Rectifying Opinions Contrary to the Doctrine of the Church of England

THE Author to the Reader.

I Published about two Years since, some Sermons called, The Great Propitiation; and thereto Added a short Discourse concerning the Apostle Paul 's meaning by Justification by Faith, without Works. About half a Year after, there came forth a Learned Book, called, Harmonia Apostolica, written by Mr. George Bull, which quite crossing the Interpretation I had given of Saint Paul, I was Occasioned by some Occurrences, which it concerns not the Reader to know, to Write the substance of these Reflections upon it, which were Written within less than three Months after it's coming forth, without any Design of Printing them. And since I had Written this, there is Published a Discourse of Mr. Charles Gataker (Thomae 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Filii ) wherein he signifying his dislike of Mr. Bull 's, Propounds a third way to Reconcile the Apostles, Paul, and James. What my thoughts are of Mr. Bull 's way, you will here see. I think he hath in the main, spoken right concerning the sense of Saint James; But I think Mr. Gataker, hath given the right Interpretation of neither, and judge that I have said enough in my Book fore-mentioned, to make it appear, and so hath Mr. Bull in his.

I grant, and lament it, that many Important Doctrines of the Reformed Churches, are frequently by too many grossly Explained, so as to have ill Consequences following from them; which if rightly Explained, would be found not to Patronize, but to disown such Consequences. And hence many Learned men, seeing the Intolerableness of such consequent Opinions, and not being able to Extricate themselves, deny Important truths, and maintain such Opinions as these following (which are the Foundation of the greatest part of Mr. Bull 's Book opposed, and would make an intolerable change in the very substance of the Body of Divinity) viz.

(Which yet, you will see, I grant in one Limitted sense of it, to be true.) (Which Reason is only true in a sense, nothing to the purpose; but it is dangerously false, to deny a man is bound to do what he cannot do, in another sense, viz. Upon the account of his Morally insuperable wickedness, as I have else-where at large shown.)

Also, These following Expositions, would alter the very substance of the sense of most Important parts of Scripture.

(Take notice, I charge not this last mentioned Exposition, as maintained by Mr. Bull, though it be by many others; and though it must follow by consequence, if what he maintains be true, viz. That Moses 's Law had no Internal Precepts.)

I judge, what I have here written, may be of use for the clearing of those in Dispute, and many other passages of Scripture, and for the Confutation of many dangerous Opinions, or I should not have permitted it's Publication. I shall not here needlessly use Protestations concerning my Fidelity, in representing, by a Translation, Mr. Bull 's Discourse, since it is commonly accounted a sign of Guilt, to clear one's self before accused. If any should suspect me of Disingenuity herein, let me desire them to read the passages here replied to, out of Mr. Bull 's Book itself. And to encourage (so far as my word will pass) them that have it not, to procure it; I shall say, that much of it is well worth Reading; and that I am far from passing that censure on the rest of the Book, which I do on the parts here replied to. May but what is here written be so read and considered, without prejudice and passion (which may well be expected from ingenuous Lovers of Truth) that it may have free Influence upon men's understandings according to the evidence it brings: I shall not much doubt of it's good success, in composing many differences in Opinion; Which is the Prayer of the Author.

ERRATA.

PAge 27. Line 17. Read so speak, Marg. r. Heavenly. p. 34. l. 16. after here, r. in. p. 67. l. 23. instead of also, r at Sinai. p. 75. l. 17. after fatuus, r. of a new Covenant. p. 90. l. 5. for was, r. as. l. 6. r. on us, p. 108. l. 25. after ask, r. as I would ask. p. 125. l. 20. for Arguments, r. Argument. p. 168. l. penult, r. exiguum. p. 171. l. marg; 20. r. Adulterio. p. 208. l. 15 for to, r. do.

An endeavor to Rectifie some prevailing Opinions.

T He 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 judge 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 now when he begins at the 6th. Chapter of the second Dissertation, to tell positively what the Apostle Paul means by excluding Works of the Law from Justification, and what he means by Works, and by the Law; The sense he fastens on the Apostle is quite remote from his meaning, and would not only make the whole discourse of the Apostle, about denying Justification by works, a vain useless Speculation; but also would bring in such intolerable Opinions as these following, at least by evident consequence, viz.

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

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

Thirdly, That there is no possible Argument against Popish perfection or meriting, so far as to need no pardon, from those passages in Paul's Epistles, that deny Justification by Works; but merely such a vain useless Speculation as this, That good Works done without knowledge of, or respect to a future recompense 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the first great Mistakes; and the occasion of all his other mistakes of the Apostle Paul's sense, in denying Justification by Works.

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

Now to prove against this, and that we must hold a Law threatening 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, threatening future misery, or misery after this Life, then Christ never satisfied for the future misery that was threatened to any; never died to free any from the wrath to come; from the eternal or future Curse of any such Law; but only from a temporal Curse, or Curse of this Life. The consequence is apparent, because he knows not what he says, that should affirm, that Christ was made under the Gospel, to free us from the Curse of the Gospel; for the Gospel either threatens nothing (as many hold, but I judge 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 Honor, with safety to the Law make this Act of Oblivion, this Law, of Grace, the Gospel: Therefore surely that first Original-Law did threaten eternal death to sinners, and not merely Temporal punishment, else there cannot possibly be any satisfaction for sin, as to Eternal punishment at all, because the first Law to which the satisfaction was made, did not threaten it. Suppose a Law in force that every Felon shall be sold to work in the Galleys, and the King's Son paid a great price, and, by this, obtained of the King this conditional Act of Oblivion to be made, that if such Offenders will serve his Son in the Wars, they should be Acquitted, but if they shrink from such Service, they shall die. Here indeed was a price paid to free them from being Gally-slaves, but none paid to free them from Death; because the first Original Law that was transgressed by their Felony did not threaten Death, but only Slavery. And you cannot say, that the price was paid to free them from the Penalty of the Law of Grace, or Act of Oblivion, which doth threaten Death, but the satisfaction was made to the first Law only; though indeed the Act of Oblivion or Remedying Law, was made upon the account of the price paid in satisfaction for the breach of the first Law.

2. If there be no Law threatening wrath to come, or future misery but only the Gospel itself, then no man can be pardoned, or can need pardon by the Gospel, or the Blood 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 threatened 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 threatening 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 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 threatened 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 itself; it is a contradiction to say it may. For, (to answer an objection that may be in your mind) suppose a Law made, threatening the Offenders only conditionally; as threatening 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 anything the Law threatened, for the Law never threatened his death absolutely. So that you see there cannot possibly be pardon of a transgression from the Law itself, but only from another Law, a Remedying Law, or Act of Oblivion. Therefore the Gospel which is an Act of Pardon, or Oblivion for those that are guilty of the breach of another Law, cannot possibly pardon an offense against itself, 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 another 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 threatening Eternal death, or Wrath to come, (which Christ hath undergone a punishment for the satisfaction of) distinct from the Gospel, or the Law of Grace, that was founded upon the account of this satisfaction; and that all are condemned by this Law; and that as to Future and Eternal concernments; and that none are Justified by it: Which if the Author had considered, he would surely have told us better than he hath done, what the Apostle meant by the Law, and works of the Law, which he denies Justification by.

Yea, and you must hold, that this Law threatening 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 seizeth upon men's 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 Christ's satisfaction or pardon for such sins as are consistent with Gospel sincerity; which is an Opinion which I almost dread to mention, though the Author seems very confident in it, for he maintains, pag. 108. 112. That, so men do but chiefly mind the best things, do but observe the main Precepts of the Law, no Law whatsoever requires anymore of them; and also holds, that men after 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 threatened so much as conditionally with Eternal death (and so it follows consequently, as any one sees, that they need no pardon, or the Blood of Christ for such sins as to Eternal punishment) though yet he grants (but yet, any one may see, with some reluctancy) That pag. 117. All do sometime or other of their lives commit some either sin, or sins, that deserves Eternal punishment, and consequently needs pardon, and the Blood of Christ. Now if it be true that he saith, that, No Law of God requires anymore 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 endeavors as he mentions: but I cannot enough express my dislike, of saying, No Law doth require anymore.

