore the Gospel which is an Act of Pardon, or Oblivi­on [Page 10] for those that are guilty of the breach of another Law, cannot possibly par­don an offence against it self, which is failing in the performing the condition of it, by dying in Unbelief: For any that will affirm pardon in the failing in the condition of this Act of Oblivion, he must affirm some new Law made (for a Remedying Law to one cast by the Gospel) to this effect, That if men die impenitent they shall be saved, pro­vided they or others for them, perform the condition while they are in an other world, which the Papists affirm some­thing a kin to. Now if the Gospel af­ford no pardon to them that perform not its condition, as it is impossible it should, and no Law else threatens Eternal death, there cannot possibly be any pardon of sin as to Eternal death. So that you see, whatsoever this Author saith to the contrary, we must hold a Law threat­ning Eternal death, or Wrath to come, (which Christ hath undergone a punish­ment for the satisfaction of) distinct from the Gospel, or the Law of Grace, that was founded upon the account of this satisfaction; and that all are con­demned [Page 11] by this Law; and that as to Future and Eternal concernments; and that none are Justified by it: Which if the Author had considered, he would surely have told us better than he hath done, what the Apostle meant by the Law, and works of the Law, which he denies Justification by.

Yea, and you must hold, that this Law threatning wrath to come to every Offender is yet in force, and not Abro­gated by the Gospel; yea, and that it threatens men that do perform the Gos­pel-condition as really as others. I shall not deny that such a Law seiseth upon mens being sinners, as to the Promissary part (as a promise made to a man if he shall work all such a week, doth cease af­ter he hath failed the first day) but it is actually in Force still with its penalty requiring perfect Obedience, and not only sincere; which I thus prove.

First, Else we must say, that no man sins or transgresseth this Law, so he do but perform the Gospel condition, so he be but in the main a sincere Christian; and consequently that no sincere Chri­stian needs Christs satisfaction or par­don [Page 12] for such sins as are consistent with Gospel sincerity; which is an Opinion which I almost dread to mention, though the Author seems very confident in it, for he maintains, pag. 108. 112. That, so men do but chiefly mind the best things, do but observe the main Pre­cepts of the Law, no Law whatsoever requires any more of them; and also holds, that men after I cannot tell whether he mean after Conversi­on, or after the meer Preaching of the Gospel to [...]hem; but however I will [...]onstrue it to the best sense. Conversion, or recei­ving the Gospel, for any disability on them to the contrary, may, and for any evidence we have in the Scripture to the contrary, do, live such lives as not to sin any sin that deserves, or is by any Law threat­ned so much as conditionally with Eter­nal death (and so it follows consequent­ly, as any one sees, that they need no pardon, or the Blood of Christ for such sins as to Eternal punishment) though yet he grants (but yet, any one may see, with some reluctancy) That pag. 117. All do sometime or other of their lives commit some either sin, or sins, that deserves Eternal punishment, and [Page 13] consequently needs pardon, and the Blood of Christ. Now if it be true that he saith, that, No Law of God re­quires any more than that men keep the main substantials of it, and make Reli­gion their business; then he may safely affirm, that they do not need pardon by the Blood of Christ, for any so much as temporal punishment as to those fail­ings that are consistent with true Chri­stianity. I grant the Gospel requires no more for our Justification and Salva­tion, than such sincere imperfect indea­vours as he mentions: but I cannot e­nough express my dislike, of saying, No Law doth require any more.

Secondly, If the Law was abrogated by Christs satisfaction, and the Gospel, as to its requiring perfect Obedience under a threatning of the penalty of Eternal death, of those that continue performing the Gospel-condition; Then we must not say, that Christ died to ob­tain the pardon of those sins that are consistent with Gospel-sincerity, but died to prevent them from being Sins, and Transgressions of the Law, that would otherwise have been sins; or to [Page 14] prevent such sins from legally des [...] ­ving, or being threatned with Eternal wrath, and so to prevent them from be­ing pardoned by his Blood, as to Eter­nal wrath.

Secondly, Another great Mistake that causeth his other Errors, (as any one may perceive that reads his Book) is this, That he doth not understand, or doth not consider the difference be­tween an Original Law, with a Reme­dying Law, or conditional Act of Ob­livion distinct from the Original Law; and a Law that threatens a transgressour of it, only conditionally. I shall make my meaning appear by an Instance which he brings of an Original Law, and a Remedying Law (though I con­fess he brings it not under that notion, but speaks somthing not right concern­ing it, and especially he is widely mis­taken in making that the chief, yea, the only Law of Moses that the Apostle speaks against Justification by in those places, where he speaks against Justifi­cation by the works of the Law, though yet I do think that the Apostle had in some places a main respect to this Law [Page 15] of Sacrifices now to be mentioned, as Acts 13. 38, 39. Heb. 7. 11. 19. Chap. 9. v. 8. 18. Chap. 10. v. 1. &c. The Instance is this, Page 121, 122. where he rightly tells us; ‘That God did make a Law that concerned the Jews as a Common-wealth, that every one that transgressed the Law should die by a violent death,’ (viz. Either I sup­pose by the Sword of the Magistrate if publickly known, or God would in Judgment cut them off himself) ‘But God in mercy, that the whole Com­munity might not be destroyed by the death of the Multitude of Offenders’ (and also I suppose to Typifie our great­est concernments in reference to ano­ther life) ‘made another Law concern­ing the most of those offences (for some offences were for great reasons excepted from this Act of Oblivion, and were to be punished with tempo­ral death without mercy) that if the Offender offer a Sacrifice, he should be spared, and it should be accepted in his stead.’ Now to the matter in hand: Suppose that the first of these Laws had it self run thus conditionally, [Page 16] that if any man commit any such offence He shall die a violent temporal death, or some Beast for him. In this case, we could not have said, that this Law re­quired the Offender's blood, but his or the Beasts indifferently; neither could we have said if he had offered a Beast, that he was pardoned; since the Law threatned not his death, but his or the Beast's, and so there was nothing of re­mitting, or pardoning any thing the Law required: We could not say that the Beast died as a satisfaction to the Law, that the Law might not be executed; for if the Beast died, the Law was Exe­cuted, according to the utmost severity that it threatned without pardon; We could not say the Beast died to expiate his guilt and obligation to die; for he never was guilty of Death, never was threatned with death by this Law, but He was to die, or thus part with his Beast indifferently.

But now, consider this Instance as it was in truth an Original Law, threat­ning the Offender's death absolutely, and a Remedying Law distinct; and we here see, that an Original Law and Re­medying [Page 17] Law, are well consistent both in force. We cannot say, that the Ori­ginal Law that threatned the offender's death absolutely, was null'd, or abrogated by this Remedying Law, but it remain­ed in force; only there was a Remedy­ing Law in mercy, provided to free from the penalty, that, though due to the first Law, it should not be executed. We cannot say, the offender's death was not threatned by the Law, or that he was not guilty of death by that Law; we cannot say, the Beast died to hinder the man from being guilty of death, so far as concerns the Law: but that, though he was We read expresly, that in the case of sacrifice for sin, there was guilt, or obligation to the pun­ishment, and attonement, or exp [...]ation, and pa [...] ­don, or forgiveness, Lev. 5. v. 1. 4 10. 17▪ 18, 19. compared. So Chap. 6. v 4 7. And all these well consistent. Yea, pardon cannot be at all, without a Law in force obliging to punishment, for the offence pardoned. guilty by that Law, that he should not be guilty with the rea­tus redundans in personam, that it should not be infli­cted. You cannot say, the man was not pardoned as to his death, because the Beast died for him; for he was pardoned, the Law was not executed; for it threatned his death abso­lutely: nor, that the Beast did not die a [Page 18] satisfaction to Justice, that the Law might not be Executed, by pretending the Law was executed without pardon, by the death of the Beast. So, that O­riginal-Law, [Cursed is every one, with a curse after this Life, that obeys not in every thing,] may be actually in force consistent with the Remedying Law, the Gospel, That if a man be a sincere Christian, a sincere Servant of God in the main, he shall be free from that Curse. You cannot say, If a man be a sincere Christian, perform the Gospel­condition, he sins not against any Law in force; nor, that the sins that are con­sistent with true Christianity, are not threatned with Eternal death; or, that he is not condemned dayly for such sins by that Law; or, that he is not pardon­ed as to Eternal death, as to those sins, pretending that no Law in force threa­tens them with Eternal death; or, that there cannot be an Expiation for them, they not being sins, or threatned with any Eternal penalty: You cannot say, that Christ died not a satisfaction to Justice, that the Law-threat might not be executed, pretending the Law was [Page 19] executed without pardon; for the Law threatned us absolutely, and not Christ at all.

Thirdly, Another great cause of his Mistakes, is, his not understanding the difference between Natural-Impoten­cy (which is when a man hath not the Natural Faculties, or Abilities to do a thing, as being a Natural-Fool, or Deaf, or Blind, or hath not a sufficient proposal of the Object to be known, or believed; and they that have not this Natural-power of doing a thing, are not bound by the Law of God, to do what they have this Natural-impotency to, and so do not sin in the not doing it) and Moral-Impotency, which is wilful wickedness, and doth not in the least excuse men from obedience to the commands they have only this Im­potency to the obeying of. Now the not understanding of this, causes that Self-contradicting Notion of his, from pag. 104. to pag. 114. where he con­tradicts himself most fluently, in al­most his whole Discourse (I do not much wonder at this, since every man must necessarily contradict himself in [Page 20] all he saith about such things, that doth not keep notions clear and distinct about this Distinction, which too few do) where he tells us, ‘He cannot be of the judgment of the most, who hold, that the Law doth oblige men, if not absolutely, yet conditionally, except they flie to the Covenant of Grace, and that under the peril of Eternal death to absolute Obedience, that is, such Obedience as excludes all sin.’ And for this reason, he cannot be of this Judgment, Because no man can do it. And adds pag. 108, ‘That there­fore he holds, that the Law threatens only those that do not do all things the Law requires them to do?’ What? Is not this perfect Obedience even to Innocency, to do all the Law requires men to do? If a man do all the Law re­quires him to do, he doth perfectly o­bey the Law; he doth not sin except he fail in something the Law requires from him. Strange speech! No Law of God he saith, requires perfect Obe­dience, because no man can perform perfect Obedience; therefore the Law requires no more than a man can per­form. [Page 21] Is not this to say, That the Law doth only require what a man can do, and yet all a man can do, is not all the Law requires, is not perfect Obedi­ence. If no Law require a man to be free from those sins he speaks of, that are consistent with Christianity, then those sins are lawful; and the doing of such things as are lawful, cannot hinder a man from being innocent; can be no hindrance to his perfect obeying the Law.

Yea, it is a Contradiction in the very Words, keeping to the same Law (as 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 [Page 22] 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 [Page 23] 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 [Page 24] 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 threa­tn [...]d as the Com­mon-wealth-Law, this violent death to every ex­ternal vi­sible Breach, whether Omissi [...]n or Com­m [...]ssion, of every ex­press Law, ei­ther M [...] ­ral, Ju­dicial, or Cerem [...] ­nial This appears plain e­nough [...]y that Sanction, Cursed is every one that continues not in all things, &c. The penalty was threatned to every Trans­gress [...], and what this penalty was, app [...]a [...]s by its contrary, the Life promised to the Obedient, which all will grant to contain temporal Life: But it most undeniably appea [...]s by that of a Beast's blood being offered in stead of the offender's. I do not think, it threat­ned as the C [...]m [...]n-wealth-law, this death to a breach in thought or will, with us any visible (I mean by this word, that may b [...] seen, or Externally perceived, if any man was by to perceive it) external Om [...]ssion, or C [...]mmission; nor to a not-express, but only by remote consequence implied breach; nor was the Magistrate bound to in­fl [...]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 [...]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 [Page 25] 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 [Page 26] 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 w [...]s given with a R [...]med [...]ing Law, acc [...]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. 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 Heavenl [...] things menti­oned, do most immediatel [...] 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 [Page 28] 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 [Page 29] 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, [Page 30] 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 [Page 31] 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 [Page 32] 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 ac­cou [...] 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 [Page 33] 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 [Page 34] 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. [Page 35] 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. [Page 36] 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; [Page 37] 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 [Page 38] 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, [Page 39] in denying Justification by Works, and by the Law; which Discourse I shall now propound to your View, Tran­scribing some of it Verbatim, yea, all that is Argumentative in it, without leaving out any thing in the least mate­rial, and telling you when I leave out any thing that is not, but may seem, ma­terial. Which I thus begin,

The Author having before made it apparent, that though Faith in some other passages of the Apostle, doth mean one particular Grace; yet in those Speeches where he speaks of Justification by it in opposition to Works, he means by Faith all required to Salvation, the obe­dience of Faith: He tells us, Chap. 6. pag. 98. ‘That the Apostle doth not exclude all Works from Justification, but Works of the Law of Moses, and that in so doing, in excluding them, he doth also reject the corrupt Inter­pretations or Opinions, which the Scribes and Pharisees, had fastned on this Law, or added to it: And also that the Apostle, though speaking lit­tle about it, and on the bie, doth im­plicitly affirm that Works done ac­cording [Page 40] 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 [Page 41] 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 [Page 42] 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 [Page 43] 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 [Page 44] 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 [Page 45] 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 [Page 46] its It is well, he here grants it is through the default of the Man, and not f [...]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 [Page 47] 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 [Page 48] 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 [Page 49] 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 [Page 50] 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, [Page 51] 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.