Secondly, If the Law was abrogated by Christ's satisfaction, and the Gospel, as to its requiring perfect Obedience under a threatening of the penalty of Eternal death, of those that continue performing the Gospel-condition; Then we must not say, that Christ died to obtain the pardon of those sins that are consistent with Gospel-sincerity, but died to prevent them from being Sins, and Transgressions of the Law, that would otherwise have been sins; or to prevent such sins from legally des •• ving, or being threatened 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 transgressor 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 something not right concerning it, and especially he is widely mistaken in making that the chief, yea, the only Law of Moses that the Apostle speaks against Justification by in those places, where he speaks against Justification by the works of the Law, though yet I do think that the Apostle had in some places a main respect to this Law of Sacrifices now to be mentioned, as Acts 13. 38, 39. Heb. 7. 11. 19. Chap. 9. v. 8. 18. Chap. 10. v. 1. &c. The Instance is this, Page 121, 122. where he rightly tells us;

( viz. Either I suppose by the Sword of the Magistrate if publicly known, or God would in Judgment cut them off himself) (and also I suppose to Typifie our greatest concernments in reference to another life) Now to the matter in hand: Suppose that the first of these Laws had itself run thus conditionally, that if any man commit any such offense 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 threatened not his death, but his or the Beast's, and so there was nothing of remitting, or pardoning anything 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 threatened 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 threatened 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, threatening the Offender's death absolutely, and a Remedying Law distinct; and we here see, that an Original Law and Remedying Law, are well consistent both in force. We cannot say, that the Original Law that threatened 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 threatened 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 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 threatened his death absolutely: nor, that the Beast did not die a 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 everyone, with a curse after this Life, that obeys not in everything, ] 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 threatened with Eternal death; or, that he is not condemned daily 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 threatened 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 executed without pardon; for the Law threatened 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 willful 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 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,

And for this reason, he cannot be of this Judgment, Because no man can do it. And adds pag. 108, 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. 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 Author doth) to say, Any Law doth not require perfect Obedience; for it is to say it doth not require all that it doth require. We may indeed say, the Gospel doth not require the perfect Obedience of another Law, that is, the whole condition of the Original Law, which it was made to pardon our failure in; because sincere Obedience only to that Original-Law, was made the condition of it: but it is impossible but the Gospel being a Law (it is a Law of Grace, commanding sincere obedience, with a penalty of our otherwise not having the benefit offered by it); I say, it is impossible, but that it should require perfect Obedience to what it doth require as it's condition, whereon we shall attain the pardon offered by it; and this condition is perfectly all that it doth require as a Remedying-Law, or Act of Oblivion: For, if there be anything 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 anything required by itself. If a man fail in anything required by the Gospel, under the penalty of having no benefit by it, he is Remediless.

Fourthly, Another fundamental cause of his Mistake of the Apostle's sense, is, want of true notions about the Law of Moses, which he thinks to be a Law that had only Temporal Promises and Threats, and to be void of Spiritual and Internal commands; and also that the Apostle only excludes it, and its works, from Justification. Now because I know not of any that speak exactly, and satisfactorily of the Law, in the several Notions and Acceptations of it, nor in all things 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 Author to the Hebrews, respecting the Law; where they take it in a different sense from that wherein it is mainly taken in the places now in dispute. My thoughts are these:

The Law of Moses, or Old Testament-dispensation, may be considered as to Temporal respects only; or, as to Conscience, or Life-to-come Concernments.

And first, to speak of it as to Temporal concernments only, it may in this respect be considered, either strictly, or as affording pardon.

1. The Law of Moses may be considered as to Temporal respects, in its utmost exacting Rigour, I mean in its utmost Rigour, threatening 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) threatening violent and untimely Death to all Transgressors of it, to be Executed by the Magistrate; or if secret from him, or in the Magistrate's neglect or default, by God himself, Lev. 20. 3, 4, 5. Yea, and it enjoined exclusion from Society, and from the Congregation, for pollutions, Lev. 15. Numb. 19. Which were, at least most of them, no sins (though so called figuratively) not being forbidden, being generally altogether Involuntary; and it might often be, a man's duty to pollute himself; as for Example, by Burying the Dead. Though yet it was a sin (yea, and might be a presumptuous sin in the sense of Numb. 15. 30.) to neglect wittingly the Expiation, or Purgation in that case appointed, and also to come into society, till the Purgation finished. This would take up too much time to speak more particularly & exactly of.

I would speak more plain if possible: let me Repeat it in other words, which may be plainer to some understandings. I say, the Law may be considered in this External political sense, viz. so far as the Offences might be Expiated by their Sacrifices, or were excluded positively by it, from being expiated by their Sacrifices (for that Exclusion was meant only as to Temporal punishment, taking no notice of the Future or Eternal): In this sense, 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 threatened 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 severe threatenings 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 threatened 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 offenses as to Temporal punishment upon sacrifice.) And so this Political Temporal-Law was (I will not say the Gospel itself, for it was not, but), if I may speak, a little Gospel in reality, a Law of Pardon as to the Temporal punishment threatened; and a Shadow or pattern, or Representation of its own (materially considered) Gospel favor in admitting Transgressors of it to favor, 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 threatened only what might be remitted by Sacrifice, or threatened 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 reality, in the sense I shall after speak of it in. He shows, the Law made nothing perfect as to Conscience, or future Concernments; and that Sacrifices did not Expiate any further than as to the purifying of the Flesh that they might come into the Congregation, and to the taking off of Temporal guilt and Punishment; but not as to Eternal, or Future-life punishment; or coming to the Congregation in Heaven; and also shows that they were a commemoration ( 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ) of Sins as to Conscience, and the Future punishment, but not an Expiation, Heb. 10. 3, 4. And that they did so far ( viz. as to Temporal punishment, and being excluded the Congregation) really Expiate being offered in the offender's stead: And, else indeed they could not have been Typical of the great Expiation, if they were not Expiations as to some things themselves; no more than the Brazen-Serpent could have been a Type of Christ's Healing or Saving, if it had never healed any. So the Law of Moses is taken also, Acts 13. 39. By him all that believe, are justified from all things, from which you could not be justified by the Law of Moses. That is, from all such great Crimes, as Idolatry, Murder, &c. for which there was no pardon in the Law of Moses, taken in this sense; but such were to die without mercy, no Sacrifice being appointed, or accepted in their stead: Though yet there was pardon for such by the Law of Moses, taken in the sense I shall speak of it in, viz. In the sense wherein it was the Gospel made in the Blood of Christ, and in the sense wherein David was, yea, and all others were, Justified and Saved by it.

For it is apparent, that a man might go to Heaven upon true Repentance by that Law (taken in the consideration, I shall ere long speak of it in) that Temporal death without mercy ( Heb. 10. 28.) was due to, by that Law: no Expiation being allowed for his sin, he sinning contemptuously, or presumptuously, or with a high hand, in the sense of those words, Numb. 15. 30. (which are Heb. 10. 28. interpreted by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , He that contemptuously sinned against, or set-at-naught, Moses Law, i. e. in some stubborn and vain-glorious way;) or he committing Idolatry, Adultery, or Murder, or some other particular Crime excluded, as Blasphemy, Witchcraft, Cursing or Smiting his Father or Mother, defiling the Sabbath, or being a stubborn and rebellious Son. As for Instance, David was pardoned and went to Heaven, and he never offered Sacrifice for those his Crimes; for there was none appointed or admitted in such case; for he was by that Law, in the sense in hand, to Die without mercy; and should have been put to Death, had there been any Superior 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, threatened by the Law in this sense, but what was fully Expiated by his Sacrifices, as to Temporal violent Death, and Exclusion from Society; and yet go to Hell, being no true Penitent, or sincere Servant of God. Because all the Crimes that a man might possibly be only guilty of, might be Expiable, and newly Expiated by Sacrifice, so far as their Sacrifices could expiate, though he never truly repented. It was only in some few cases of Injustice, that there was Confession to the party, and Restitution to the party wronged, required, else this Sacrifice was not accepted to Remission as to Temporal guilt, Lev. 5. 5. Chap. 6. 2, 3, 4, 5.

I would have spoken more largely and particularly, of the Law under this Consideration; and have given an 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 everyone would do so, ( viz. would lay it aside) for interrupting them, when speaking or thinking of the Apostle Paul's meaning, in most of the places in dispute, viz. Places denying Justification by the Law, and Works of the Law; since it is apparent, he speaks of Justification as to Conscience, and Future life, and speaks of Moses Law as referring to Conscience, and Future life, (which sense I now come to speak of that Law in.)

Secondly, The Law of Moses may be considered as to Conscience (Conscience essentially respects the Future state) and Life to come-concernments, viz. as requiring Obedience with a promise of Future happiness, and under the Peril of Future or Eternal death; and also as Remitting and Pardoning sins, as to Future misery. Now in this high important sense, this same Law (I mean materially, and in words the same ) must be considered, both as a strict Law, and a gracious Law or Gospel. What is a Law, but a signification of the Rector's will any way whatsoever, obliging the Subjects to Obedience, by promising rewards to the Obedient, and threatening punishment to the Disobedient. Now in this very Law in this high sense, there are significations of his Will, both of an Original strict Law, constituting Eternal or Future death due to every Transgressor; and of a Remedying-law, promising Pardon to Transgressors upon Repentance, and sincere Obedience: even as in the Temporal consideration of the Law, (already spoken of) there was a Law requiring the Offender's blood upon his failing in the least in it; else there could have been no Pardon of him as to violent death upon a Sacrifice, if the Law had not threatened death to him; and also there was the Remedying-law of Pardon upon a Sacrifice: So here this consideration, This very Law given in the same words at Sinai, did Reveal and Signifie these formally-distinct Laws.