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 [Page 56] 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 Moabitish­covenant. Jeremiah calls his Covenant, a [Page 57] 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 [Page 58] 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, [Page 59] 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? O [...] 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 [Page 60] of Parties, two at the least. If one side promise, his part is not a Cove­nant, except both do. So that, that transaction between God and the peo­ple at Sinai, was properly a Covenant, Exod. 19. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8. though God had not yet told the People what Laws he would require Obedience to in par­ticular, for Moses come's with a message to the people from God, and tells them, that if they will obey his Voice, and keep his Covenant, i. e. his Law, they should be a peculiar Treasure unto him, and a Kingdom of Priests; that is, He would be their God to bless them, if they would be his people to obey him. This was Gods Promise in this Covenant; the people give this answer unanimously, We consent, we will obey God in all his Commands, be they what they will, though they were not told yet what his Commands should be. But this, though a Cove­nant, was but in order to the great So­lemnization of this Covenant, which was, Exod. 24. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8. Where having given the Moral-Law, the Ten Commandments, and some Judicial and Ceremonial Laws; Moses comes [Page 61] down from God, and relates them to the people. And the people answered, All that the Lord hath spoken, We will do; meaning, all that he hath, or shall speak; for the addition of new commands, did not make so many New-covenants. Well, Now God hath promised on his part to be their God, if they will obey his Law. Moses writeth these Laws that are rehearsed in the 20, 21, 22, 23, chapters, and consecrateth some young men to offer Sacrifice (for Aaron and his Sons were not separated, till the year after) He made the people confirm their Covenant by Sacrifices, as we do by Sacraments; He read the Book of the Covenant, that is, the Book com­prehending the Laws fore-mentioned, and he sprinkles the Blood of the Sa­crifices on the people, and saith, Be­hold the Blood of the Covenant which God hath made with you, concerning all these Words, that is, all these Commands. Thus the word is used most properly of such a Transaction, God hath engaged himself to bless them, if they would serve him; and they have engaged themselves to serve him.

[...] [Page 61] [...] [Page 62] Sometimes the word Covenant, is used for the Promise of one of the Parties only, as Gods conditional Pro­mises, that if we will in sincerity Love, Serve, and Obey him, he will be our God to bless us. This is not a Cove­nant in the strictest sense, but a conditi­onal Promise; yet is so called frequent­ly in Scripture, because it is Gods part of the Covenant, yea, all God's part of the Covenant of Grace, and all that he Seals or Promises; and when we do in sincerity promise our part, these to­gether make it actually a Covenant; He engaged actually to bless us, and we to serve him. Yea, if we promise only hypocritically, yet we are engaged so as we are guilty of Covenant-break­ing; though God is not engaged by his conditional Promise, we not be­ing real in performing the condition.

So our promising, engaging to obey, may be called our Covenant, because it is our part of the Covenant; and all required of us, is, so to engage, and be real in it.

But most frequently in Scripture, the Laws of God, the Precepts themselves [Page 63] are called the Covenant; being the Laws that God hath made Promises to the obedience of, and that the people by their engagement are bound to ob­serve, Deut. 4. 13. Sometimes the word is used in other senses, as for an absolute Promise, as that of destroying the World no more with a Flood; but these significations before named, are all that I shall have occasion to make use of.

Now to make it appear, that the Promises and Precepts, of the Cove­nant made in Mount Sinai, and the Land of Moab were the same; Con­sider,

This Book of Deuteronomium, sig­nifying the second Law, is so called, as all agree; because it contains a repeti­tion of the Laws formerly promulga­ted, almost all of them were made at Mount Sinai, above thirty nine years before this Deuteronomium (this Re­petition of the Law) was Spoken, or Written. The occasion of which Re­petition of the Law (which may well be called, the Prophet Moses's Fare-wel Sermon) was as follows: That actual [Page 64] Covenanting that was made at Mount Sinai, or Horeb, was in the first year, yea, within two months after they came out of Aegypt, Exod. 19. 1. And all the people that were Twenty years old at their numbering, which was in the second year after their coming out of Egypt, are now dead, for their mur­muring, except Caleb, and Joshuah, and Moses; and so there was great need to cause this new Generation of people, to enter actually into Covenant, to keep Gods Laws, which Joshuah caused them to do again after, at less than half that distance of time.

The appointed time of the end of the forty years, drew near, for the peo­ples entering the good Land, and Moses must not bring them thither, nor enter himself.

Now Moses, well knowing all these things, and that his departure was at hand, for he died within a Month after his beginning this Repetition of the Law to the people; for he began it the first day of the Eleventh Month, in the Fortieth year, and died in the end of that Month, for the people mourned [Page 65] for him Thirty dayes, viz. the whole Month after, Deut. 1. 3. and Chap. 34. 8. compared. I say Moses fore­knowing this, and earnestly desiring to tye the people (that he was about to leave) fast to God, and his Laws; he begins, in the hearing of the people, in the Land of Moab, a Month before he died (Deut. 1. 3. 5.) to take an effe­ctual course, to inform them in the knowledg of God's Laws, and to en­gage them to Obedience, by reciting, and Summing up the Transactions of God, towards them in the Wilderness, and all the Laws Moral, Judicial, and Ceremonial (yet leaving out for the most part, those Judicial and Ceremo­nial commands, that concerned the Priests Office, or were not of ordinary Practice) and adds some commands, especially concerning things to be done by them, when they come into the Promised Land: And affectionately exhorts them to obey these commands, with all their Heart and Soul, ever and anon intermixing discourses of the Blessings would come on them by their obedience; and Miseries by disobedi­ence. [Page 66] This is the Sum of his Discourse to this, Chap. 29. He that shall think, that all the Promises, and Threats in this Book hitherto, do only mundum sonare, are only Temporal; sure a vail is upon his Eyes, and Heart, in reading the Old Testament. And then, in this Chap. 29. Having thus far prepared them to do what they do knowingly, and affe­ctionately, He engages them in a Co­venant (even with an Oath which was more than was done in Sinai) to keep all these Laws. He begins his Pro­logue to this actual Engagement, as at Sinai, with these words, [You have seen] v. 2. v. 9. keep therefore the words of this Covenant (that is, the commands that I have repeated unto you) that you may prosper in 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 [Page 67] 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, [Page 68] 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 [Page 69] 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 [Page 70] 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 [Page 71] 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 [Page 72] 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 [Page 73] is, I had written this before Mr. Pool's Elab [...]tate, and useful Sy­nopsis, was published; and up­on [...]eading the Cri [...]icks, and some others, could find none concur­ring with me, but now in his Book, I find P [...]sca [...]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 [Page 74] 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 [Page 75] 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 [Page 76] 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 w [...]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, [Page 77] and then spends but few Lines about them, as not being (as he saith) con­troverted by Christians.

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,

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 [Page 88] 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:

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 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 [Page 93] 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 [Page 94] 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 toPag 112. this Dispute; This my Opinion of the possibility of fulfilling the Law, [Page 95] 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 po­werPag. 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 [Page 96] 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.

Thus he, verbatim.

His great Argument against the ordi­nary Interpretation of the words of the Apostle Paul, viz. That no Law of God requires any more than a man can do (which I grant to be true, but not in his sense) in the sense that he useth, it will do strange feats. By the same Argument that he proves, that God doth not require his people to be free from their dayly failings (viz. Because no man cloathed with flesh, can live without such) he may prove that any man for any Impotency on him to the contrary, may be free from standing in need of Pardon, or the Blood of Christ: thus.

Whosoever can live free from any great sins, deserving or threatned with Eternal death, can live without need of pardon, or Christs satisfaction:

But all men can live free from any great sins, deserving or threatned with Eternal death. Ergo. The con­sequence is apparent: He may prove his Minor thus. If there was any man that could not live without any great sin threatned with Eternal death, then he is not bound, no Law requires him, to live without such sin:

But, the Law of God requires him to live without such sin: Ergo. Yea: And he might produce Aquinas, and others affirming, that though a man may live a little while without Venial­sin, though yet not long; yet he may live without Mortal sin, all his life. Yea this Argument will as well prove, the Heathen may live perfect and without sin, as any else. If they do what they can do, what they can do. And it is a contradiction (he saith) to say otherwise. The consequence he may prove still thus: That no Law requires any man to do more than he can.

As for such words [Properly sins, Improperly sins, Less properly sins, sins not deserving Eternal death;] and then sometime again, saying [no Law requires a man to live without them.] It is such slippery Discourse, off, and on; That I can but ask Questions, to have him clear his meaning in Answering; and such Questions I would ask, a man speaking obscurely about Venial-sins (amongst which some reckon Fornicati­on.) Are these, Things, or Entities [Page 109] (that are consistent with truth of Grace, or Sincerity, those peccata quotidianae incursionis, as they are commonly cal­led) forbidden by any Law of God, or not? If you shall say, as Lombard, A­quinas, Bellarmine, that they are not, then they are not Transgressions of the Law, are not sins at all, and no punish­ment whatsoever can be due to, or de­served by them, being no faults, and a man is perfect notwithstanding them. Bellarmine saith, There is no way possi­ble to maintain the Catholick Doctrine of mans ability, perfectly to keep the Law, but by denying Venial-sins, to be forbidden by the Law. Lib. 4. de Justif. Chap. 14.

Again, may a sincere Christian seri­ously ask Pardon for these sins of dayly Incursion? Then they are Sins, and Transgressions of a Law, or they could not be pardoned, neither could Christ be a Sacrifice for them; and then they are threatned with, and deserve Eter­nal death; for a man cannot with under­standing, ask pardon for that punish­ment which God cannot in Justice in­flict. There can be no Pardon but of [Page 110] Grace, and Mercy, and Favour, and whatsoever God doth of Grace and Fa­vour, He might justly not have done it, and so might in strict Justice not have pardoned, but have condemned us for these.

Shall a man be condemned for these, except he repent of his other sins? Aquinas and Bellarmine, maintain that men should be punished with Eter­nal death, for their Venial-sins (that do not, they say, deserve death Eternal) except they repent. Then they do de­serve Eternal death; for He may not so much as punish a man except he repent, for those things which do not deserve the Punishment; for he may not do un­justly, though men do not repent.

Will any say, though they be not contra legem, against the Law; yet they are pr [...]ter, besides the Law, as many say concerning Venial-sins? I would only say, What do you mean? Do you mean that they are neither commanded to commit those sins of dayly Incursion, nor forbidden; then they are (as some say the Ceremonies are) meerly things indifferent.

If they be not meerly indifferent, will you say that the abstaining from such things is commendable, though not commanded? And so say, as this Author rightly tells us, the Pharisaical Jews held; that those Commands that required Spiritual and inward Holiness, as the Tenth Command, were not Commands, but Counsels. If so, then the abstaining from such Sins, is a work of Super-erogation; And then in­deed, the failing in not doing works of Super-erogation cannot be pardoned, nor need Christs satisfaction.

It is but casting a Mist before the Readers Eyes, so often to put in the word Eternal-death; saying, they do not deserve Eternal death. Will he grant that God may justly punish such sins with Temporal death, or any Tem­poral punishment? I see, he will not. His Opinion, and his and Episcopius's Argument, that God cannot justly re­quire what men cannot do; areas much against their deserving any punishment at all. If God do not, as he affirms, require them by any Law to be free from such sins, then they are not sins, [Page 112] nor deserve any Penalty. It would then be Injustice in God, to make any mans finger or tooth to ake for them. Whereas the Popish Schoolmen themselves do grant, that they do deserve Temporal punishment. Though the Scripture in­deed allows no ground for any such di­stinction, but either threatens (and be sure it would not threaten what sin doth not deserve) death; yea, Eternal death or nothing. The wages of Sin is death, the Sting of death is Sin, and the strength of Sin, the Law. And, Cursed is he that continues not in all, &c. Which curse the Author (as you will after see) af­firms, to signifie Eternal wrath.

But to go on with his words.

Then he brings in these places, Heb. [Page 117] Chap. 7. 11. 19. Chap. 10. 1. Where it is affirmed, The Law made nothing perfect, and thus proceeds.

I confess I am Puzled, and at a Loss, where to b [...]gin here to answer this Dis­course, there are so many things to be Objected against this Argument: I will in short mention some few.

First, Here is an Arguing per saltum, by a great Leap, by supposing things, according to this Authors way, impossi­ble, viz. That all men are obliged to Eternal Condemnation for their sins; whereas there is no possibility of this: For if thus obliged, let it be asked, By what Law? Now there is no Law, ac­cording to him, either promising Fu­ture happiness upon Obedience, or threatning Future misery upon Disobe­dience, but only the Gospel it self. If it shall be replied, that all were ob­liged to Eternal punishment for their sins by the Gospel, by the Law of Grace, and Pardon revealed in former times a­mongst the Jews and Heathens: It is so absurd, that I shall speak no more to it than I have. Christ was sent to Re­deem us from the Curse of the Law, and not of the Gospel.

Secondly, It is apparent, that the A­postle, in such places as this Author makes it his business to Reconcile to the Apostle James, speaks of Justification, so as to deny Justification by a Law that did promise Eternal life, and threaten Eternal death, and required inward and [Page 120] spiritual Obedience; and therefore he did not speak of the Jewish Common­wealth-Law. By the deeds of the Law, shall no flesh be justified in his sight, For by the Law, is the knowledg of sin. He tells us, None can be justified by that Law, that Christ bore the Curse of; surely then, that Law threatned Eter­nal death, else Christ had born, and freed from, only a Temporal Curse. He speaks of a Law that the Apostles established, Do we make void the Law by Faith, yea, we establish the Law. Sure­ly they did not establish this Common­wealth-Law. And saith, the Law is Spiritual, and did not by those words, mean, the Gospel is Spiritual; but op­poses the Law, to the Gospel.