First, A strict exacting of Obedience all their lives, to all that he commanded, under the peril of Future death, or wrath to come; else, as I have made apparent before, there could be no Pardon as to wrath to come, or Satisfaction by Christ for wrath to come, due by this Law, as to such sins. And in this strict sense, 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, endeavoring Obedience to all his Laws, Moral, Judicial, and Ceremonial, with the prevailing design, and bent of their Souls. Now in this sense, the Law of Moses was no Type or Shaddow, but the very Gospel, the Word of Faith which the Apostles Preached, Rom. 10. 6, 7, 8. And in this sense, David takes the Law in most of his Encomiums of it, and in this sense Justification and Salvation, are not denied to it, or the Works of it, by the Apostle, to them that lived under this Dispensation; nor to us by it: For it yet continues the same for substance, having the same Sanction, and Condition, or Precept in the general, viz. That if we sinners repent, and sincerely obey all his Commands, he will be our God to Bless us, to Justify and Save us from all our sins; Though many of the former particular Precepts are ceased, and some new ones added, and the whole Dispensation more intelligible and clear. It is apparent that the Law of Moses, though it was given designedly (as to the end of the Revelation of it) as a Covenant of Grace and Pardon, even for the Salvation of sinners, and not for their Destruction; yet it was given (subserviently still as to the same end of Salvation) also to Reveal the Law in its utmost exacting Rigour. For though an Original strict Law may really be, and so may be Revealed without a Remedying-Law; yet it is a plain impossibility to Reveal, (however so as Offenders should be sensible of pardon and favor 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 everyone that continueth not in all things written ] had these four significations, or did notify these four distinct Sanctions, with their distinct Conditions. 1st. Everyone shall be punished with a violent Temporal death, or, such death shall be due to him, that observeth not every External Precept. 2ly. Everyone shall remedilessly 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 everyone that obeyeth not every Command, both Internal, and External. 4ly. This Future-death shall remedilessly befall every such Offender that shall not repent of his sins, and sincerely endeavor obedience to every Command, Internal, and External. And to the like extensive Import, mutatis mutandis, that Promise [The man that doth them, shall live in or by them] may and ought to be Interpreted.

Now you will see these four grand Mistakes which I have here spoken to, causing the failings of his whole Discourse, in determining what the Apostle Paul means by Works, and by the Law, in denying Justification by Works, and by the Law; which Discourse I shall now propound to your View, Transcribing some of it Verbatim, yea, all that is Argumentative in it, without leaving out anything in the least material, and telling you when I leave out anything 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.

Chap. 7. He tells us what works of the Laws of Moses in these words, pag. 101.

I know you are at a loss about the Author's meaning; what he means by this Mosaic-Covenant, that no man could be justified by, as to Future life, though free all sin, and perfectly obeying the Moral-Law; because, this Mosaic-Covenant, promised no Justification as to Eternal life, upon any terms whatsoever. Now because you will not understand what he saith here, on the two Arguments he brings in the next words, which he pretends are only the Apostle's Arguments against Justification by this Mosaic-Covenant, and that this is all the Law and Covenant, that the Apostle proves against Justification by; I will bring together here, all that he saith, to tell us what he means by the Mosaic-Covenant, that there is no Justification by, as he saith, as to a Future life, though there was as to this Life; and you will see it apparent, that he means by it only that Law, or Laws, which I before cited out of him, by the name of an Original-Law, and Remedying-Law, which threatened 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 threatened 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 itself, and that Paul doth not dispute against being Justified by any such Law; And that the Law given from Mount Sinai however had no Promises or Threats of a Future life, not so much as obscure ones; and he builds the sense he gives of the Apostle Paul upon this Foundation. You have seen this passage already, where he saith, it promised no Eternal life-Justification, to any whatsoever, though Sinless, and perfectly keeping the Law, Pag. 208.

He speaks largely to prove this.

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 show, 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.

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.

2.

Fifthly,

Since this here recited, hath some dark show of proof, I shall before I go any further, manifest that the Author is notoriously mistaken, in affirming that the Covenant made in the Land of Moab, was not the same for substance, repeated with that made at Horeb, or Mount Sinai; but a Covenant having quite different Promises, and Precepts, the one carnal and earthly, the other Spiritual and Heavenly; and also in thinking that these two Chapters, 29th. and 30th. comprehended the whole Covenant made in the Land of Moab. Let these things be considered.

A Covenant in the strictest propriety of the Word, is a mutual Engagement of Parties, two at the least. 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 God's 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 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.

〈1 page duplicate〉 〈1 page duplicate〉 Sometimes the word Covenant, is used for the Promise of one of the Parties only, as God's 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 God's 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 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-well Sermon) was as follows: That actual Covenanting that was made at Mount Sinai, or Horeb, was in the first year, yea, within two months after they came out of Egypt, 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 Joshua, and Moses; and so there was great need to cause this new Generation of people, to enter actually into Covenant, to keep God's Laws, which Joshua 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 people's 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 for him Thirty days, viz. the whole Month after, Deut. 1. 3. and Chap. 34. 8. compared. I say Moses foreknowing this, and earnestly desiring to tie 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 knowledge 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. 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 veil 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 today, for a people to himself; that He may be unto thee a God, as he hath sworn unto thy Fathers, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, i. e. to give their Seed this good Land. And tells them, If they forsake God, and God bring on this Land the curse of the Covenant, written in the Book of this Law, and make it like Sodom, and Gomorrah; and men shall say, What means the heat of this great Anger? It shall be answered, Because they have forsaken the Covenant of the Lord God of their Fathers, which He made with their Fathers, when he brought them out of the Land of Egypt (that is, which he made almost Forty years since with the Fathers of this Generation at Sinai) v. 21, 25. And He spends the next Chapter, (which the Author makes part of his New-covenant) partly in telling them God would, when cast out of their Land for their sins, yet, admit them again to it, if they repent and turn, as He told them before; also (what ever this Author saith of that admitting no Repentance) as you may see apparent, Lev. 26. 40, 41, 44, 45, 46. Yea, this place of Leviticus, which is said expressly to be spoken at Sinai, v. 64. is rather more express for Repentance, being accepted, than this the Author so much insists on. And partly in telling them, that he hath told them plainly, what the Laws of God are, which if they observe they shall live, and need not go beyond the Sea, to inquire 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 Joshua, before the Lord in the Tabernacle, that God might give Joshua a charge, Chap. 31. 9, 10, 14, 15. and in Speaking and Writing the Song, called Moses Song, and teaching the people it, v. 22. And in blessing the people, Chap. 33.

And observe, This Deuteronomy, this Fare-well Speach of Moses, all of it, (however to the 29th. Chapter ) was, when Moses had written it, given to the Priests with a command that it should be Read, in the hearing of the people met together, every Seventh year, as being very suitably 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 Joshua. You see now, there is no color to pretend, that the Covenant spoken of, Deut. 39. 1. means only that Chapter, and the following; much less that these Two Chapters only of all Moses writings, have only Spiritual commands, and Spiritual promises; and give way and make Promises to Repentance. For, as for the Spirituality of the Laws in this Chapter, it doth not Recite the Laws they were here engaged to obey, not so much as the Ten Commandments, whereof some are sure Spiritual commands, and the sincere observing of them, is certainly the condition of the Gospel, but show plainly, This Covenant obliges them to keep all the Laws given at Mount Sinai. And for the Promises, and Threatenings, 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 threatened for their sins; if they shall confess their Iniquities, and the Iniquities of their Fathers, v. 41. And if their uncircumcised heart be humbled, and they then accept the punishment of their Iniquities; I will not cast them away, but will remember their Land, v. 45. I will, for their sakes, remember the Covenant of their Ancestors, whom I brought forth out of the Land of Egypt, (that is, This at Sinai, for none other of their Ancestors were brought out of the Land of Egypt) v. 46. These are the Statutes, and Judgments, and Laws which the Lord made between him and the children of Israel, in Mount Sinai. So Deut. 4. 29. If ye shall be scattered for your sins, amongst the Heathen, being driven out of your own Land, and shall there serve other God's of Wood and Stone; If from thence thou shalt seek the Lord thy God, thou shalt find him, if thou seek him with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, v. 31. For the Lord thy God, is a merciful God, Exod. 34. 6. He proclaimed himself thus from Sinai: The Lord, the Lord, gracious and merciful, forgiving Iniquity, Transgression, and Sin, &c.

As for Deuteronomy 29. 1. [ These are the words of the Covenant which the Lord commanded Moses, to make with the Children of Israel, in the Land of Moab, beside the Covenant which he made with them in Horeb]. It seems apparent to me, that this verse hath reference to the Laws, and Precepts before Recited by Moses, in his past Oration to the people, and the meaning of the words is this: These fore-Recited Commands, are the Laws which the people covenanted to keep; which covenanting of the people, the Lord commanded Moses to require from them, in the Land of Moab, beside that covenanting, which Moses required from the people in Horeb. Which I will make plain, in Reciting these words again, with the sense they are used in, in other Scriptures.