Thirdly, But suppose all men guilty of Eternal death without any Law, and suppose the Apostle do speak of the Jewish Common-wealth-Law; yet this Argument that he ascribes to the Apo­stle, would be intolerably faulty, and inconclusive.

For, suppose some, in Charity to the Author, should think he meant, that the Apostle's supposition is this; That all [Page 121] men, Jews and Gentiles, are guilty of such sins, as there was no temporal Re­mission upon Sacrifice allowed to, by that Law; but all, guilty of them, were without mercy to be cut off by the Ma­gistrate: Then this Supposition would be false; for, without doubt, there were many among the Jews, not guilty of such sins. And again, The Argument must mean only the denying of Tem­poral Justification; and the denying of Eternal here, would not be sense, and is also against the Author's intention.

Or secondly, The meaning is, (which is apparently the Author's mind) All are guilty of such Sins, as there is no Eter­nal Justification promised from, by this Law, because it promises no Eternal Justification at all upon any termes whatsoever. And then, methinks, the Author being a Disputant, might have had a strong tentation to think, he could have told the Apostle how to prove his great design easier, even by leaving out, and without making use of one of the Hypotheses, or Foundations of his Ar­gument, which is this; That all are Sin­ners (and especially since this Author [Page 122] finds it such a difficulty to maintain that all are Sinners, and deserve Eternal wrath by some Law, that he could not maintain it if there should be found, some man that never committed a very gross sin in all his life, and therefore supposes that every man hath commit­ted one at least.) And so by arguing thus: No man, be he guilty, or inno­cent, can be justified as to Conscience, or as pertaining to Eternal life, or death, by a Law that neither promises Eternal life to the Obedient, or threatens Eter­nal death to the Disobedient:

But the Law of Moses, neither pro­mised Eternal life to any man Obedi­ent, nor threatned Eternal death to any Disobedient:

Ergo. No man, Guilty or Innocent, can be justified as to Conscience, or E­ternal things, by the Law of Moses.

The Minor, might according to the Author, thus be defended: It is true, there are, it may be, some Ex­pressions in the Mosaic-writings, that command Spiritual obedience, and pro­mise Eternal life upon Obedience, and threaten Eternal death for Sin: But [Page 123] these are the Gospel it self, compre­hended in Moses Writings, and men might be, and were Justified as to Con­science, by this. And that is not it, that is meant by the Law in these Disputes, of denying Justification by the Law, but only the Jewish Common-wealth-Law.

And indeed, if this be true, that the Law the Apostle speaks of, promi­sed no Justification as to Eternal, or Fu­ture concerns, upon any terms whatso­ever; the Argument would not only have run easier and better, without any mention of all being Sinners: But such mention, in that case, would be vain and idle (yea and false, if given as a rea­son why they were not Justified by such a Law as to Conscience): For the Sin­fulness of men, could not be in the least any reason at all, why men are not Justified as to Future life, by a Law that promised no such Justification if they had obeyed; But the Law's not promising it, is all the cause possible.

But to go on with the Author.

‘Hence moreover the Apostle in­fer's, that the Jews and Gentiles ought [Page 124] to flee to another Covenant of great­er Mercy,’ viz. that Covenant esta­blished in the Blood of Jesus Christ, in which there is promised, not only Tem­poral, but Eternal Redemption, and ‘Salvation, Heb. 5. 9. and 9. 12. and a most full and perfect Remission of all Sins, even the most hainous, con­joyned with the donation of Eternal life, to all those who shall from Faith in Christ, repent heartily of those sins, and give up themselves to God, and a holy Life. And here the A­postle doth urge that upon both Gen­tiles and Jews, which other-where he had seriously pressed upon the Jews chiefly, in these words, Acts 13. 38, 39. Be it known therefore un­to you Brethren, that by him there is is Preached to you the Remission of sins; And by him every one that be­lieves, shall be justified from all things, from which you could not be justified by the Law of 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 [Page 125] 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 [Page 126] 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 [Page 127] 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 [Page 128] places propounded to be reconciled to St. James, make use of this Argu­ment: That Sanctification is of Grace and Mercy, therefore Justification is so, and not of Works, or Debt. So that whether it be a good Argument or no, it is not the Apostle's Argu­ment.

Thirdly, The Author seems now in the prosecution of this Argument, not to keep Justification, or Sanctification, or the grace and favour of Justification, and Sanctification, distinct, as he hath done hitherto; one being the working a real change (I mean real in opposition to a Law, or relative change) in the Soul; and consisting in the favour of Converting a man: The other being a Law-Act, and consisting in acquit­ting, or absolving a man from an Ac­cusation. He seems to forget that he had pag. 8, 9. well and convincingly confuted the Opinion of Grotius, who herein Symbolizing with the Papists, affirm's that the Apostle Paul by Justifi­cation, means not in a Law-sense absolu­tion from sin, but Sanctification, or Purg­ing from Vices; whereas there is not [Page 129] 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 [Page 130] 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?

He then brings-in Scripture, to prove this defect, but none of them out of places where the Apostle speaks against [Page 132] Justification by Works, and by the Law, but these two (which I cited be­fore, to shew his meaning by the Law,) Gal. 3. 13. The Law is not of Faith, but he that doth them, shall live in them: And gives this as the meaning; The Law did not promise such things, as that a man did need Faith, which is the evi­dence of things not seen, to believe them, viz. It promised only things of Sense, not of Faith, Gal. 3. 21. If there had been a Law which could have given life, verily Righteousness should have been by that Law. And supposes the meaning to be, that the fault was in the Law, not in the Men; for if the Law had promised it, men would have attained Life by that Law. Whereas the very next words of the Apostle, are, But the Scripture hath concluded all under sin, &c. implying, it was through sin, and mens default they did not attain life by that Law; which could not be if the Law there spoken of, promised no such thing to the Obedient.

And he after tells us, that in the sense wherein the Law had any Spiritual commands, or Threatnings, or Pro­mises [Page 133] of a Future life, it was Ipsissimum Evangelium, the very Gospel it self: And that the Apostle never made que­stion about it, taken in this sense; which is in effect to say. That the Apostle never spoke against Justification by the Law in any sense, wherein it threatned Eternal death, or promised Eternal life; Nor, in any sense wherein mans sins hinder his Justification by it: And also it is to say, that no man is, or ever was Condemned by the Law, as to Eternal condemnation, in any sense wherein the Law is distinct from the Gospel; And that Christ never satisfied for the breach of any Law different from the Gospel, that threatned Future death; much less for the breach of any Law, that requi­red Spiritual, or Internal obedience: And also, That no man is pardoned, by Christ and the Gospel, the breach of any Law that threatned Future death. But I have already, even in the begin­ning of this Discourse, shewed both the inevitableness, and absurdity, of these Consequences.

Yet because many maintain this O­pinion of the Author for substance, [Page 134] viz. That the Promises, and Threats of the Law, were only Temporal and Earthly, and so could not work in men true Piety. As Episcopius, Doctor Hammond, Doctor Taylor, &c. Though in something disagreeing from this Au­thor in the way of I confess Doctor Taylor seems not careful to evade difficulties at all, but seems peremptory in de­nying any but Temporal pro­mises, till Christs time. Ʋnum Neces. pag. 2. & 3. their evading the difficulties their O­pinions are cum­bred with, and be­cause it is a growing Opinion, and seems to me very dange­rous, I will here speak largely against it.

First, I grant, The Law of Moses had no Spiritual commands (meaning by Spiritual, as this Author doth, obliging the inward man, the Thoughts, and Af­fections) nor Threats, or Promises, of Life-to-come Punishments or Re­wards, as it was the Jewish Political-Law, or the Instrument of the Jewish Polity. But this cannot be meant by the Law in those Passages in debate, to be reconciled to James: For it is apparent (and this Author grants it) that mens sinfulness is given by the A­postle, [Page 135] as the cause, why men are ex­cluded from Justification, as to Future life, by the Law: But mens sinfulness, could be no cause why none were Justi­fied as to Conscience, and Future-life by the Law, in this Political sense; since it would not have Justified any as to Conscience, and Future-life, had they been altogether innocent.

Secondly, How notoriously contrary it is to David's, and Paul's expressions, concerning the Jewish Law, to deny, it had, in any sense, Spi [...]itual Commands, or Promises, or Threats of Life-to­come Reward or Punishment? Psal. 1. 2. The Godly man's delight, is in the Law of the Lord, and therein doth he meditate day and night. Psal. 19. 7. The Law of the Lord is perfect, con­verting the soul. The Testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple: He meant not only wise for this world▪ ver. 8. The Statutes of the Lord are right, rejoycing the heart. The Com­mandment of the Lord is pure, enlight­ning the eyes; True and Righteous alto­gether, more to be desired than Gold (whereas Gold was worth a Temporal [Page 136] Inheritance in Canaan) sweeter than the Honey, and the Honey-comb. By them is thy servant warned, and in keeping them, there is great reward: He means greater than this world can afford, or else it was not very great. Psal. 119. 18. 20. Open thou mine eyes, that I may behold wonderous things out of thy Law. My soul breaketh for the longing it hath to thy Judgments at all times. Ver. 111. Thy Testimonies have I taken as a heri­tage for ever, for they are the rejoycing of my heart. That these things were spoken of the Law of Moses, is appa­rent; nothing else, that could pretend to the Name of the Law of God, being then written; And it is equally appa­rent, These things could not be truly spoken of a Law that had neither Spiri­tual Precepts, nor Future Promises, or Rewards. And sure, none will pre­tend that David's working-Fancy, con­ceited such things of the Law, as was not true of it; for then he would have been too blame: And also these phrases, David saith, and, The Holy Ghost saith, are used as Equipollent terms, Heb. 3. 7. and Chap. 4. 7. compared, Psal 16. [Page 137] Thou wilt shew me the Path of Life; in thy Presence, is fulness of Joy, and at thy right Hand, there are pleasures for evermore. David, that thus speaks, tell's us, He learned his Wisdom and Understanding, from his Meditation on the Law. Further, lest any should conceit, that David was a man wonder­fully panting after the Word, and de­lighted in the Law only, upon the ac­count of worldly Promises, therein made to the Righteous; Let it be consi­dered, that Psal. 17. 14. he allows wicked men to have great things in this life, calling them, Men of this world, which have their portion in this life, whose belly thou fillest with hid treasures, they are full of Children, and leave the residue of their substance to them. In the following Verse, he distinguisheth him­self from these, as appears by the An­tithesis, ver. 15. [as for me] saying, As for me, I will behold thy Face in Righteousness. I shall be satisfied, when I awake, with thy Likeness. So Psal. 49. 6. They that trust in their Wealth, and boast themselves in the multitude of their Riches, Ver. 14. Death shall feed on [Page 138] them, &c. Then follows by way of Antithesis, ver. 15. But God will re­deem my soul from the power of the grave, for he shall receive me. The Apostle Paul saith, The Law is Holy, Just, a [...]d Good. The Law is Spiritual, but I am Carnal. Call's it the Commandment that was unto Life, and means Eternal life. I delight in the Law of God, af­ter the inward man. How unlike are these Encomium's to the reviling Lan­guage, this Author gives to the whole Mosaic-Dispensation.

Thirdly, If the Promises, &c. were only Carnal, and Temporal, and so men could not possibly be drawn to true Piety by them; Then no man was bound to true Piety by that Law: For no man is bound to natural Impossibi­lities; Then it was not men's fault that they were not made truly Pious by that Law. For it is naturally necessary as a Foundation of true Religion, as to believe that God is; so to believe that He is a Rewarder after this life, of them that diligently seek him here.

Yea further, If the Law, as this Au­thor saith, was apt in it's own Nature, [Page 139] to beget in men a sordid Temper, and Minds alien from true Piety; then the Jewish people were bound to have such Tempers, and Minds alien from true Piety: And if the Law did bind mens minds to earthly Profits, and worldly Delights, they did well in suffering themselves to be thus bound by it: For they ought to yield to God's Laws.

Fourthly, God would not have been angry with the people for not being w [...]ought to true Piety by the Law: For they would have been fully excusable.

Fifthly, No man would have been obliged to Future misery, or wrath to come by that Law, that had no threat­ning of Future misery; and also Christ never bare any Future-life curse, or any thing by way of Satisfaction, as to a Future-life curse; Nor could any be pardoned their Transgressions of the Law, as to Future punishment, when the Law threatned no Future Punish­ment.

Sixthly, These Threats, and Pro­mises concerning a Future life, were at least so plain, as that people might un­derstand them; else what I have said, [Page 140] equally follows, viz. That no man was bound to true Piety by them, nor could be justly Condemned, for not being wrought to true Piety by them, for they would be in such a case excusable. No man is bound to know, what he hath a natural Impotency to the knowing of. None will say, God can justly be an­gry at, or condemn the Heathen, for not knowing, and understanding the Doctrine of Christ, that they had not the means naturally necessary to under­stand. Yea, the Law of God was so plain, that the simple, Psal. 19. (even plain ordinary people, that were no Rabbies) and young men, might, with such helps as God afforded them, un­derstand it; else they, at least, had been excusable, and could not be con­demned for not being truly Pious.