These are the words (that is the Laws or Precepts, for so words is used apparently, v. 9. and 2 Kings 23. 3. Deut. 27. 26. Exod. 24. 28. So also the Ten Commandments, are called the Ten-words, Deut. 4. 13. and Chap. 10. 4. And, the Words, ( Exod. 20. 1.) of the Covenant (By Covenant is here meant, the people's promise to obey, the people's 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 used appropriately for making a Covenant, will by no means bear; So that it is an apparent Error in the Septuagint to read 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , refering to 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 The meaning is, 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 expressly used, Josh. 24. 25. Joshua made a Covenant with the people that day, that is, caused the people to promise obedience to the Lord's Commands that day: The like sense the word hath, so far as concerns the Covenanting of the people, (2 Kings 11. 17.) in the Land of Moab, beside the Covenant (that is, beside their actual promising) which Moses made with them (that is, caused them to make) at Horeb, or Sinai.

But suppose this Verse should have reference only to the following Verses, in this Chapter and the following; his meaning can only be, These are the words whereby he engaged the people in a Covenant, distinct from the words whereby Moses engaged them in a Covenant to the Lord formerly. We find Joshua, a little before his death, again engaging the people in a Covenant, to obey God's 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 Joshua made with the people, besides the Covenant which Moses made with them at Mount Sinai, and in the Land of Moab. This might import, that it was a distinct Engaging of the people, from the other two; but not that it was another Covenant of God, having other Promises, and Commands, and Threats. We find the people in Nehemiah 's time, Nehem. 10. 29. entering into a Covenant; But, it was into the Mount Sinai-Covenant; It was to walk in God's Law, which was given by Moses, and we may see there, it was also to observe Ceremonial and Judicial commands. It seems they had not observed this New-covenant of this Authors, in these two Chapters of Deuteronomy.

Object. But may not this whole Book of Deuteronomy, being spoken in the Land of Moab, comprehend a new Gospel-Covenant, distinct from the Old at Sinai, and so that be serviceable to reconcile those passages of the Apostle Paul in dispute, the Author's way.

Answ. No: For the Apostle Paul cites, ( Gal. 3.) two Passages out of this Book, for words of the Law.

And again, There are, by far, more Promises and Threatenings in this Book, expressed in a Carnal Temporal and Terrence style, 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 Threatenings, 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.

This latter sort of Arguments, which chiefly respect the Ceremonial-Law, he leaves till near the end of his Book, and then spends but few Lines about them, as not being (as he saith) controverted by Christians.

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 have the same Author and Authority: Therefore he that knowingly neglects one Law, doth not keep other Laws, because of God's Authority in Commanding, or because of God's 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 man's natural Ability (and no more, not as much as an Angel's ability reaches to) so that if he fails in the least degree of this, he fails so much of love due to God by this Law, and is under its curse. It is essential to a Law, as a Law, that it require perfect Obedience to itself; and to deny this, would be to deny that every Law requires all that it doth require; anything 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 offense against itself. But he may be pardoned by another Law, a Law of Grace. In this strict sense no mere man in this life, not Josiah himself, ever loved God with his whole heart so highly as he ought, so high as the Law in this sense required; however, me thinks, he should not have pretended it of all the people of Israel in Asa 's time, but have sought some other sense at least for those words, and that might have brought him to the sense I shall now speak of.

Secondly, These words may be considered as the condition of the Remedying-Law made with them for the Merit of Christ, then to come; as taken with this Gospel lenity, that if they love God with the prevailing bent of their Souls, or above all other things, they shall be pardoned, escape the curse of the Law in its Rigour due. And in this sense, a man loves God with all his Heart, and Soul, as far as God by his Remedying-Law, requires for his Salvation, and so obeys the Law taken in this sense perfectly; that is, loves him so much as it requires, as necessary to his Salvation; that doth it thus prevailingly, though he fail in the degrees, he ought to love God by the strict Law, and so needs pardon. The meaning is not, that Asa loved God as much as any Law required from him, and so needed no pardon, or Christ's satisfaction, for failing in any degree of love due to, or required by God.

But to proceed with the next words of the Author.

Here he cites some Ancients for this Opinion, that God doth not require what men have no power 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 Heretic, that held this Opinion (that follows by evident consequence from the Authors Opinion): That every man (for that follows by consequence,) or that every man by that measure of Grace which God communicates to him, or is ready to communicate to him, may for any Impotency in him to the contrary, so live as not to fail in anything the Law requires, so far as to stand in need of pardon, or Christ's satisfaction for such failings. Yea, or this Opinion which he expressly 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 anything that deserves, or is by any Law threatened 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 anymore 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 daily failings ( viz. Because no man clothed 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 threatened with Eternal death, can live without need of pardon, or Christ's satisfaction:

But all men can live free from any great sins, deserving or threatened 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 threatened 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 (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 Catholic Doctrine of man's 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 daily 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 threatened 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 Grace, and Mercy, and Favor, and whatsoever God doth of Grace and Favor, 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 daily Incursion, nor forbidden; then they are (as some say the Ceremonies are) merely things indifferent.

If they be not merely 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 Christ's 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, nor deserve any Penalty. It would then be Injustice in God, to make any man's finger or tooth to ache 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 signify Eternal wrath.

But to go on with his words.

Then he brings in these places, Heb. 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 threatening Future misery upon Disobedience, but only the Gospel itself. 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 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 knowledge of sin. He tells us, None can be justified by that Law, that Christ bore the Curse of; surely then, that Law threatened 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 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 terms whatsoever. And then, methinks, the Author being a Disputant, might have had a strong temptation 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 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 threatened 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 these are the Gospel itself, 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.

viz. that Covenant established in the Blood of Jesus Christ, in which there is promised, not only Temporal, but Eternal Redemption, and

He might have said, Hitherto of all that hath any show, 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 myself 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 show, to support his Exposition of the Apostles words in such places, as this Book is Written to Reconcile to Saint James.

First, This Argument from a disability of the Law, to sanctify men (suppose it true, which is indeed true of the Law, as the Common-wealth-Law, but not when the Law is used in the sense wherein it was the Gospel, or Law of Grace; for then this Disability can only be affirmed, at the most, comparatively to this clear Dispensation since Christ) and consequently that Sanctification must be by some Grace and Favor of the Spirit; would by no means prove Justification to be of Gospel Grace, or Favor, 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 Favor, 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 human Nature of Christ; was of Grace and Favor, and by special Dispensation: but his Justification was of Debt by the Law, and of Justice in the strictest sense, and not of Grace, or Mercy, or Pardon, or by Imputation of Righteousness, to one unrighteous.

Secondly, The Apostle doth not anywhere, to my remembrance (though it may have a true meaning in a very remote sense) much less in any of the places propounded to be reconciled to St. James, make use of this Argument: That Sanctification is of Grace and Mercy, therefore Justification is so, and not of Works, or Debt. So that whether it be a good Argument or no, it is not the Apostle's Argument.

Thirdly, The Author seems now in the prosecution of this Argument, not to keep Justification, or Sanctification, or the grace and favor 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 favor of Converting a man: The other being a Law-Act, and consisting in acquitting, or absolving a man from an Accusation. He seems to forget that he had pag. 8, 9. well and convincingly confuted the Opinion of Grotius, who herein Symbolizing with the Papists, affirm's that the Apostle Paul by Justification, means not in a Law-sense absolution from sin, but Sanctification, or Purging from Vices; whereas there is not one place where the word, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , to justify, is used where it so signifies, except Rev. 22. 11. He that is righteous, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 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 ancient Manuscripts, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , let him do righteousness still. Now, as I said, this Author seems to forget this in the whole prosecution of this Argument, as, for Example, when pag. 253. he will have the meaning of those words [ Tit. 3. v. 7. That being justified freely by his Grace ] to be, that being enabled by the Grace of the Holy Ghost, to do those things to which Justification is promised: Which is, in effect, to say, being justified by the Grace of Sanctification; or, being justified by the gracious operation of the Holy Ghost in Sanctifying. Which also is an Interpretation alien from the meaning of those words. The meaning whereof is, as may appear to any, perusing the words foregoing; That, having the Gospel-condition wrought in us, by the operation of the Holy Ghost, being Regenerated, we might be justified by his Grace, that is, by his Grace in Pardoning; not by the gracious Operation of the Spirit in Sanctifying. For though the Grace and Favor of Sanctifying, be ascribed frequently to the Spirit as it's peculiar operation, yet not the grace and favor of Justification; but is peculiarly ascribed to God the Father, as Judge 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 Justification by Works, and by the Law, but these two (which I cited before, to show 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 men's 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 Threatenings, or Promises of a Future life, it was Ipsissimum Evangelium, the very Gospel itself: 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 threatened Eternal death, or promised Eternal life; Nor, in any sense wherein man's 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 threatened 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 threatened Future death. But I have already, even in the beginning of this Discourse, shown both the inevitableness, and absurdity, of these Consequences.

Yet because many maintain this Opinion of the Author for substance, 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 their evading the difficulties their Opinions are cumbered 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 men's sinfulness is given by the Apostle, as the cause, why men are excluded from Justification, as to Future life, by the Law: But men's 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, rejoicing the heart. The Commandment of the Lord is pure, enlightening the eyes; True and Righteous altogether, more to be desired than Gold (whereas Gold was worth a Temporal 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 wondrous 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 forever, for they are the rejoicing 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. Thou wilt show me the Path of Life; in thy Presence, is fullness 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 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, 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 men's 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 threatening of Future misery; and also Christ never bare any Future-life curse, or anything 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 threatened 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, 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 threatened Future misery, as appears by all the old Jewish Writings extant. Yea, the Sadducees were accounted by them as Heretics, 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 Sadducees error, 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 of God's 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 lie, promised, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 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 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 persuaded, 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 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 merely 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, thoroughly 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 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 show, that Life, and Eternal life, signify the same, Psal, 16. ult. Thou wilt show me the way of life, in thy presence is fullness 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 God's 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, 2 Cor. 6. 16. adds, Having these Promises, let us cleanse ourselves, &c. Which shows, That he understood these words, of God's 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 subsisting, and being in a Future-state after death. And this was that which the Sadducees 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 to a man's works in this life: But such an erroneous Opinion might possibly be held, (for anything 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 Savior'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 Sadducees) viz. That Abraham and Isaac were then in being, and also in Being in happiness; for, had they been utterly extinct, or in being, 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 favor) of men, being indeed, and subsisting after their death, but being in misery, and dead in the sense wherein the Law threatened 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 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 died in the Faith, not having received the Promises, but, having seen them afar off, were persuaded of them; and declared plainly, by confessing themselves Pilgrims and Strangers, that they sought a Country, and that not merely 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 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 built for them a City, not made with hands, Eternal in the Heavens.

These following, are the only colorable 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 typify such Life-to-come good, or evil things, it had no Life-to-come Promises or Threats; else, it would typify Promises of such F • ture-good things, in promising those Future-good things, which would be ridiculous to affirm.

Thirdly, In the sense wherein it did typify 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 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, 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 forever, 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 typify Soul and Conscience-concernments; but did not so far intermeddle with Conscience-concernments, as to threaten Future misery 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 favor and happiness, by pardoning their sins upon Repentance and sincere Obedience. It is apparent, The Heathens did ordinarily maintain this; and without doubt it was not their Error. 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 favor 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 thoroughly 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 if they had such Discoveries, these are as properly Promises of a Future-life, and threatenings of Future-death as those written.

Fourthly, It is apparent, that there was more clear 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 clearly, 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 clearly; 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 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 threatened 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.

And one in Answer to this Book, replying, that this is contrary to the seventh Article of the Church of England, which saith. In his Appendix to the third Part, pag. 150. He rejoyns, 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 threatened Future-death. Now whether this Author holds the Law of Moses threatened 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 style, as the Promises: so, it would be irrational, to affirm it threatened Future-death, but promised not Future-life.

Secondly, The promises made to Abraham, were made in as temporal a style, 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. 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 Threatenings of Future-death to the Disobedient, and Promises of Future Soul-life to the Obedient, than that to Abraham.

Sixthly, You cannot with any color reply, It is true, there are Promises of Future-life, and Threatenings 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 anymore, than a temporal Curse of the Law: For I have shown the obsurdity, of saying that he satisfied for the Curse of the Gospel in Moses writings threatened.

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 knowledge 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 Works; And also in the sense wherein it was the Gospel, or a Law of Grace and Pardon, hath no such clear and distinct Promises of Eternal-life, and threatenings 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 positively, 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 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 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-faced 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 clear Gospel-dispensation; That they themselves in particular, should enjoy the Future blessed state: For they that knew but little of Christ's 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, 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 threatening Violent, Immature, Temporal death to all External visible sins, and in some cases, allowing Sacrifices, in the stead of this violent death, in other cases not. And the occasion of the so using the word, Law, (which you may possibly think very Improper, when speaking of Conscience-concernments) is this; It was the common, yea, almost Universally professed Opinion of the Jews, sometime before, and about those days of the Apostles, taught them by all their Rabbies, As this Author also affirms, pag. 306. That the Law did not threaten Future punishment to any sins, but to those that it, as the common Law of the Land, threatened 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 threatened 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, forbidding Heart-adultery, and Heartmurther, and mere inward coveting, as the Tenth Commandment, and commands to fear and love the Lord, and walk in his Ways, and keep his Commandments with all their heart and soul, Deut. 10. 12. Chap. 11. 13. And it would not be Sense, or it would be Remiss sense to say, that keeping the Commandments (as for example, of not doing Murder, or not committing Adultery) with the whole heart, was only to abstain from the outward Fact, without avoiding the occasions, beginnings, or causes thereof; They held these were not properly Commands, that any penalty of Exclusion from Heaven, or that Future-life death was threatened unto; But that these Precepts, were only Councils recommended to them that had a mind to do the best, and that it was commendable, and men did well to observe them; but the refusing to obey these, was not sin by their Law, nor punishable with any Future misery. And the Scribes and Pharisees, the wicked Doctors of this, and some former degenerate Ages, making it their study almost unanimously to excuse themselves and others from inward Piety (which they were resolved against, as being the most difficult part of true Religion, and most ingrateful to flesh and blood) might have this pretence from the Law itself, 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 threatened 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 threatened 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 threatened Future punishment; but taught the people that if they were but justi ad legem (righteous according to the Law, in the sense that Seneca useth the word; saying, Exignum est ad legem bonum esse, ) that is, Righteous so far as the Law of the Land was to compel them by Temporal punishment, as all those were that had committed none of those Crimes, that were excluded from attaining Temporal pardon by Sacrifice, and had offered Sacrifice for their other External faults; they were as perfectly righteous before God, as their Law in any sense required them to be. So because the Law, as the Law of the Land, appointed no punishment for one that put away his wife for any light cause, so he did but set her wholly at liberty by a Bill of Divorce to marry another, they were taught it was no sin so to put away a Wife, Mat. 5. 31. Also, because the Law, as the Common-wealth Law, gave men liberty to require an Eye for an Eye, and Tooth for Tooth, and if they so required it, the Magistrate was bound to Inflict it, Deut. 19. 21. They were taught, it was no sin to seek this revenge in any case. And so, that the Commands of forgiving Injuries, were but Counsels, as Prov. 24. 29. and Chap. 20. 22. Say not, I will do to him, as he hath done to me, Lev. 19. 17, 18. Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thy heart, thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge, &c. But shalt love thy Neighbor as thyself, Rev. 25. 21. If thy enemy hunger, give him meat, &c. Exod. 23. 4, 5. If the Ass of thy enemy wander, or be fallen 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , which literally signifies, is in danger of the Court of the 23 Elders, that sat in the Gates of the City, and put Offenders to death by the Sword. Now, since Murderers in Fact were to be put to death only, & not they that only hated or reproached another, the Doctors hence gathered, and taught the people by this Argument, that none else was threatened 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 bosom 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 signify Future punishment, he doth so too. But I say unto you, that he that is angry with his brother without a cause; though his anger do not proceed so far as to kill him, nor to any outward Expression, is yet guilty of Murder in the sense of the Law, and so obnoxious to the Future death signified by you to be due to the External act, and meant by the Word, the Judgment, in the former Speech; which primarily signifies, putting to death with the Sword.

And he that shall proceed so much further in causeless 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ) who ordinarily punished Offenders, with stoning to death.

But whosoever shall, though not kill his Brother, yet proceed so far in wrath as to say, thou fool, i. e. to use the most Villifying and Approbrious expressions, shall be punished hereafter with death 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 signify Future torments. And the word should have been thus Translated, viz. Shall be in danger of the fire of the Valley of Hinnom or Tophet: For as it is Translated, it is apt to minister a doubt to the Vulgar, as if the two former sort of offenses were not by Christ accounted to be threatened with Hell; whereas had it been Translated according to the Words, it would have been more easy, 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 offense, viz. Anger, as they did to actual Murder.

Now it will appear to you, no great unlikelihood, 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.

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 from Heart-Adultery, or Heart-Murder, provided it proceeded not to the External fact. Now I look upon myself 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.

Answ. 1. I could easily, I think, make it appear, that the most of them held the contrary. 2. The most of the Citations produced, may be made appear, either not to prove that to be their Opinion, but are capable of another Construction, or they might be forced to that Exposition, to maintain now-acknowledged Errors 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.

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 Murder, and that taking God's Name in vain in Swearing customarily, or Lusoriously, or Idle, were sins; surely, then the Jews had Light enough to make them inexcusable in these things, before Christ's Sermon in the Mount, and so such were sins in them.

And for Answer to the second Argument, I can neither understand the Cogency, nor the Consistency of it.

First, It is apparent to me, that men are not one jot the less obliged by the Law, because of God's not giving them Grace to obey it, because I do not think that giving the Natural ability to Obey, is to be called giving Grace, or an effect of Grace, but of Justice, so as men could not in Justice be obliged to obey the Law without it.

Secondly, The Law of the Ten Commandments (for that is it the Doctor speaks of, and only pretends Christ's 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.

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.

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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , to fulfil, in this place, is by the word here opposed to it, which is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , to dissolve, or destroy the Law. Now it is apparent, that by Destroying, is meant Enervating, and Evacuating the Obligation of the Law, by a too favorable 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 gratify 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,

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 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 manner of Speech, or any akin to it, ever used in this sense; and therefore seems to be a way of citing Traditional Expositions. When Christ citeth Scripture, he useth to say, You have read, Mat. 12. 35. Mark 12. 26, Luk. 10. 26. Not as here, You have heard: And he useth to say, It is written, Mat. 4. 4, 6, 10. Luke 2. 23. and 10. 26. John 8. 17. Chap. 10. 38. Not as here, It hath been said.