Seventhly, The Jews ordinarily did believe the Law, promised Future life, and threatned Fu­ture misery, as ap­pears by all the old Jewish Their Talmud, naming three sorts of men, that should have no portion in the World to come, nameth them for one sort, that sha [...]l say; The Resurrection of the Dead, is not taught by the Law. In Sanhed. Perch. Helek▪ Writings extant. Yea, the Sadduces were ac­counted [Page 141] by them as Hereticks, or A­theists, that denied Future happiness to the Obedient, and misery to the Diso­bedient. Targum Onkelos, on Lev. 18. 5. paraphraseth the place thus. If a man doth them, he shall live in them, with Eternal life. Targum Jonathan, thus, Which if a man do, he shall live with Eternal life, and his portion shall be with the Righteous. Search the Scrip­tures, therein you seek to have Eternal life, Acts 24. 14, 15. I believe all things written in the Law, and the Pro­phets, and have hope toward God; which they themselves allow, that there shall be a Resurrection of the Dead, both of the Just, and Unjust. The Sadduces errour, in denying a Future life, was occasioned (as Christ tells us) by their not understanding the Scrip­tures, meaning the Old Testament, then only written, Mark 12. 24. which could not be said, if the Scriptures re­vealed no such things.

Eighthly, The Law had promises of Future-life Happiness. Let any tell me, What a promise of Future-life is, if this be not one, viz. A notification [Page 142] of Gods will, to make them happy af­ter this life, that shall serve and obey Him. Now, it appears, That this was signified to them, Psal. 31. 20. How great is thy Goodness, which thou hast laid up for them that fear thee! 1 Tim. 4. 8. Godliness hath the promise of this life, and of that to come. Where is the Promise of this life, and that to come, to be found? It's apparent, he means in the Old Testament, Tit. 1. 2. In hope of Eternal life, which God that cannot lye, promised, [...], before ancient Times, or many Ages since, or Long since; for so it should be Translated; since it is not reconcila­ble to Truth or Sense, to speak of Pro­mises (though true of Decree) before the World began, Ephes. 2. 12. It is said of the Gentiles, aliens to the Common-wealth of Israel, that they were without hope (that is, of Future happiness) being strangers to the Co­venants of Promise, which the Jews had. Which at least implies, 1. That the Jews had promises of a Future-life­happiness. 2. That they had clearer promises of a Future life, than the [Page 143] Gentiles. And 3. What they had more of this Hope, was to be ascribed to the Covenant of Promise, revealed in the Old Testament, Rom. 9. 4. The Israelites had the Covenants, the giving of the Law, the Service of God, and the Promises. And else, What advan­tage had the Jews, in having the Ora­cles of God committed to them? And wherein did God do more for them, in giving them his Statutes, and Judg­ments, than for any other Nation? Many in the world, had greater Tem­poral Profits, and Pleasures, than how­ever, the most of the Jews in Canaan. Luke 16. 28. Where, to the Rich man in Hell, desiring to have Lazarus sent to his Brethren, to tell them of the Fu­ture misery of the wicked, and the Future happiness of the Obedient; it was answered, They have Moses and the Prophets, let them hear them; and if they will not hear them, neither would they be perswaded, if one should rise from the dead; which could not have been said, if the Old Testament-Scriptures had revealed no such things: Yea, they would have been excusable [Page 144] in not being moved with Moses, and the Prophets, to seek Future-life, and to escape Future-death, if there was no such thing revealed, so as they could understand it by the helps, that were Ministred to them, 2 Tim. 3. 15. Ti­mothy from a Child (by the help of his Mother, and Grand-Mother) under­stood the Scriptures of the Old Testa­ment (so far, without doubt, as was necessary to Salvation, and then be sure, so far as to know there was a Future re­ward promised to the Obedient) which were able to make him wise unto Salva­tion; and not meerly wise to attain a Temporal reward in this life, ver. 16. All Scripture is profitable for Doctrine, for instruction in Righteousness: That the man of God (i. e. a Minister) may be perfect, throughly instructed to e­very good work; this is spoken of the Old Testament-Scripture.

Christ, and his Apostles, do Inter­pret the Life promised to the Obedient in the Law, as reaching to Future life, Lev. 18. 5. The man that doth these Commands, shall live in them. Ezek. 20. 11. I gave them my Statutes, which [Page 145] if a man do, he shall live in them. Gal. 3. 12. The Apostle cites these words: and by Life, takes it as a thing granted, that they meant Eternal life. Also Rom. 7. 10. The Commandment that was un­to life: Mat. 19. 16, 17. The young man asks, What shall I do to inherit E­ternal life? Christ answers, If thou wilt enter into life, keep the Command­ments. Which shew, that Life, and Eternal life, signifie the same, Psal, 16. ult. Thou wilt shew me the way of life, in thy presence is fulness of joy; and, at thy right hand, are pleasures for evermore. Life here also signifies the Future life.

There are frequent Promises, That if they will keep his Commandments, He will be their God. The Apostle cites, Lev. 26. Where it is said, If you will walk in my Statutes, and keep my Judgments, and do them; then I will be your God, and you shall be my people, Ver. 3. 12. Which was Gods part of the Covenant, his Engagement made to the people at Mount Sinai, as appears, Ver. 46. Now the Apostle ha­ving cited this Promise, amongst o­thers, [Page 146] 2 Cor. 6. 16. adds, Having these Promises, let us cleanse our selves, &c. Which shews, That he understood these words, of Gods being one's God, to extend to Future happiness. So Mat. 22. 31, 32, 33. Have you not read concerning the Resurrection of the Dead? I am the God of Abraham, and Isaac: Now God is not the God of the Dead, but of the Living. So Mark 12. 26. By the words translated, Re­surrection of the dead, in Mat. and Ri­sing in Mark, seems to be meant Im­mediately, and Pri­marily, only See Doctor Hammonds Annotati­on, Mat. 22. 31. well clea [...]ing this. sub­sisting, and being in a Future-state af­ter death. And this was that which the Sadduces denied (as well as other things, consequential thereto, and of less concernment, to support this Opi­nion): And this was a most wicked Te­nent, subverting virtually all Religion, which cannot be said of an Opinion on­ly denying the Resurrection of the Body, provided a man did but hold a Future-state of being, or subsistence of the Soul in happiness, or misery, ac­cording [Page 147] to a mans works in this life: But such an erronious Opinion might possi­bly be held, (for any thing I can see to the contrary) in those more dark times, consistent with this foundation of true Religion; that God is a Rewarder, in a Future life, of Obedience in this; and Punisher of Disobedience. And further, I do not think that the Resur­rection of the Body, was so clearly de­livered in the Old Testament, as that one, believing all the Books of it to be Divine, might not yet hold it a dispu­table Point; considering the difficulties that Oppugne it, and the obscurity of the Scriptures affirming it; Though none of competent understanding, believing the New Testament, can now doubt of it. Now our Saviour's Argument drawn from these words, I am the God of A­braham, and of Isaac, &c. since this was spoken to Moses, and therefore af­ter Abraham and Isaac were dead; is cogent to prove (against the main foun­dational wicked Opinion of the Saddu­ces) viz. That Abraham and Isaac were then in being, and also in Being in hap­piness; for, had they been utterly ex­tinct, [Page 148] or in beeing, but in no estate of happiness, He could not have said, I am the God, but only, at the most, I was the God of Abraham. He is not so much as the Sustainer, as the God, in such a low-sense, of the dead, viz. of men totally extinct; but of the living, viz. of men in actual being. And He can­not be called the God (which implies some wonderful, great, and infinite fa­vour) of men, being indeed, and sub­sisting after their death, but being in misery, and dead in the sense where­in the Law threatned Future death; But only can be called a God to such men departed, as are in being, and also are in great happiness, and so are alive in the sense, the Law promised Future life.

Also Saint John, Rev. 22. 3, 4, 7. citeth that very Scripture fore-mention­ed, viz. Lev. 26. 11, 12. Where God promises from Mount Sinai, that if they would obey his Voice, he would be their God (It appears, He refers to this very Scripture, by the foregoing words in both places, of setting his Taberna­cle amongst them.) And he interpret­eth [Page 149] the meaning of those words, of God's being one's God, by expressions, denoting Life-to-come happiness, As wiping away all tears; And death being no more, ver. 7. He that overcometh shall inherit all things, and I will be his God. And also, the Author to the He­brews, Chap. 11. 14, 15, 16. ex­plain's this phrase, of God being one's God. All these dyed in the Faith, not having received the Promises, but, ha­ving seen them afar off, were perswa­ded of them; and declared plainly, by confessing themselves Pilgrims and Strangers, that they sought a Country, and that not meerly Canaan, an earth­ly Country, but a Heavenly: Where­fore God is not ashamed to be called their God; For he hath prepared for them a City (meaning Heaven, of which Canaan and Jerusalem, were but Types:) Implying, that if that phrase of being their God, had meant no more than giving them temporal good things in Canaan, it would have been a shamefully too high a word, for so low a thing, and that giving only such low things as temporal Mercies [Page 150] are, would have been unworthy of that Appellation, of God being their God: So that God might have been ashamed of using so Emphatical a Speech, in such a low signification. But he is therefore not ashamed of so high a pro­fession of Friendship as those words im­port, since He builded for them a City, not made with hands, Eternal in the Heavens.

These following, are the only colour­able replys made by some, or that can be made here, that I can call to mind.

First, It would be to no purpose to reply, The Old Testament had no Pro­mises or Threats, of Life-to-come hap­piness, or misery; but, it typified Pro­mises and Threats, of Life-to-come happiness, or misery:

For first, I suppose I have sufficient­ly proved, it had Life-to-come Pro­mises and Threats.

Secondly, In the sense wherein it did typifie such Life-to-come good, or evil things, it had no Life-to-come Promises or Threats; else, it would typifie Pro­mises of such F [...]ture-good things, in promising those Future-good things, [Page 151] which would be ridiculous to affirm.

Thirdly, In the sense wherein it did typifie Life-to-come things, it was nei­ther the strict Law of Works, requi­ring perfect obedience, under the pe­nalty of Future misery, and promising Future happiness thereon; Nor the Law of Grace or the Gospel, promising Pardon as to Conscience, and Future happiness upon repentance and sincere Obedience, but the Jewish political Law. And it is a palpable mistake, though common to say otherwise.

Secondly, The Reply, That God in­tended Life and Death eternal, by the words used in the promises and threats, but the people could not so understand them, though they used their utmost integrity and diligence, Is already con­futed: For then they would have been excusable, and it would not have been said, they have Moses and the Prophets, let them hear them, &c. And I have made it apparent, the people did so un­derstand them.

Thirdly, It is irrational to reply as some. We grant the ancient Jews did believe, God would give Eternal life to [Page 152] the obedient, but God never promised it to them: Thus Socinus.

For first, Then they were to blame to believe it, if God never made any Notification of his Will, that it should be so, It was then an Irrational foolish act for them when tortured, not to ac­cept deliverance, that they might ob­tain a better Resurrection, Heb. 11. 35.

Secondly, We read they believed and embraced the Promises of Future­life happiness. So that, they had such Promises, Heb. 11. and there was no more in their Faith, than in the Divine promise; no more in their Subjective, than in their Objective faith; than in the Revelation.

Thirdly, This is to affirm, that if they did well in thus believing, That they gave God, what was none of his own; gave to God what they had no power or ability from him to do, in be­lieving what God never said, and ho­ping for what God had never promised. This would be, To Supererogate in Faith and Hope, if it was but well done of them. But, to avoid such Super­erogation, [Page 153] we must say, that such do­ing would not have been acceptable to God, but a foolish, sinful, irrational act: As it would be in a man now, to believe, and hope that if he serve God here, he shall have a fair House built in the Moon, to dwell in for ever, when God hath made no Revelation, or Pro­mise of any such thing.

Fourthly, The most rational and pro­bable reply possible of them that deny Life-to-come Promises, in the Old Te­stament-Writings, would be this: (though apparently false, and I know not of any that use it) That the Jews before Christ, had such Promises of Future-life happiness, and so were ob­liged to Piety; but they were revealed only by the light of Nature, and Pro­vidence, and not in the Scriptures. And that the Jews erred in looking for Eternal life from the Scriptures; For the Old Testament Scriptures were on­ly written for the Common-wealth Temporal-Law, and to typifie Soul and Conscience-concernments; but did not so far intermedle with Conscience-con­cernments, as to threaten Future mise­ry [Page 154] to any sin; or to promise Eternal, or Future happiness, on any Terms whatsoever.

But 1. I have proved, they had such Promises in the Scriptures.

2. They had need of their Reason and Faculties, and of the Light and Law of Nature, and of all helps they had to understand these things in their Scripture; as we have also yet, to un­derstand the Writings, both of the Old and New Testament.