Answer, 1. Then Christ doth not bring in these Names here, as he is wont to do, for he useth to charge them with making void the Law through Traditions.

2. It seems apparent, he means by the Scribes and Pharisees, the same that he doth by those that break the Commandments, and teach others so to do.

3. I grant they had generally the repute of the strictest Teachers, and Livers, as to External and less weighty matters of the Law; but yet they generally are charged to make void the Law by their Lives and Doctrines, as to Internal obedience, and most weighty concernments. Surely it is not all one as if he had said, Except your righteousness exceed the righteousness of Moses, Joshua, 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 sat in Moses Chair, and taught Moses 's Doctrine truly.

Answer 1. He doth so only in one place of this Chapter, viz. ver. 27. Thou shalt not commit Adultery.

2. Any one may yet perceive, by his following Opposition, what it is he meant by those words, and what it is he opposed, viz. Not the very Law, or the true sense of the Law, but that Exposition of the Law, which laid the stress on the word commit, as if it meant only commit with the outward Fact, and forbad nothing else: And it is apparent, the Scribes and Pharisees so taught.

The Doctor giveth us another Argument, taken from a saying of Saint John, which carrieth so little evidence in my opinion, that I would not have here set it down, but that he seems to lay so great stress, not only on this his Interpretation of Christ's Words, as being (as he saith)

but also upon that Scripture, as being (as he saith) a remarkable place to prove it. The words are these,

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 Christ's Teaching.

3. I cannot understand the consistency of these words, That the Law and Commandments, the Rule of men's 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 threatened 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 men's 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 something the Law now requires, as Baptism, and the Lord's Supper, for that will no more prove the Law imperfect then, then that the Law of God is now imperfect in not requiring circumcision; whereas the Law did then, as it doth now, require all to obey whatsoever he should any way whatsoever command them, and that under the penalty of Future-death.

5. You may see by what hath been said, That the Law, not as referring to Conscience, and Future-life; but as the Jewish Common-wealth Law, did allow or indulge some things; that is, so far as not to threaten violent death to them at all, and so in this 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 threatened with Future-death. As for example: The putting away a Wife for any cause, and Heart-murder, 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 remedilessly threatened to, and had offered Sacrifice for such as the Law allowed it for, they were either as righteous as any Law of God, in the utmost rigor; 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 threatening violent death to be Executed by the Magistrate. As for example, that did not love and fear God, and endeavor inward Holiness, and the repressing of the inward sins, which the Law in the Political sense required not. And again, All saved by that Law, did far less than was required by that Law, as the Original strict Law under the penalty of Future-death, For all saved, were pardoned as to Future-death, as to some Heart-sins; which could not be, if such sins were not Threatned with Future-death.

Now upon this false foundation ( viz. That the Law of God as to Conscience, required no more than it required as the Law of the Land) was without doubt built that Interpretation of the 18. ver. of Psal. 66. given by the Ancient famous Rabbi, David Kimchi, who upon the words, which are these [ If I regard iniquity with my heart, the Lord will not hear me, ] gives this as the meaning, viz.

For this, such Doctors did hold to be sin threatened with Future punishment, though it proceeded not to the Fact, but not any other wicked Thought or Intention.

And it seems apparent, the Apostle Paul took the Law in this Vulgar sense, when he saith Phil. 3. 6. He had been a Pharisee, and touching the righteousness which is of the Law blameless. That is, he had lived without fault, so far as the Law required in that sense, wherein the most Jews then, and he himself formerly (being so taught by his Master Gamaliel ) understood it, viz. in this external Political sense. And though he had formerly accounted that perfect Obedience to the Law, or however all required to his salvation; yet now he looketh upon such Righteousness as insignificant as to Future salvation, and understood the Law was truly 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 erroneous Opinion, that held that in this sense it availed to Salvation in a Future-life; and shows it in this sense, made none perfect as to Conscience, or Future-life concern's, but only as it threatened 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 men's sinfulness; as it is apparent he doth in those places, that seem opposite to St. James. (And this Author also confess it) For man's 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 threatened Future death.

You must observe diligently, as you desire to understand the Apostle Paul in many places, that he often passes from the Conscience strict sense of the Law, opposed to the Gospel, to the Common-wealth sense of the Law, as Gal. 3. and often runs them together, as Rom. 7. using the word sometime, in one of the senses, and intermixing passages that agree to it in the other; which I could give you, I think, a satisfying account of, and would endeavor by reciting the particular places; but that I am sensible, I speak more largely than is suitable for such a short Discourse as I intend.

Now, to draw to a conclusion of this long Digression, designed to help you to understand many Scriptures. Since so many took the Law in this low sense, as requiring so short an obedience, and foolishly promised themselves that Eternal happiness, in the observance of it so far, which it never promised them; It is no wonder that you find so many extenuating Expressions of it, in this sense. Not that any such Expressions extenuate it as the Common-wealth Law; for it was an excellent one imposed by the only Wise God, and fitted to the temper of the Jewish people, and to Typifie the great things; But they extenuate it: 1. As a way of Salvation, for it promised no such thing, made nothing perfect as to Conscience and Eternal life, though observed with the greatest exactness.

2. It is not extenuated as a shadow or resemblance, Typical of the great things, for it was a wonderful perfect Shadow and Type; But it is extenuated as being but a Shadow (which the the Jews would have to be the very substance, the way of Salvation itself) of the great concernments; a poor and beggarly Rudiment, or Element, or rude first Draught, or representation of the great Realities.

3. As that which was but Temporary, and to vanish away as this Typical Common-wealth Law was to do, at the fuller Exhibition of the things it was but a Type of.

4. This is called the Letter; the very outward Letter of the Old Testament for the most part (though yet frequently otherwise) holding forth the Law in this Common-wealth sense, with the rewards, prosperity in Canaan, and the threats, Temporal death. And in its being called the Letter, it is opposed to the Internal and Spiritual meaning of that Law, as it was the strict Law and the Gospel; and to this clearer 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 clear Dispensation under Christ, though that was the true way of Salvation from the beginning ever since man's fall.

5. The Law in this sense, is said to kill, and to be a Ministry of condemnation, though not only in this sense, I suppose, but also in this sense taken in Conjunction with the strict Law of Works revealed in, by, and with this Law. It is said to kill, and condemn: 1. Because this Law did condemn with Temporal violent death, everyone that did neglect any such external Work whatsoever. But did not justify 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 failed 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 justify any as to Future-life; Not the Political Law, through it's own weakness and default, having no such Promises to any performances whatsoever: 〈1 page duplicate〉 〈1 page duplicate〉 Not the Law in the strict Consciencesense through man's 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 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 expressly; 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 joined to their Attrition; explaining Attrition by trouble or affrightment for sin, upon the account only of danger to ourselves by it, without any sorrow for sin as an offense of a good God. So here we may without doubt say, that they that understood the Law, as requiring only such External Obedience without Love, or any Internal, and so did perform the External without any 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 burdensome 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 merely 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 choose through Religion, and love to Holiness, to promote and increase Holiness, the Image of God in his soul; which may be said of almost all the Precepts under this present clear 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, threatening 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 man's performing the condition. This was no Shadow, or Type, or beggarly Element.

Secondly, There was a Sense, yea, and this was the chief Important sense, wherein the Old Testament Dispensation, or Law of Moses, was the Remedying-Law, or the Gospel-promising Pardon as to Future-life, of all Transgressions of the Law, in the strict sense, upon Repentance and sincere Endeavor, to obey all God's Commands, Internal and External. The Apostle never speaks against the Law in this sense (however no way except comparatively to this clearer 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 itself. The perfect Law of Grace converting the Soul, and giving life to men converted. This was the Law of Grace, that Moses, Samuel, and David, yea, and the same for substance, that Abraham was justified and saved by: For it was this, That if men did sincerely repent of their sins, and believe God's Testimonies, and Love, and Fear, and Serve God, and endeavor 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 easy, Because his business in that Epistle, was against those Judaizers, that would impose it on Christians, to comply so far with the Jews (however to avoid Persecution, For the Jews in those days, were the chief Promoters of all their Persecutions) as to keep the Law of Moses in the sense wherein it was now ceased, and they were not to keep it: Therefore he taketh no notice of the Law in the Conscience-sense, 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 shows 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 tolerable Interpretation of such Passages of the Apostle's used in Derogation to the Law, without such Notions and Distinctions of the Law, as I have here described and explained; and also I hope, that any one of ordinary abilities for such things, may, holding to these Notions of the Law, give a rational and satisfactory account of the most Scriptures of such derogatory import.

And now to go on with the Words of the Author, who having before told us, that the Apostle's Argument against Justification by the Mosaic-Law, was from the double defect of the whole Mosaic-Law, or Dispensation to sanctify men: First, from an External defect, that it promised no Future-life. Now he comes to speak of the Internal defect.

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 shown in another Discourse, the absurdity of this Opinion, and that the gracious opperation of the Spirit, and the effect of it is something that men can sin without; And therefore, that men have the Natural power to obey some other way, and not from this, though not the Moral, but have this Moral power from this Grace of the Holy Spirit.

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

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

( viz. In the prosecution of this Argument of the Apostle)

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,

Unless he will say, that no Virtue and Righteousness pleasing to God, was known to them (which would be to make his concession insignificant) or that these Heathens did super-erogate, or did more than they had ability to do; or than the Law of Nature required from them.

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

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

I shall let many things pass, that I might here rejoin to show 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 show how improbable it is, that men should fancy themselves to have, or believe others, telling them they have power to do things they have an Impotency to do; (taking Impotency as this Author apparently doth, for the proper natural Impotency, distinct from wickedness, for a cannot, distinct from a will not. ) For it is not ordinary for Multitudes to fancy this, nor to believe them that should tell them so, nor for any but wonderfully weak and fanciful men: Though I know it is too common for men, to have better thoughts of themselves than they should, in reference to their Morals, and so to think they are not so wicked as they are; and that they have no Moral-Impotency (which is wicked Obstinacy) to the doing those good things, they have the Natural power to do. I say, letting these things pass; And also, letting pass what I could say, to prove that the Apostle would never have contradicted these Opinions, viz. That men might have been Justified, had they done all the Law of Moses, or Nature, required of them; so as only wicked willfulness (which is the Moral-Impotency) hindered 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 itself.

I say, setting these things aside, I shall only mind you how Inconsistent with themselves (as well as with one another) both these Arguments are, which he pretends, are the Apostles two main (if not only) Arguments against Justification by Works of the Law of Moses. I have shown before, (in speaking to it) the Inconsistency of the first Argument with itself, which he saith, leaneth on two Foundations, viz. 1. That all men are guilty of great sins, so that they cannot be Justified as to Conscience, by the Law of Moses. 2. That the Law of Moses promised no Justification as to Conscience, on any terms whatsoever; whereas one of these can only possibly be a reason, why they were not Justified by the Law of Moses. For if that Law promised no Justification on any terms whatsoever, then their being sinners, can be no reason why they were not Justified by that Law; And again, if their sins were the reason why they were not Justified by the Law of Moses, then the Law did promise Justification to them, on condition of their being free from such sins: So this second Argument which he ascribes to the Apostle ( viz. That none could be Justified by the Law of Moses, because of two Internal defects of the Law, which are, that it had no promise of Future-life Justification, and that they had no ability to do the things it required for their Future-life Justification) labors with the same 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ; 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 expressly) 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 showing this Opinion would inevitably destroy Christ's satisfaction, for any (though Partial, or Temporary) defect of true Piety. I shall further ask, Had the Jews under the Law of Moses this Gospel that required true Piety? Or had they it not? If they had not this Gospel, either they then had ability to perform the true Piety required, or had not; If they had ability to perform it, then they had no need of this Law of Moses, to promise Future-life Justification, or to give them ability for true Piety: If they had no ability to perform true Piety, which the Gospel required of them. This is to say, the Gospel required of the Jews what they had in no sense any ability to do; which this Author denies (as well he may, taking Ability in the strictest sense) any Law of God to require. Yet, this Author here (forgetting himself I suppose) hath run himself into such straits, in affirming, the Jews could not perform true Piety without the Spirit, and that this Spirit was denied them; which is to say, they could not at all perform true Piety; That he must grant this of the Gospel, or some Law, that it required what they had in no sense any ability to do, (which without doubt is false) or he must deny, that God required any true Piety of them, by any Law whatsoever; which Evasion I suppose, he will not make use of.

I shall ere long take notice of this.

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

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

Thus far well. He goes on verbatim thus:

Since this Objection hath a colorable show, and the right Interpretation of this Chapter, Rom. 4. doth depend wholly upon it (as I have shown 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 signify Accounting of Grace and Favor, 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 signify properly, and in the first sense, merely the immanent Acts of the Understanding, as to Think, Esteem (as also the immanent acts of valewing, computing Sums together, devising, inventing, though not so primarily:) Now when these words are used in this sense, they may be according to the reality and truth of things, or not according to the reality or truth of things. If there be an Accounting, or Esteeming, in this sense, not according to the reality and truth of things, it is an error 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 mere immanent Acts of the Will, but transient Acts proceeding from it, and caused by it. Therefore let this proper and most common use of the words pass, as not capable of being meant in such Speeches.

Sometime these words are used, not for Acts of the Understanding, as I said; But for the Rectoral transient Acts of Rewarding, or Punishing, of dealing Kindly, or Severely; Graciously, or Justly. For these words, when used of such transient Acts, are capable of either of these significations; and which of the significations they have in particular places, is known readily by seeing whether it be some good or evil, that is reckoned, or imputed, or whether it be some good or evil thing that is not reckoned 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 signify 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 mere Act of the Understanding) then it follows, that when ever we read of Imputing, or accounting to a man, a thing that is a good thing (as here Righteousness or Reward) then it is an act of Grace or Law acceptilation and kindness, and that God might justly have done otherwise; because the word Implys, a man had not that Righteousness, that perfect Innocency, that was accounted to him; And also when ever we read of God's not Imputing, or not accounting that which is evil to a man (as Sin, Iniquity) then it was an act of Kindness, or Grace, because the very word Implys, the man had that sin, had done that evil, that was not accounted to him.

Now to make it appear, that these words when they do not signify a mere immanent Act of the understanding, but are used in the sense of doing good or evil, kindly or severely, yet they always signify the accounting something that is not, or not accounting something that is the thing respectively, as I have said.

First, Let these Scriptures be considered, wherein the words are used in the Penal, or Inimical sense, and not in the Benigne, rewarding favorable sense, Lev. 7. 18. Where, speaking of a man's 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 offense 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 Murderer, Murder shall be Imputed to him, viz. He shall in judgment of Law, be accounted a Murderer, so far that the same punishment shall be due to him, and Inflicted on him that would have been due, if he had committed Murder; not that he had in reality, or was esteemed in reality to have shed Human blood, Philemon, verse. 18, 19. where there is a word near akin to this, but not altogether the same. If he have wronged, or oweth thee anything 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 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 myself 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 favorable 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 error into his understanding; but that he would graciously pardon it, and consequently no more punish it, than if he judged it not committed, Numb. 18. 27, 30. This your Heave-offering shall be accounted or imputed to you, as the Corn of the Threshing-floor. That is, whereas the people are commanded to offer their Tithes, and their first-Fruits to God, or they cannot without Sin and a Curse, enjoy the rest; Now saith he to the Levites, If you pay this part, the giving of this shall by God's favor be available in Law, to your benefit and comfort, in freeing you from a Curse, in employing 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 impossible, that there should be sin committed by a man without a Law, it would not be Imputed, he would not be guilty, obliged to suffer, would not be treated as an Offender, Rom. 4. 11. That Righteousness might be imputed to them (viz. the Gentiles) also. That is, That though they be sinners, and so have not Innocence and Righteousness in reality, yet it shall upon their becoming Christians, be Imputed to them, Rom. 2. 26. If the uncircumcised keep the righteousness of the Law, his uncircumcision shall be accounted for circumcision. That is, though a man be not Circumcised, and so be one that you much despise, yet if he live holily, he shall be respected by God to all intents and purposes, as if he had been Circumcised, Rom. 4. 8. cited out of Psal. 32. Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute iniquity, implying there is iniquity, but he will pardon it, and not impute it; Interpreted by that, his sin forgiven; therefore it Implys there is sin, but not Imputed. Not that God accounts he never committed it.

These words are also used in the Scriptures following, but are used in something a different sense from the words fore cited; because, as you may observe, they are not capable of being Translated by the word Impute, as these above mentioned all are, viz. Job 33. 10. Chap. 19. 11. Chap. 13. 24. He counteth me for his enemy, Gen. 31. 15. Are we not accounted of him strangers, Job 19. 15. My Maidens accounted me for a stranger, Hos. 8. 12. I have written to them, the wonderful things of my Law, but they were accounted strange things, Psal. 44. 22. cited Rom. 8. 36. We are accounted as sheep for the slaughter. Now this may apparently be said of these Scriptures, that either the word signifies a mere Thinking, a mere immanent Act of the Understanding without anything of favor, 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 mere immanent Act of the Understanding, except that of Phineas executing Judgment, 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 sense; 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 signify mere 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 perversely. 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 shows in this Chapter, ver. 6, 8. compared. Imputing Righteousness without Works, that is, without a man's 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 Favor, 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, for reckoned of Debt: And therefore, the word reckoned, doth not signify reckoned of Grace, of itself.