3 I do hold, and could prove it ap­parently from the Scripture, That there were, and are, some discoveries by the Light of Nature, and Works of Pro­vidence, not only of the strict Original­law, making Future misery due to eve­ry sin, and Future happiness to perfect Obedience; But also of the Gospel, or Law of Grace, viz. that God was pla­cable, and that there was place for Re­pentance, and that God would receive sinners to Future favour and happiness, by pardoning their sins upon Repent­ance and sincere Obedience. It is ap­parent, The Heathens did ordinarily maintain this; and without doubt it [Page 155] was not their Errour. And this they might gather from their beholding the present goodness of God to them, not­withstanding their incorrigibleness in great sins, in giving them Rain, and fruitful Seasons, and filling their Hearts with Food and Gladness. Yea, they had so much Light, as to make them Inexcusable, and Condemnable in not Repenting; which could not be if there was no Notification of his Will to re­ceive them to Future-life favour upon Repentance; but rather (as some hold) were bound to believe that there was no forgiveness with him, no Future reward or happiness Notified by such goodness of God, in his Providence to men that were sinners, and did need Repentance. Though I think the Scripture offers us ground to believe, That this way of Revelation, enough for their Con­demnation, did not, (yet through their own wickedness) effectually prevail to turn any man throughly from sin to God, or to cause such Repentance to Life, as in its own Nature it dictated; any man I mean, that had no more or further Revelation from God. Now [Page 156] if they had such Discoveries, these are as properly Promises of a Future-life, and threatnings of Future-death as those written.

Fourthly, It is apparent, that there was more cleer and convincing Disco­veries of Future-life happiness to the Obedient, and miseries to the Disobe­dient, in the Old Testament-Scriptures, than in the Law of Nature, and Book of Providence. The Law was given that the Offence might abound, and doth not only discover Duties, and Sins known by the light of Nature more cleerly, but the great danger of sin, and happiness that comes by obedience, more convincingly: yea; this disco­vers the Future-life happiness, so much the more cleerly; that the Discoveries made to the Heathen of this, was no discovery comparatively, which is im­plied at least in those words, Aliens from the Covenants of Promise, without hope. And those words, they have Mo­ses and the Prophets, &c. teach us, that there they were taught Future misery due to sinners, and Future happiness to the Obedient, as convincingly, as if [Page 157] one rose from the dead, to tell them of them. The Apostle Paul also speak­eth of the written Law, and therefore of the Old Testament-Law, as the norma judicii, as the rule of the Future judgment to them that lived under it, Rom. 2. 12. As many as have sin­ned without Law (meaning, written Law) shall perish without Law; And as many as have sinned in the Law, shall be judged by the Law; (viz. at the Future judgment, as appears by the following words) Judged, that is, Justified or Condemned at the last day by the Law, which could not be, if the Law promi­sed no Future-life, or threatned no Fu­ture-death. Also, by the Law, he means, the Law of Moses, as appears by the following words, ver. 17. Thou art called a Jew, and restest in the Law; and by the words [until the Law;] And [until Moses] being used as equivalent terms by this Apostle, Rom. 5. 13, 14. compared.

Fifthly, It would be in vain for any to reply here, as the Author of the Book called Friendly Debate doth, who having said, Part 1. pag. 26. ‘That the dif­ference [Page 158] between the two Covenants, is this, That the old Covenant made with the Jews, had Temporal pro­mises; But the Gospel, Eternal.’ And one in Answer to this Book, replying, that this is contrary to the seventh Ar­ticle of the Church of England, which saith. ‘They are not to be heard, who say, the Fathers looked for no more than Transitory promises, (Meaning things Promised.)’ In his Appendix to the third Part, pag. 150. He rejoyns, ‘I never thought that the Fathers looked for no more than Transitory promises; but, that it was not by virtue of the Covenant made with Moses, that they looked for more; I did, and do affirm. A great many of the Worthies mentioned, Heb. 11. lived before the Law was given; and the rest that followed them, built their Expectation on the same ground they did.’ Which also seems to be Doctor Hammond's opini­on, viz. That there were Promises of Future-life made to the more Ancient Patriarchs, but none in the Mosaic-Dispensation.

For, First, Almost all the Argu­ments I have used, do convincingly prove this, That the Law of Moses to the Jews, promised Future-life, as well as threatned Future-death. Now whe­ther this Author holds the Law of Mo­ses threatned Future-life-death to any sin, or not, I know not, but think I have proved both sufficiently. Also, the Threats of Moses Law, are expressed in as temporal a stile, as the Promises: so, it would be irrational, to affirm it threatned Future-death, but promised not Future-life.

Secondly, The promises made to A­braham, were made in as temporal a stile, as those in the Mosaic-Law, if not in a far more temporal.

Thirdly, If it shall be urged (for I know, the misunderstanding of such passages, occasions this mistake) that those Promises made to Abraham, Isa­ac, and Jacob, are Interpreted in the New Testament, as apparently reach­ing to a Future-life. I answer, So are the Promises of the Law of Moses made with the Jews, Rom. 7. 10. Chap. 10. 5, 6, 7, 2 Cor. 6. 16. Gal. 3. 10, 11, 12. [Page 160] And also the Threats.

Fourthly, It seems apparent to me, that that Dispensation of the Law from Mount Sinai, and the Land of Moab, was a clearer Dispensation of Threat­nings of Future-death to the Disobedi­ent, and Promises of Future Soul-life to the Obedient, than that to Abra­ham.

Sixthly, You cannot with any colour reply, It is true, there are Promises of Future-life, and Threatnings of Future­death (as this Author somewhere grants, but virtually, and often unsays it again) in Moses writings, but not in the Law of Moses, for these Promises and Threats were Gospel, in Moses writings.

For, First, I have spoken against this Opinion enough already.

Secondly, Some you see, deny any such Promises in the Jewish Law, And some any such Promises or Threats, in the Scriptures of the Old Testament.

Thirdly, If this was true, it would follow, That Christ never satisfied for any more, than a temporal Curse of the Law: For I have shewed the obsur­dity, of saying that he satisfied for the [Page 161] Curse of the Gospel in Moses writings threatned.

Fourthly, The Apostle speaks of the Law, in a sense distinct from the Gos­pel in Moses writings, wherein it had Spiritual commands, and that to Life, meaning Eternal-life, and also Future life Threats; saying, Christ hath born the Curse of the Law for us. So Rom. 3. 20. By the deeds of the Law, shall no flesh be justified in his sight: For by the Law is the knowledg of sin.

So, that I may conclude from what hath been here said, that the utmost that can be said in derogating from the Law, is:

First, That the Law of Moses, as it was the Common-wealth Law, had no Eternal Promises, or Threats, or Spi­ritual Commands. And in this sense are many Scriptures, produced by this Author to be understood.

Secondly, That the Law of Moses, and the Old Testament-Law dispensati­on, taken in the Important sense, as refering to Conscience, and Soul-sal­vation, or damnation, both in the sense wherein it was the Original-law of [Page 162] Works; And also in the sense where­in it was the Gospel, or a Law of Grace and Pardon, hath no such cleer and di­stinct Promises of Eternal-life, and threatnings of Eternal-death, as are in the New Testament-Scriptures. And in this comparative sense, may some places of Scripture speaking in extenu­ation of the Law-promises be under­stood, as being no Spiritual promises, or Promises of Heaven, comparatively to these in the New Testament: And multitudes of Instances may be brought, of Scriptures denying possitively, and yet to be understood only compara­tively.

As for Instance: That place, 2 Tim. 1. 10. where we read, that Christ hath brought Life, and Immortality to light, through this clearer Dispensation of the Gospel, must be understood compara­tively (as this Author grants, though he destroys his whole Argumentation by granting it:) And may possibly be understood only of bringing them to light among the Gentiles, who are said to be without hope, being aliens from the Covenants of Promise: For he saith in [Page 163] the verse following, He was made a Teacher of the Gentiles, viz. in these things. Now, though the light of Na­ture and Providence, taught them Fu­ture-life happiness to the Obedient, and Future misery and death to the Disobe­bient; yet they taught these things so obscurely and faintly, That they living wickedly, and contrarily to the Light they had, and so making it their inte­rest, to wish there was no Future-life, might with ease stiffle and bafle such na­tural Sentiments, so far as to hope there was no such Future state; or however, to make it a disputable Point, as it was amongst them: I mean, more easily than the Jews, that had the Law given in a dreadful manner, testifying these things, and credibly, and convincingly brought down to them by Irrefragable testimony; and more easily by far, than men now.

But it is probable also, this Scripture is to be understood comparatively, to the Jewish dispensation of the Law and Gospel, by Moses and the Prophets. And indeed, though it is so apparent, that the Jews were taught a Future-life [Page 164] of Retribution by the Scripture of the Old Testament, else those Scriptures could not have taught the Foundation of Religion, and they did so under­stand the Scriptures: That it is a won­der, so many Learned men should in­cline to any Notions contrary; yet, the evidence they had of these things, was very obscure, to what this open-fac'd Dispensation of the Gospel affords; and especially, as to the exact manner of the great Judgment by Christ Jesus, Acts 17. 31. And of Bodys being rai­sed, and made glorious like Christ's Body, &c. And also, without doubt, the best of them had very little particu­lar hope and assurance, ordinarily com­paratively to this cleer Gospel-dispensa­tion; That they themselves in particu­lar, should enjoy the Future blessed state: For they that knew but little of Christs satisfaction as comparatively to us, they did (which being now with open face known, answereth such per­plexing difficulties, as they were ordi­narily perplexed with, and made sub­ject to Bondage through fear of death) could not ordinarily but be much per­plexed, [Page 165] thinking, though it is apparent by the Testimony of God himself, he will pardon sinners, yet every truly Pi­ous person might be ready 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 [Page 166] 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 Heart­murther, and meer inward coveting, as the Tenth Commandment, and com­mands to fear and love the Lord, and [Page 167] 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 [Page 168] 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 Law­giver. 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 [Page 169] 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 [Page 170] 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 [Page 171] 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. H [...]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 qu [...]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 [Page 172] 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, [Page 173] shall be punished hereafter with death Christ's Speech could proceed no fu [...] ­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 Cou [...]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 [Page 174] 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 [Page 175] 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 Flesh­pleasing 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 [Page 176] 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 [Page 177] 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, [Page 178] 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 Heart­sins, 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 [Page 180] 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 [Page 181] 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. [Page 182] 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 [Page 183] 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 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 [Page 185] 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 [Page 187] 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 Common­wealth 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 [Page 188] 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 [Page 189] 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 [Page 190] 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 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 [Page 191] 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 [Page 192] 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 [Page 193] 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 th [...] Law in this sense only, is by the Apostle cal­led a School-master, to teach the first beggarly Letters, or Ele­ments, and so to cea [...]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 [Page 194] 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 [Page 195] 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: [Page 194] [...] [Page 195] [...] [Page 196] Not the Law in the strict Conscience­sense 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 [...]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 [Page 197] Servility of Spirit, even disingenuous and unfilial Tempers; 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 [Page 198] 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 Law­giver, 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, [Page 199] 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 [Page 200] 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, [Page 201] 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 [Page 202] 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 [Page 203] 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 the Internal defect.

‘Secondly, Another defect of the Law, or Mosaic-Dispensation, is, that it did not afford the Internal help of the Holy Spirit. And it was in­deed impossible, that men should be brought to Spiritual righteousness, or Holiness by that Law, which nei­ther gave, nor promised any aid of the Spirit.’

I will not speak much here in answer to this, because I have said enough al­ready, either here, or in another Dis­course.

First, This is not an Argument made use of, as is here pretended.

Secondly, If they had no ability to perform Spiritual righteousness, with­out the Spirits help, which was denied them, they were not bound to perform such Spiritual obedience, since no man is bound to Natural impossibilities.

Thirdly, It is a weak manner of speaking, though common to talk of it, being a defect of a Law not giving abi­lity to perform it; no Law doth so, not that to Adam, or of Moses, or of Christ, for every Law supposeth Ability (I mean the Natural ability) to obey it, or it could not oblige to Obedience, and so could be no Law to such.

Fourthly, This is to say, that men could not sin without the Grace of the Holy Spirit to enable them. For this Author grants, as well he may, that none are bound by any Law, to do what they have no power to do. But I have at large shewed in another Discourse, [Page 205] the absurdity of this Opinion, and that the gracious opperation of the Spirit, and the effect of it is something that men can sin without; And therefore, that men have the Natural power to obey some other way, and not from this, though not the Moral, but have this Moral power from this Grace of the Holy Spirit.

It cannot be pretended here, that this Author means, the Mosaic-Law afford­ed not the Spirit, to free men from the Moral impotency, of doing what they had the Natural power to do: For this would be to overthrow the thing he is pleading for, viz. The Impotency, and and Insufficiency of the Law and Dis­pensation; Since Moral-impotency is nothing else but voluntary wickedness it self; and would be to grant, there was no defect in the Mosaic-Law to San­ctifie, or Justifie, but it had all necessa­ry naturally for these ends; but only the men were in fault, the men were so wicked they would not yield to, and obey it; and the Spirit did not actually make them willing of unwilling, obe­dient of disobedient. But I refer such [Page 206] as do not understand what I here say, to my Discourse of Natural and Moral­impotency.

At last, the Author comes (having made, as he supposeth, apparent, what the Apostle's Arguments were, against Justification by the Law) to shew more expresly what Works of the Law they only were, that the Apostle excluded from Justification, in these words, and the following.

‘Whosoever shall understand these things which we have spoken,’ (viz. In the prosecution of this Argument of the Apostle) ‘he may easily see, that the Works which Paul simply exclu­deth from Justification, are such as are performed by men without Gos­pel-Grace, by force of the Mosaic-law or Law of Nature: For the things by which Paul disputeth against the Mo­saic-Law, do more strongly militate, as we have noted somewhere, (viz. pag. 120. before recited) against the Law of Nature. Now this is an evi­dent Consectary from what is be­fore said. The Apostle fighteth with this Argument, chiefly against Justi­fication [Page 207] by the Law of Moses, or Na­ture, that both these Laws are purely destitute of those helps, by which a man may be drawn to true Holiness worthy of God, and grateful to him. It manifestly hence follows, that on­ly that Holiness, and those Works are excluded by the Apostle from Justification, which proceed from a mans weak ability, [ab infirmitate humana] who is in the state of the Law or Nature.’