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 reckoned of Debt, and not of Grace ] are an Argument to prove something said before, as appears by the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Translated, Now; and do lean upon this implied Foundation, to make them Argumentative, viz. That so the word reckoned cannot signify, when he saith, God accounted it to him for Righteousness, but signifies accounted it of Grace. The Apostle's Argument, is this. If the reward had been given to Abraham for his Works, as being a righteous man in the strict sense, free from all sin, or failing in obedience; it would not have been said, that God imputed Righteousness to him, which implies his being destitute of it: And he proves the consequence thus, For to him that worketh, that is, that Meriteth, or is Righteous by his own works, the reward is accounted of Debt, and not of Grace; and so it leans upon this, as being a thing apparent in itself, that so the word Accounted cannot signify, but signifies accounted it of Grace and Favor, imputedrighteousness to one not righteous, like not imputing sin, to one which implies the man a sinner. And the Apostle in the following verse shows, 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 expressly these words [ Shimei repented, or confessed his fault, and David imputed it to him for Righteousness] would it not have been all one as to say, David did upon the Repentance, or Confession of Shimei, not impute sin to him; And would it not be the same as to say, David pardoned Shimei upon his Repentance or Confession; and would not all these words [ imputed Righteousness, imputed not Sin, and Pardoned ] equally imply Shimei was a sinner, or one unrighteous, and consequently an Act of grace and savor, 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 implies 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 Laborers, 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 show 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 show of Merit: But God promised first before Abraham believed, and afforded him strength and all things naturally necessary to produce obedience before he obeyed, and so there was no Merit in his Faith and Obedience. I confess I am dubious whether I should grant this to be true, or not; or if I should grant it true, whether I should deny any such Suppositions may be allowed in Argumentation, since it would require many words exactly to determine this Logical dispute, and would also require more Logical acuteness, than he or I in these disputes seem to make use of, or is fit in this Controversy 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 show 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 show 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 show of Merit, that it could no way be commendable. And because some may think strange of such a conditional concession, let it be considered, that from a naturally impossible Supposition (as this of his is) contradictory Consequences may equally follow, as I could make appear, in almost any Instance: Take these, Si scirem me mortuum esse essem mortuus: And, Si scirem me mortuum esse non essem mortuus. If I truly knew I was not, I should not be: And if I truly knew I was not, I should be.

So, Si bestia intelligeret esset homo: Si bestia intelligeret non esset homo. Therefore, what Irreverence is it, at the least, for this Author to fasten such an Argument on the Apostle, as that either nothing can be concluded from it, or the contrary may equally be concluded from it? e. g. If Abraham had been Justified by Works, that is (according to this Author) by doing such works as he had in no sense any power to do, he might glory, or he had Merited; when it might as well at least be concluded, he could not have gloried, he could not have Merited. But yet to prevent the Antinomian Extreme, who use to say, we must not so much as Suppose things, or Argue from Suppositions, though only Morally impossible; remember I put in the word [ Naturally, ] saying, [ Suppositions Naturally impossible. ] For it is apparent, there may be rational Arguing from a Hypothetical proposition, which is not Naturally impossible, but only Morally. As for Example, in such Speeches as these; If a man not Elected, or to whom God did not Decree to give converting Grace, should Believe and Repent, he should be Saved: If a man accustomed to do evil, should do well, he should be Saved: If a man had turned from sin to God, before God converted him, it would have prevented many sad Thoughts of Heart. Yea, this may so evidently be supposed, that men's Hearts may and do reproach them, that they did not turn to God before God did actually turn them; or did give them such Grace as would actually prevail with them; because, before God did thus turn them, or give them the Grace of Conversion, they had the Natural ability to Convert and turn to God, and only their Moral-Impotency, which is voluntary Wickedness, hindered 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 liar 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 falsehood; though yet joined 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 error, 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 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 man's Disability to do any good, without the Grace of the Holy Spirit; which may much puzzle men not versed in such Discourses: And the knowing what he means by the word GRACE, would do much to show 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 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 imputable to God. But that a man having the faculties to understand, and do God's 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 • there than by merely giving Power or Ability to comply with the Gospel, pag. 55. And expresses his dislike of it, as a mere conceit for any to hold, that, Grace causeth actual willingness, or taketh away unwillingness to good, any further than by merely 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 anymore 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 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 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 honor of Grace in Conversion, by saying, that though one man's choosing when others refuse to comply with the Gospel, cometh only from the former well-disposedness of the man, and his preceding willingness to do God's Will, which the other wanted; yet this choosing 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 anymore towards Conversion, than merely give the power, and do not in the least cause the well-disposedness of any man, any further than merely 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 yielding to him; by yielding, that God by his Spirit doth more in Conversion, than merely give ability to the will to choose 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 Favor, consisting in doing something 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, 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 man's 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 fallen into this guilt, had he answered without Tergiversation these Questions? viz. Whether God did anymore 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 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 man's Conversion to Free-will, and the goodness of a man's Temper; than to ascribe man's being made (to use his own words) Malleable, and willing to obey God, to man's Free-will, and the goodness of a man's 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 Favor 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;

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, And would have it rather said, (and saith, all the Remonstants herein, concur with him) But if this be the Opinion of the Doctor, and all the Remonstrants, as he saith here, at 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 anymore 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 merely 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 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 God's 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 anymore anymore or less of Kindness in God, or engage men anymore or less to Thankfulness, to say, God by his ordinary 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 anymore 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 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 acknowledge it; That Grace actively taken for God's Act, or passively for the effect of this Act, in men's Conversion, sieth not in God's causing, or man's 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 God's doing or giving, and man's receiving something from him, that man hath the ability to choose 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 men's receiving something, that God is not bound in Justice to give, or to hold 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 Favor, or Kindness at all: Do not mistake me, I mean only; It is not of favor 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 Favor and Kindness, and a great one too, to give men ability to choose the Good, and refuse the Evil; because, without it, they would not have the very Natural power of obtaining the 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 choose the Good, and refuse the Evil: But yet upon Supposition, that he will require them to choose the Good and refuse the Evil, it is necessary in justice, that he give them so much ability, to choose 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 choose the Good and refuse the Evil, is of Grace, and Favor, 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 shown 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 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 judge that his Lordship (having as himself confesseth, not much studied such things) had not very clear 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 easy 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. 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:

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 easy of Conception, (and it is indeed too easy 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 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 Fabric, 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 judge that one great cause of Doctor Hammond 's mistakes under debate, as well as of this Author's, was chiefly their want of distinct Notions about Natural and Moral Impotency, as appears by their affirming, as both of them do, and the Doctor particularly, pag. 86. that, It is a direct contradiction to hold a Power in one sense, and a want of Power in another sense, to the same Act; to hold, That a man hath a Moral impotency, to do what he hath a Natural power to do: And consequently, also his not distinguishing between Natural and Moral Irresistibility. It is also apparent, that another great • 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 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 show 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 satisfy me, that I have not said enough there to this end, or that there is anything said in those Leters, that needeth a more particular answer, I may probably say more: For my great Aversation to such Principles, will much incline me upon an easy 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 Labor of my weak Endeavors.

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

The Author here indeed giveth the true sense of many verses in this Chapter, Rom. 4. But the fault is, he feigneth 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 Abraham's 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 controversy of Circumcision] there is no passing to a new Controversy; but the Apostle there draweth an Argument from that, that Abraham was Justified upon his Believing and Obeying God before he was Circumcised; to prove that Abraham was not Justified by Works, in the sense wherein he opposes his Justification by Works, as I have else-where made apparent.

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

This is (if I may borrow a phrase from Celsus ) like casting Lots what to say, to Reconcile the Apostles. And this is the common Evasion of the Papists, when an Argument is brought against them from such passages in Paul's 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 expressly of him as believing, and having such a strong Faith as overcame great Oppositions; and of his being Justified by such Faith.

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

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

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

Fifthly, The Pharisaical-Jews which the Apostle there opposeth, would not, be sure, pretend that Abraham was Justified while he lived in Heathenish courses, before the Divine Call, that the Apostle should need to oppose it. Yea, it was their Interest, if they would maintain their first Opinion, of Excluding the Uncircumcised Gentiles from Salvation and Justification, to Plead (though false) that Abraham was not Justified, till Circumcised; or, (which is true) that he was not Justified while he lived in Heathenish courses, as they might pretend (though falsely) the Uncircumcised Converted Gentiles did. But for the true meaning of this whole Chapter, since I would not needlessly 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 Defense of the Power of Free-will, without the Grace of the Spirit, which he speaks against, though many of them may be capable of no ill Construction; possibly meaning no more, than that men have the natural Power of Free-will (without which they cannot be men, or guilty of sin) from common Providence: And not that the Will is not Morally insuperably wicked without Grace.

Chapter 16. He well shows out of Jewish Authors, that it was a common error 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, instead 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.

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 Endeavors, 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 everything; or a Papist, that holds that God's Law requires so little, that he can super-erogate, and do more than God requires, likelier to hold Perfection?

Whether is a man that holds, that God's Law requires him to Love and Serve God with all his Heart, and Soul, and Strength, likelier to hold Perfection in this Life, or a man that holds, that Luke-warmness is no sin? As a great Doctor doth in these words:

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 Savior Jesus Christ, by Faith, and not for our own works or deservings. Wherefore, That we are Justified by Faith only, is a most wholesome 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 Gloucester; saying.

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.