First, Then no man was bound to true Holiness acceptable to God, by the Law of Moses, or the Law of Na­ture; and consequently no man did sin in not performing Obedience accepta­ble to God, since it was this defect of these Laws, neither of them either pro­mising Future reward, or affording abi­lity to perform true Godliness.

Secondly, I cannot understand, how this is consistent with what this Author saith, pag. 116. before recited; where he affirmeth, that, ‘Some Heathens did sincerely and heartily love and follow Virtue and Righteousness, so far as it was known to them.’ Unless he [Page 208] will say, that no Virtue and Righteous­ness pleasing to God, was known to them (which would be to make his concession insignificant) or that these Heathens did super-erogate, or did more than they had ability to do; or than the Law of Nature required from them.

Thirdly, This is to say, that the A­postle hath Copiously, and Elaborate­ly, proved only these two things, viz. 1. That there is no Justification by good Works performed by men, pro­vided there be no promise of Future reward made to them, or at least pro­vided men to perform them without respect to Future recompence of re­ward. And 2. That no man is Justi­fied by doing such Works, as men have in no sense any ability to do. Now can any imagine, that any of the Jews Pharisaical Teachers taught them, that they might be Justified by such Works.

If it shall be replied, No: For their Teachers taught them, that they might be Justified by the Works of the Law of Moses or Nature, which Works re­ally had no promise of a Future-life re­ward, and they had really no ability to [Page 209] perform these Works: But their Pha­risaical Teachers taught them, That such Works of the Law of Moses had a promise of Future-life reward, and that they had ability to do such Works.

I shall let many things pass, that I might here rejoyn to shew the Incon­sistency of this Reply, with the whole discourse of the Apostle, yea, and with the Argument, he strives to fasten on the Apostle; And also to shew how im­probable it is, that men should fancy themselves to have, or believe others, telling them they have power to do things they have an Impotency to do; (taking Impotency as this Author ap­parently doth, for the proper natural Impotency, distinct from wickedness, for a cannot, distinct from a will not.) For it is not ordinary for Multitudes to fan­cy this, nor to believe them that should tell them so, nor for any but wonder­fully weak and fanciful men: Though I know it is too common for men, to have better thoughts of themselves than they should, in reference to their Morals, and so to think they are not so wicked as they are; and that they have [Page 210] no Moral-Impotency (which is wicked Obstinacy) to the doing those good things, they have the Natural power to do. I say, letting these things pass; And also, letting pass what I could say, to prove that the Apostle would never have contradicted these Opinions, viz. That men might have been Ju­stified, had they done all the Law of Moses, or Nature, required of them; so as only wicked wilfulness (which is the Moral-Impotency) hindred them; because neither those, nor any other Laws whatsoever, required more than men have the Natural ability to do: And also passing by his mentioning of it as a defect in Moses Law, and the Law of Nature, that they gave no abi­lity to perform what they required: Whereas every Law supposeth ability to obey it, or it could not be a Law, or Obligatory, and therefore no Law give­eth or promiseth the proper Ability to obey it self.

I say, setting these things aside, I shall only mind you how Inconsistent with themselves (as well as with one another) both these Arguments are, [Page 211] which he pretends, are the Apostles two main (if not only) Arguments a­gainst Justification by Works of the Law of Moses. I have shewed before, (in speaking to it) the Inconsistency of the first Argument with it self, which he saith, leaneth on two Founda­tions, viz. 1. That all men are guil­ty of great sins, so that they cannot be Justified as to Conscience, by the Law of Moses. 2. That the Law of Moses promised no Justification as to Consci­ence, on any terms whatsoever; where­as one of these can only possibly be a reason, why they were not Justified by the Law of Moses. For if that Law promised no Justification on any terms whatsoever, then their being sinners, can be no reason why they were not Ju­stified by that Law; And again, if their sins were the reason why they were not Justified by the Law of Moses, then the Law did promise Justification to them, on condition of their being free from such sins: So this second Ar­gument which he ascribes to the Apo­stle (viz. That none could be Justified by the Law of Moses, because of two [Page 212] Internal defects of the Law, which are, that it had no promise of Future-life Justification, and that they had no ability to do the things it required for their Fu­ture-life Justification) labours with the same [...]; For if they had no abi­lity to do the things it required for their Future-life Justification; then their disa­bility was the only cause of their not being Justified by that Law, and not the Laws not promising it: And again, if the Laws not promising it, was the reason why they could not attain Fu­ture-life Justification by that Law, then their disability to perform what it requi­red, could be no cause of their not be­ing Justified by it.

If any should reply, their disability was the cause why they could not per­form true Piety; which true Piety was required by some other Law, for their Future-life Justification. Setting aside the Illogicalness, and Incoherency of Discourse, which this would fasten on the Apostle, in many particulars; I will only ask one so replying, By what Law was true Piety required of them? This Author tells us by the conse­quence (though possibly not expresly) [Page 213] it was not required by the Law of Moses or Nature; neither of them, as he saith, promising Future happiness; and both be­ing purely destitute of those helps, where­by men might be drawn to true Piety, and consequently by his Argument, none were bound to true Piety by them: If it shall be answered according to this Author, and some others, that true Piety was only required by the Gospel: I have said enough against this already, in shewing this Opinion would inevita­bly destroy Christs satisfaction, for any (though Partial, or Temporary) defect of true Piety. I shall further ask, Had the Jews under the Law of Moses this Gospel that required true Piety? Or had they it not? If they had not this Gospel, either they then had ability to perform the true Piety required, or had not; If they had ability to perform it, then they had no need of this Law of Moses, to promise Future-life Justifica­tion, or to give them ability for true Piety: If they had no ability to per­form true Piety, which the Gospel re­quired of them. This is to say, the Gospel required of the Jews what they had in no sense any ability to do; which [Page 214] this Author denies (as well he may, ta­king Ability in the strictest sense) any Law of God to require. Yet, this Au­thor here (forgetting himself I suppose) hath run himself into such straits, in affirming, the Jews could not perform true Piety without the Spirit, and that this Spirit was denied them; which is to say, they could not at all perform true Piety; That he must grant this of the Gospel, or some Law, that it requi­red what they had in no sense any ability to do, (which without doubt is false) or he must deny, that God required any true Piety of them, by any Law what­soever; which Evasion I suppose, he will not make use of.

‘From the whole Series of the A­postles Disputation, it is made ma­nifest, that he only rejects such works from Justification, which if admit­ted, may seem to yield to men mat­ter of glorying, and boasting them­selves before God, Rom. 3. 27. and 4. 2. Ephes. 2. 9. And who doth not see, that that can only be spoken of Works, which men do by their own ability, without the help of Grace. [Page 215] For it is manifest, that the Works which men perform through the as­sistance of Grace, are owing to God, and their glory redounds to Him, as the highest and chiefest Author. These good Works which we per­form, are not so much our Works, as the Works of God himself in us. And no man can rightly boast of that thing which he ows to God.’

I shall ere long take notice of this.

‘Pag. 271. Since Abraham, in the 4th. Chapter to the Romans, is con­sidered by Paul, as the Father of the Faithful, and the great Exemplar of the Justification of all justified ones; It is impossible but the speech of the Apostle concerning his Justification, should give great light to this whole Dispute concerning Justification.’

This is well observed, therefore I shall diligently attend to this.

This Author begins to give largely the meaning of the first Verses of the fourth to the Romans, pag. 264. which speak of Abraham's Justification; And proceeds well for substance to ver. 3. only he affirms that these words [ac­cording [Page 216] to the flesh] in the first Verse, and [by the Law] in the second Verse, (which he grants do both signifie the same thing) do signifie Works done by a mans own power (that is, without a promise of Future reward, and with­out the help of Gods Spirit) which I see no evidence of, but have told you my thoughts, that these words signifie per­fect and unsinning Obedience, or meri­torious Works.)

But now ver. 3. For what saith the Scripture, Abraham believed God, and it was accounted (or imputed) to him for Righteousness. (Here saith he well.) ‘This Citation of Scripture is brought to prove the words in the verse be­fore, viz. That Abraham in the bu­siness of Justification, had nothing to boast of before God; And the A­postle gathereth it thus, That the re­ward was imputed to Abraham not of debt, as a reward useth to be given to workers, but of meer Grace; And therefore Abraham had no cause to boast before God, of any thing in the matter of his Justification.’ Thus far well. He goes on verbatim thus:

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 [Page 220] 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 [Page 221] 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-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) [Page 222] 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 [Page 223] 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 [Page 224] 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 [Page 225] 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 [Page 226] 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 [Page 227] 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 [Page 228] 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 [Page 229] this Chapter, ver. 6, 8. compared. Im­puting Righteousness without Works, that is, without a mans being Righte­ous; and not imputing Iniquity where there is Iniquity, are the same. Shi­mei's meaning is, though I have com­mitted a great fault, and in truth am guilty, and unrighteous in this respect, yet impute Righteousness to me through Grace by pardon, as to this fault; or do not impute Iniquity to me; put me into that state in reference to Punish­ment for this fault, as if I was Righteous, or Innocent as to this fault; as if the fault had never been committed. He did not mean, do thou really account I never did that fault, or do thou in Ju­stice, and not in Favour, not impute sin to me.

The other Scripture which he brings, is as manifest against him as this is, which is this, viz. ver. 4. the very next verse after this; Abraham belie­ved, and it was accounted to him for Righteousness. Now to him that work­eth, the reward is reckoned of debt, and and not of Grace. Here, saith he, the Apostle himself useth the word recko­ned, [Page 230] 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 [Page 231] 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, [Page 232] 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,

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 [Page 239] 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, [Page 240] 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 [Page 241] 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, [Page 242] 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 He [...]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 Lya [...]; which yet might have been said, if this had been, To do, what they had not the Na­tural power to do; because then, so to Teach or Speak, would neither have [Page 243] been Laudable nor Culpable, and so not formally a Lye, nor a cause of be­ing accursed. Neither can you say, if a non-Elect man had believed, he had not been saved. My discourse of Natural and Moral-Impotency, will make what I here say, more plain to you.

This Author speaks often, and par­ticularly here of the necessity of Grace, and of mans Disability to do any good, without the Grace of the Holy Spirit; which may much puzle men not versed in such Discourses: And the knowing what he means by the word GRACE, would do much to shew further the In­consistency of the Argument, from a defect of Internal Grace, which he pretends the Apostle makes use of. Now, though the Author speak not much Explicitly, to tell us what he means by this Grace, and what the ef­fect of it is; yet thus much is appa­rent from the constant Tenor of his Discourse, that he goes the common Remonstrant way, and holds that the Effect of it is, The giving that Internal power or ability, that men could not [Page 244] be inexcusable in not obeying the Gos­pel without: and whosoever doth so, may be forced (by a little Argumenta­tion, as I have else-where made appa­rent) though against his will, to con­fess, that he means no more by it, than God's giving men that enjoy the Gos­pel, the very power or faculty of free­will in actu secundo; without which, they could not sin, or be sound men, or men in their right wits. Yea, all that ever I have read of that way, do apparently mean no more by Grace, (not so much as those by some-admired Letters of Do­ctor Hammond, in answer to the Lord Bishop Sanderson, excepted;) though some pretend a great satisfactoriness in the Scheme there propounded, as if it avoided the common inconveniences that Way is Clogged with. For there the Learned Doctor, though he seems cautelous to hide his meaning, in calling it a Supernatural power to be­lieve and obey the Gospel; yet it will appear plain enough, that he means by it no more than the very Power and Faculty of Free-will, to any Intelligent man that shall consider these his Asser­tions following concerning it.

First, He holds, that if this Grace of the Holy Spirit, or this Grace of Conversion was denied men that enjoy the Gospel, they would be excusable, pag. 34. that is, They could not be guilty of sinning against, or disobedi­ence to the Gospel (for nothing that is truly sin is excusable.) Yea, he sup­poses still consonantly to this, that if it should be denied any man in this life, enjoying the Gospel, as he thinks it was to Pharaoh, such a one would be as one naturally dead; even from under the command of Obedience to the Gos­pel: For his non-obedience in this case, would be imputable to God, pag. 94. 95.

I grant, that if God had totally de­prived Pharaoh of the Natural power of obeying his Calls, viz. By depri­ving him of the right Natural use of his Faculties, by making him a Natural Fool; then his Non-conversion, and Non-obedience to the Divine Com­mand after such deprival, would, as the Doctor saith, have been imputable to God; and therefore his Non-obe­dience in such a case, would have been no sin, but wholly excusable; because [Page 246] imputable to God. But that a man having the faculties to understand, and do Gods Commands, should not be to blame in not doing such Commands, except God give him the Internal grace of his Spirit, is strange Discourse, though too common.

Secondly, He affirms, that Grace doth not give To will to any, or take a­way unwillingness or resistency of will from any, any fa [...]ther than by meerly giving Power or Ability to comply with the Gospel, pag. 55. And ex­presses his dislike of it, as a meer con­ceit for any to hold, that, Grace causeth actual willingness, or taketh away un­willingness to good, any further than by meerly giving power to the Will to obey and comply with the Gospel, which Grace gives to all enjoying the Gospel.

Thirdly, If it should be granted, that God doth any more towards any man's Conversion that enjoys the Gospel, than give this Power without which men would not be Inexcusable in not obeying it, which he calls sufficient Grace, (as he supposes God may do [Page 247] some singular External thing providen­tially for some, as by afflicting them, though no singular Internal thing by his Spirit) he then supposes, that what is done more for any man, than this de­gree of Grace sufficient to render men inexcusable, is not an effect of Grace properly so called, or to be said to pro­ceed from Supernatural grace. Where­as I should say, that giving that ability without which men could in no sense obey the Gospel, is to be called an ef­fect of Justice, and not of Grace; so that God cannot in Justice condemn men for not obeying the Gospel, if he did not give them so much power as to make them inexcusable in not obeying it; which if true, there would be no­thing left to be called Internal-grace, in the conversion of one enjoying the External or Objective evidence, the Gospel, according to his Principles.

Moreover, the Doctor affirms con­sentaneous to the same Principle, That Mans resisting, and refusing to comply with the Gospel, is the only reason of the difference of men that enjoy the Gospel, that one is Converted, and an­other [Page 248] not, and not Grace any further than by graciously giving this power of willing to obey, or power of not resist­ing the Gospel, which is given also to those that are not Converted: And he pretends, that he yet keeps up the ho­nour of Grace in Conversion, by say­ing, that though one mans chusing when others refuse to comply with the Gospel, cometh only from the former well-dis­posedness of the man, and his preceding willingness to do Gods Will, which the other wanted; yet this chusing the good, when others refuse, cannot be ascribed only to Free-will, because this well-dis­posedness of the man proceeded from former preventing Grace. Now, can­not any man that is not of a forlorn un­derstanding see, that this doth not avoid the Consequence he pretends it doth avoid? while he makes this preventing Grace the same; or however no more than the Subsequent, by holding that neither Preventing, nor Subsequent Grace, do any more towards Conver­sion, than meerly give the power, and do not in the least cause the well-dispo­sedness of any man, any further than [Page 249] meerly by giving a man a power so far to obey the Gospel, as to be able to be wrought on to this well-disposedness, which also was equally given to others? And to hold, that God did cause this Towardliness, and good Disposition, and Malleableness, and Willingness to obey the Gospel, (which he so much insists on) by doing for such men more than he did for others, that have no such Temper wrought in them, would be but, at the most (if so much) a run­ning the Controversy a little further, by running a little way from the An­ti-Remonstrant, and then standing still and yeilding to him; by yielding, that God by his Spirit doth more in Con­version, than meerly give ability to the will to chuse or refuse, and doth actually cause the difference; And that the cause of to be ones thus differing from ano­ther, is ascribed to some special Grace and Favour, consisting in doing somthing for one he did not for the other, and that unconditionately, or without respect to any precedent less illness, or more good­ness of his; which is the thing these Letters mainly oppose. And if it ap­pear, [Page 250] that God doth thus in time, it will readily be granted by him, he de­creed to do so from Eternity, as appears fully by his Orthodox and judicious Letters, annexed to these concerning Praescience.

And whereas he grants, that if this well-disposedness of the man (which he saith is the only reason of the Con­version of one enjoying the Gospel, when others go on Unconverted) was not wrought by Grace, this would be to ascribe a mans Conversion so to Free­will, as that it would be g [...]osly prejudi­cial to the Grace of God, pag. 45. 58. Cannot any one see, that this Conces­sion was unwary, and that he would presently have faln into this guilt, had he answered without Tergiversation these Questions? viz. Whether God did any more in order to the working in such a man this Malleableness of heart, and willingness to obey, than by giving him that ability to be wrought on by the Gospel into this good Temper, which ability he also gave equally to o­thers, that were not so wrought on? And whether Free-will then, here, did [Page 251] not so cause the difference, as to be prejudicial to the Grace of God? And why it would be more prejudicial to the Grace of God, to ascribe mans Con­version to Free-will, and the goodness of a mans Temper; than to ascribe mans being made (to use his own words) Malleable, and willing to obey God, to mans Free-will, and the goodness of a mans Temper? Or if he will ascribe this Malleableness and willingness to obey, to another Malleableness and wil­lingness to obey; and that to another Malleableness and willingness to obey, and so forward; why he may not as well candidly ascribe the first named Malle­ableness, to Free-will, as the last? For since to ascribe any such effect to a spe­cial Favour and Work of God, is the great thing opposed, the making the difference must be ascribed to Free-will at last, or to Chance, or to Nothing.

Yet the Doctor saith; ‘That it is a posing Question to him to answer, What exception can possibly be stated against this his Scheme, and that he ascribes nothing to man himself, but all the good a man doth to Supernatural [Page 252] Grace.’ Yea, he would seem, pag. 52, 53, 56. with high words (though of low Import) to out-go his Lordship, in extolling Grace, charging him as over cautious in saying, ‘[That in the Con­version of a sinner, though Free­will co-operate, yet the Grace of God had the main stroke and chiefest operation.]’ And would have it ra­ther said, (and saith, all the Remon­stants herein, concur with him) ‘That the Grace of God in Lapsed man, is the one sole principle of Conversion, Regeneration, Repentance, and e­very other Evangelical Virtue; and all that can justly be attributed to our will in any of these, is the obeying the Motions, and making use of the Po­wers, which are bestowed upon us by that Supernatural principle. For (saith he) God's Spirit giveth us the power, which all the good we do is imputable to; And when we read of God's working in us to will, and to do; the meaning is, he giveth us power to will, and do.’ But if this be the Opinion of the Doctor, and all the Remonstrants, as he saith here, at [Page 253] least Implicitly; it is, viz. That obey­ing the Motions, and making use of the Powers, which God bestoweth up­on men, may justly be attributed to the Will, so, as not to any special operati­on of the Spirit, he only giving us the Power, and wholly leaving it to men to make use of it, without doing any more by his Spirit, to cause us to make use of it; I shall say, Sit anima mea cum contra-Remonstrantibus, in this particu­lar. Though still I grant, that in a sense, though in a very remote sense; he that giveth the Tallent or Power, may be said to be the cause of the Im­provement of it, though yet in no other sense, than by giving the Tallent or Power. But why then do any pray God, to cause them by his Spirit, to improve their Tallent, and make use of their power, if he do no more than meerly give the Tallent or Power, which he doth to all?

But if this be the Import of all these great words, as apparently it is, con­cerning Grace, and Supernatural-grace, given to all that enjoy the Gospel, viz. That Supernatural-grace giveth them [Page 254] the very Power of Free-will, or that Power (call it what you will) without which, men could not be Inexcusable in not obeying the Gospel; and God goeth no further by his Spirit with any in order to their Conversion; and this Power doth all in Conversion, and in causing the difference; therefore Su­pernatural-grace doth all good, and no­thing is Imputable to the man in the whole work: I say, if this be the mean­ing, it is an empty sound, and exalts Gods special Grace and Kindness no more in, and oblidges a man no more to, special Thankfulness for, the work of this Conversion; than if it was said, God by his Supernatural-grace made us Men, endued us with Understanding and Will; And man doth all in Im­proving the Gospel to his own Conver­sion, therefore God doth all: Or, God by his common Providence, cau­seth men to have Free-will, and Free­will doth all, therefore God doth all. Neither doth it denote any more any more or less of Kindness in God, or engage men any more or less to Thank­fulness, to say, God by his ordinary [Page 255] Providence gave Free-will, or the Power (be it what it will) without which he could not be Inexcusable, in not obeying the Gospel; than to say, God by his Supernatural-grace, gave Free-will, or the Power aforesaid; while it is only Free-will, or the Power without which men could not sin in not obeying the Gospel, that is said to be given either way. Neither would it any more or less hinder a man's boast­ing, That although he received the Power from God as others did, yet, that he differs from them, or made good use of the Power, he owes to him­self and Free-will. Neither would this be a Dispute of any Importance in Divinity to be determined, whether Supernatural-grace caused this Power, or common Providence (though it would be a gross Impropriety to say, Men could not sin without Supernatu­ral-grace.) Yea, it is all one, as to Re­ligious Concerns, whether you call this Power, the Remote and Fundamental Power (to use the words of the Do­ctor and others) or the Proximate po­wer of Free-will, while there is meant [Page 256] by it only that Power, without which, men that enjoy the Gospel could not sin; or which is all one, be Inexcusable in not obeying it, and which is given to all that enjoy the Gospel.

Now it is so apparent, that it is a wonder that any should have the under­standing of men, and not acknowledg it; That Grace actively taken for God's Act, or passively for the effect of this Act, in mens Conversion, sieth not in God's causing, or mans receiving the very Power or Faculty of Free-will; or the Power without which men could not culpably sin, or be inexcusable in not obeying the Gospel; but it lieth in Gods doing or giving, and mans re­ceiving some thing from him, that man hath the ability to chuse the Good and refuse the Evil, or to Obey or Disobey the Gospel without; else a man could not pray for Grace for himself or o­thers, to keep them from sinning a­gainst, or disobeying the Gospel, if they had no ability to do so without it. It lieth in God's giving, and mens re­ceiving something, that God is not bound in Justice to give, or to hold [Page 257] men excusable for not obeying the Gos­pel; or, which is the same, it lieth not in giving that, which if he gave not, he could not in Justice condemn men for not obeying the Gospel: Whereas God is bound in Justice to give the Na­tural Power or Faculty of obeying the Gospel, or he could not in Justice con­demn men for not obeying of it; be­cause in such cases, they would be wholly excusable from such Obedience, as Infants, and Idiots are. And there­fore the Power, without which men would be excusable, being an effect of Justice, is not to be accounted as the Doctor calls it, an effect of Supernatu­ral-grace, nor of Grace or Favour, or Kindness at all: Do not mistake me, I mean only; It is not of favour or kind­ness to give this Power, or not con­demn men for not doing what they had not this Power, which makes inexcu­sable, to do: For I know, it is a Fa­vour and Kindness, and a great one too, to give men ability to chuse the Good, and refuse the Evil; because, without it, they would not have the very Natural power of obtaining the [Page 258] Promised great good Things; and he might justly deprive all men of this Power, as he doth some, even natural Fools; provided that when he doth so, he doth not require them to chuse the Good, and refuse the Evil: But yet upon Supposition, that he will require them to chuse the Good and refuse the Evil, it is necessary in justice, that he give them so much ability, to chuse the Good and refuse the Evil, as may make them Inexcusable in not doing it; and only so much as he doth for them more than this, in order to the overcoming their wickedness, and Aversation to Good, and causing them to chuse the Good and refuse the Evil, is of Grace, and Favour, and Kindness; being more than is due in Justice to be done, to free them from Condemnation for the not doing it: All which, is Diametrically opposite to the Doctor's Notion of Grace, who maintains the just con­trary.

I am sensible, I may be thought to have let my Pen ramble here too far, in opposing these Letters of the Do­ctors; but I was Induced to it by such Reasons as these.

First, Because, though it will be ap­parent to any Intelligent considering man that reads this Author's Book, that he hath the same common Notions with Doctor Hammond, about Grace; yet they lie more remote from vulgar Ap­prehensions; he speaking so little ex professo, to declare what he means by it.

Secondly, Because I look upon this Opinion, maintained in the said Let­ters, as destructive to all true Piety, if Practically held; for no man that holds such Principles, can seriously with his Heart, pray or praise God for the Con­version or Sanctification of himself or others (as I have shewed Irrefragably else-where) not so much as in the words of the Common-Prayer. If any doubt of this, let them but take the Book and read such Prayers, and see if they can think the meaning of such Prayers, is, that God would give them and others, only that Power to obey, which he is bound in Justice to give them, whether they pray or pray not for it, or could not condemn them for not obeying, as is apparent of that [Page 260] Power without which men would be ex­cusable.

Thirdly, Because those Letters are commonly pretended to be Unanswer­able, and they that are not competent Judges, may have this probable account to think so, because there is no Evi­dence (that I know of) of any Reply made by his Lordship, nor Intimation of his being unsatisfied with them, when as Doctor Hammond highly pre­tends his Lordships concurrence with him. For my part, though I should judg that his Lordship (having as him­self confesseth, not much studied such things) had not very cleer Notions a­bout these Controversies, if his words be set down to the best Advantage by Doctor Hammond; as appears by his granting, that the effect of the Grace of the Holy Spirit is something, that if denied to men they would be excusa­ble. Yet, I think it almost as easie a matter to Vindicate what he saith in the Main, in the important Points of spe­cial Grace, and unconditionate De­crees, against Doctor Hammonds Ex­ceptions, as to Write so much Paper. [Page 261] And I cannot but highly commend to consideration, that sober Sentiment of his Lordship, who confessing his own Disability, to reconcile the consistency of Grace, and Free-will in Conversi­on; and being sensible they must both be maintained, tells us: ‘He ever held, and still doth hold it the more pious and safe way, to place the Grace of God in the Throne where we think it should stand, and so to leave the Will of Man to shift, for the maintenance of its own Freedom, as well as it can; than to establish the Power and Liberty of Free-will at the heighth, and then to be at a Loss how to maintain the Power and Effi­cacy of Gods Grace.’ Though Do­ctor Hammond expresseth his dislike of this Saying, and that he thinks it no great difficulty to Reconcile them; but that this way of his doth it satisfactori­ly, and is easie of Conception, (and it is indeed too easie of all conscience to be the truth.) The Result whereof is, that God by his Spirit and Grace, gi­veth only the Power, without which men enjoying the Gospel would not be [Page 262] Inexcusable, which is indeed no other than the proper Natural power of Free­will, whatever can be pretended to the contrary: And though he hath some Expressions that one unwary, or not versed in such things, would think sounded something more, as Grace, be­ing operative and moving; yet it is ap­parent, he means, it no otherways moves, than by giving this Power of not resisting the Gospel, without which men enjoying the Gospel, would be excusable in not oheying it, which is given to all; and to say otherwise, would be to overthrow his whole Fa­brick, as will fully appear to any one that will but read considerately, and suppose those Questions put concern­ing any such Dubious words, which I have put, pag. 65, 66, 67, 68. of my Discourse of Natural and Moral Impo­tency, to force the Explaining of such words; and also consider what would be answered to them.

I judg that one great cause of Do­ctor Hammond's mistakes under debate, as well as of this Author's, was chiefly their want of distinct Notions about [Page 263] Natural and Moral Impotency, as ap­pears by their affirming, as both of them do, and the Doctor particularly, pag. 86. that, It is a direct contradicti­on to hold a Power in one sense, and a want of Power in another sense, to the same Act; to hold, That a man hath a Moral impotency, to do what he hath a Natural power to do: And conse­quently, also his not distinguishing be­tween Natural and Moral Irresistibility. It is also apparent, that another great [...]ause of his mistakes, is, his forgetting, or not considering that men are Univer­sally wicked; else he would not sup­ [...]ose it Irrational to hold, (as he doth pag. 36. and 38.) that no one man that h [...]d power enough to obey the Gospel, sufficient to render him Inexcusable in not obeying it, (as I think all have that have the Gospel, and are not Natural Fools) did ever obey the Gospel, with­out the addition of some further Super­effluence of Grace, to make him Wil­ling of Unwilling. Now if this be not to forget, or deny that all men are wicked, so wicked that their Enmity and Aversation of will to Good, will [Page 264] never be overcome but by the Grace of the Holy Ghost; I know not what is. And I grant, that except men were U­niversally wicked, it would be Irrational to suppose that of such Multitudes, none should obey without such Grace.

But I think, I have said enough in my Discourse of Natural and Moral Impotency, to shew the Danger, and Inconsistency of such Opinions, as these Letters of the Doctor's are written to maintain; (though I living obscurely, had not seen those Letters when I wrote that Discourse.) And if yet any intel­ligent man shall satisfie me, that I have not said enough there to this end, or that there is any thing said in those Le­ters, that needeth a more particular an­swer, I may probably say more: For my great Aversation to such Principles, will much encline me upon an easie call to oppose the Prevalency of them, till I shall see some sitter man of our own Church and Language, where they prevail (as I doubt not but there are many, whose Abilities and Circum­stances make them far more fit) willing to undertake it, and save the Labour of my weak Endeavours.

But now to attend the Author after this large Digression, who still goes on to give the meaning of Rom. 4.

‘The Apostle also in this his Argu­mentation, considereth the former state and condition of the Person, viz. of Abraham, to whom this Faith was imputed for Righteousness. He was ungodly, and guilty of grievous sins, and therefore the Apostle saith Em­phatically, that Abraham believed in him who justifieth one ungodly: By that, implying that Abraham before the Divine vocation, was so far from deserving any thing from God by any good Works, that on the contra­ry, he was guilty of the greatest sins; So that the Mercy of God was wonderful, both that he had re­vealed himself in so singular a way to so great a sinner, and had called him to his Service: And also, that he not only blessed with the Pardon of his great sins, but also rewarded with the greatest Rewards, Abraham be­lieving him, revealing himself to him. But you will say, What was this Impiety of Abraham before he [Page 266] was called? I answer, Idolatry, the greatest of Impieties, as the Scrip­ture it self plainly testifies, Joshu. 24. 2, 3. &c. where God saith in the plural Number, That the Fathers of the Hebrews served other Gods: And he expresses whom he means, [Thareh, the Father of Abraham, and the Father of Nachor,] so that he puts those three, the Father with the Children, in the same Predica­ment. Also, after he had said [they served other gods,] he adds; [And he took your Father Abraham,] ver. 3. evidently denoting, that this is com­memorated amongst the kindnesses to the Israelites; that when their Ancestors, viz. the Grand-Father of Israel, both by his Father and Mo­ther, Abraham and Nahor, living with their Father in Chaldea, wor­shipped other gods; God of his meer Mercy, without any merit of his, took Abraham, and gave to him a Heir, and an Inheritance: Also the Apostle seems in these words [of ju­stifying the ungodly,] by a tacit in­deed, but yet by a strong Argument, [Page 267] to check the Arrogancy of the Jews, who did abhor the Sinful and I­dolatrous Gentiles, Gal. 2. 15. though Converted to the true God, by Faith in Christ, and Repentance, and new Obedience; And would by no means admit them to the favour of Justifica­tion, unless approved by a long and continued working, or at least purg'd by Circumcision and Sacrifices. For the Apostle shews in these words, that Abraham their Father (and so they in him) was called in the same manner from Idolatry, and the wor­ship of false Gods: And was, imme­diately after his belief of the Pro­mises, and Obedience given to the Divine vocation (yea before he was Circumcised, as is a little-after shew­ed) accepted of God. Who would not here admire the divine wit of the Apostle! Furthermore, this be­longs to all Justified, since there is none that is not guilty of hainous sins before Grace received, & so who doth not need Pardon, and Divine Remis­sion. Which the Apostle well proves by a Testimony out of David, ver. [Page 268] 6, 7, 8. And afterward the Apostle passes to the Controversie concerning Circumcision, ver. 9.’

The Author here indeed giveth the true sense of many verses in this Chap­ter, Rom. 4. But the fault is, he fain­eth the Apostle to bring them in Desul­torily, or as Ropes of Sand without any coherence; as when he saith, [The Apostle also considereth the former state of Abraham,] whereas the Apostle in this Chapter, brings it in Argumen­tatively; and, had the Author given a right Interpretation of the Verses be­fore, he might readily have seen how this of Abrahams being ungodly, comes in most rationally to prove, that Abra­ham was not Justified by Works, but by Righteousness Imputed to him, and that his Justification was of Grace, and not of Debt. So, whereas he tells us, that [the Apostle doth afterward, viz. verse 9. pass to the controversie of Circumcision] there is no passing to a new Controversie; but the Apostle there draweth an Argument from that, that Abraham was Justified upon his Believing and Obeying God before he [Page 269] was Circumcised; to prove that Abra­ham was not Justified by Works, in the sense wherein he opposes his Justi­fication by Works, as I have else-where made apparent.

Now he comes to give us the Result of his thoughts, how his sense of this Chapter, tends to Reconcile the two Apostles.

‘Hence there cleerly shines forth an Agreement between James and Paul, when from the same Example of Abraham, one concludes that a man is Justified without Works, the other by Works, viz. Paul consi­ders Abraham according to the Flesh; such as he was before his calling; but James considers him as now being already favoured with Grace and Divine Vocation. One denies his Justification by works done before Faith; the other ascribes his Justifi­cation to his works proceeding from Faith. And so, there is no contra­diction here between the Apo­stles.’

This is (if I may borrow a phrase from Refe­rente O­rigene, lib. 6. Celsus) like casting Lots what to say, [Page 270] to Reconcile the Apostles. And this is the common Evasion of the Papists, when an Argument is brought against them from such passages in Pauls Epi­stles, to prove that no man is Justified by the Merit of Works, or perfect Obedience.

Further, It is notoriously false, that Paul here considers Abraham as he was before the Divine calling, and his be­lieving. For,

First, He speaks expresly of him as believing, and having such a strong Faith as overcame great Oppositions; and of his being Justified by such Faith.

Secondly, He proves, that when he Believed and Obeyed, he was not Ju­stified by Works, in the sense where­in he excludes his Justification by Works, viz. by perfect Obedience, or Jewish Observations, or Meritorious Works.

Thirdly, He as equally excludes Works done after Faith, as before, viz. such works as he excludes.

Fourthly, The Apostle brings this Circumstance, to prove he was not Ju­stified [Page 271] by Works, viz. That he was Justified before Circumcision, ver. 16. which he could not have done, had he in speaking of him considered him as he was before the Divine Call, so as to deny his Justification by works done before it. For had this been his mean­ing to deny his Justification, only by such works done in his estate of Hea­thenism; it would rather have further­ed this denial, and have added force to it by way of Argument, could he have shewed that Abraham's Justifica­tion was not till after his Circumcisi­on, and Receiving the Seal of the Co­venant.

Fifthly, The Pharisaical-Jews which the Apostle there opposeth, would not, be sure, pretend that Abraham was Justified while he lived in Hea­thenish courses, before the Divine Call, that the Apostle should need to oppose it. Yea, it was their Interest, if they would maintain their first Opi­nion, of Excluding the Uncircumci­sed Gentiles from Salvation and Justi­fication, to Plead (though false) that Abraham was not Justified, till Cir­cumcised; [Page 272] or, (which is true) that he was not Justified while he lived in Heathenish courses, as they might pre­tend (though falsly) the Uncircumcised Converted Gentiles did. But for the true meaning of this whole Chapter, since I would not needlesly repeat the same thing: See my short Discourse of the Apostle Paul's meaning.

Thus I have set before you all con­siderable, that our Author saith con­cerning the only two Arguments, that he tells us, the Apostle Paul maketh use of, against Justification by the Law, and Works, that concern the whole Body of the Mosaic-Law, containing in it (as he saith) the Moral-Law. He next proceeds, viz. Chap. 14. to tell us how the Apostle opposeth the Ritual, and Ceremonial-Law, but he spends but few Lines about it; saying, there is no dispute about that among Christians.

Chapter 15. is spent in Citing out of some Authors, some sayings of the Jews, in Defence of the Power of Free-will, without the Grace of the Spirit, which he speaks against, though [Page 273] many of them may be capable of no ill Construction; possibly meaning no more, than that men have the natural Power of Free-will (without which they cannot be men, or guilty of sin) from common Providence: And not that the Will is not Morally insuperably wicked without Grace.

Chapter 16. He well shews out of Jewish Authors, that it was a common errour amongst them, to think they per­fectly obeyed the Law, and did all it re­quired; if they didbut some few Exter­nal things, thinking those Precepts that required Inward-Holiness, and Heart-Obedience, were only Counsel, and not Commands; and so, in stead of bringing up their Lives to the Law, they maintained such Opinions as brought the Law down to their Lives; as, that it required no more than an Ex­ternal partial Obedience.

But I cannot but wonder at his Co­rollary which he draws hence, and makes use of as an Argument against others; which is this: Pag. 318. ‘Hence it is manifest, that they do [Page 274] widely Err from the Scope of the Apostle, that hold that he disputes against perfect Obedience to the Law, as a defended and received Opinion amongst the Jews; for it is manifest out of what I have said, that they were so far from this per­swasion, that they were content to stand still within the bounds of too Imperfect Obedience.’

Is this Author serious? Let me ask a few Questions seriously. Whe­ther is it more likely, that this Au­thor should maintain Perfection in this Life, and that a man may be Ju­stified by the Law, without the Gos­pel, and Pardon; that holds there is not any Law of God, that requires more than Christians that are sincere, ordinarily perform? Or he that holds, that God is so Holy, and his Law so Exact, that though he believes God will accept his weak Endeavours, yet thinks, he falls short every day in many things, so as to need Pardon, and the Blood of Christ for such fail­ings?

Whether is a Protestant that holds he falls short of his Duty in every thing; or a Papist, that holds that God's Law requires so little, that he can su­per-erogate, and do more than God requires, likelier to hold Perfecti­on?

Whether is a man that holds, that God's Law requires him to Love and Serve God with all his Heart, and Soul, and Strength, likelier to hold Perfection in this Life, or a man that holds, that Luke-warmness is no sin? As a great DoctorDoctor Taylors Ret. of Prayer, Serm. 5. pag. 46. doth in these words: ‘There is but one thing in the world that God hates beside Sin, and that is Indifferency, and Luke-warmness, which although it hath not in it the direct Nature of Sin, yet it hath this Testimony from God, that it is Loathsome and Abominable; And excepting this thing alone, God never said so of any thing in the New-Testament, but what was a direct Breach of a Commandment.’

This Author takes much pains (pag. 327. &c.) to prove, that the Church of England in the Eleventh Article of Religion, by these words, viz. [We are accounted Righteous be­fore God, only for the Merit of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, by Faith, and not for our own works or deservings. Wherefore, That we are Justified by Faith only, is a most wholsome Doctrine, and very full of Comfort.] I say, by these words, doth not attribute any Effica­cy or Dignity to Faith, more than to other Virtues, in the business of Justi­fication. Now, I dislike not this at­tempt at all, and so shall say nothing here.

To conclude, The Reader may hence see how Improbable that is, which he tells us in his Epistle Dedicatory to the Reverend Lord Bishop of Glocester; saying. ‘He did nothing in putt [...]ng out this Book, but having f [...]t con­sulted him, and that it was put out with his Aid or Assistance (ausp [...]ci [...]s) And that the Bishop read delibera [...] ­ly [Page 277] every Chapter of either Disserta­tion, and approved them with his Vote, and adorned them with his Praises.’

Some of this Book is indeed com­mendable; and his Lordship, might commend that; But it may be obser­ved, that we have only this Author's word, for this over-high Commenda­tion of his Book, and every part of it; Who also cannot but be suspected, to have had great Temptation to pretend it, to gain Repute to his Opinion, by so great a Name of so Reverend a Pre­late, and Learned a Writer.