Opposition to Errors of William Sherlock, Chapter 4 · Section 2 (2 of 3)

Opposition to Errors of William Sherlock · Chapter 4 · Section 2 (2 of 3)

p. 503[4.] Our next Task must be to Combate with our Author's scruples, and certainly never did man so snithe with prejudices against Truth: It's hard to conceive how Abraham should learn this Mystery from that general Promise, [In thy Seed shall all the Nations of the Earth be blessed.] Prejudice will, I confess, make an easier matter than this very hard; and unbelief, impossible to be conceived: And yet were there not something worse than Prejudice at the bottom, the difficulty could not be insuperable: For, 1. Abraham had one Promise that we know of, to clear up the meaning of this. Several Promises give Reciprocal light to one another: The first Promise assured him, That the Seed of the Woman should bruise the Serpents head: This shews to Abraham the necessity of having that Enmity removed, which the Devil by sin had sowen between God and his Creature; p. 504the removing of this Enmity could not be, whilst Satan had the Dominion over the Creature: A Seed is therefore promised, to heal all that misery which sin brought into the World. This Promise was committed to the Church of God, which was a faithful Guardian, to keep so precious a Iewel committed to its trust: In this Seed (which God had now revealed should come out of the Loyns of Abraham) God promises Blessedness, which mutually sends light to the other Promise, that God would not only by the Promised Seed, Deliver from evil, but bestow all good. 2. Abraham might have other and better Comments upon both these Promises, than we are concerned to know; it's enough for us, that we are taught in general, that Abraham was justified the same way that we are; and what that is, the New-Testament abundantly declares: And therefore it's more ingenuous to conclude, That Abraham was justified by a Faith in Christ, because we are so; than, That we are not justified by the Righteousness of Christ, because Abraham was not so. 3. Abraham understood the true use of Sacrifices, which are a clear Paraphrase upon the Promise, in what manner God would reconcile the World to himself, namely, by laying the sins of the Offender upon the head of that Sacrifice, which in the fulness of time should be offered for a Propitiation to God. In the Faith of which grand Propitiation, all true Believers lived and died: And when at length he was exhibited to the World, Iohn the Baptist points to him, as the Accomplishment of all their former Sacrifiees, and the Answer of all their Prayers and Hopes: This is that Lamb of God, which takes away the sins of the World, John 1. 29. But, 4. The Promise p. 505it self is not so obscure neither, but that upon this single Supposition, That God would bless the World with spiritual Blessings in the promised Seed; they might easily conclude, they could not be blessed in themselves; and therefore not in their own works and deservings, but in the Righteousness of another, who must be more acceptable to God than themselves. 5. We ought to entertain charitable thoughts of God, of his Goodness and Mercy, that he would not preach to Abraham the Gospel in an unknown tongue; that is, would not give him a Promise, without the full latitude and extent of its meaning. And, 6. We are assured of the matter of fact that God did, because he had the same Gospel preached to him, That God would justifie the Heathen through Faith, Gal. 3. 8. Now as it's a strange way of Preaching, to speak in a Language not understood; so it's as strange a Gospel that knows no Mediator; no Redeemer. Whatever then was the Object of a Gospel-Faith, was the Object of Abraham's Faith (for substance) and whatever did constitute a Gospel-Righteousness, made up his Righteousness.

And yet after all this, our Author has muster'd up more self-created Prejudices, to stumble his own belief of the way of Abraham's Justification: For he supposes, that Abraham must believe many things incredible, and know many things not knowable, before he could come to the knowledg of the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness: As, (1.) He must be well assured, that the Blessings here meant are spiritual Blessings, &c. But if this be the worst on't, it would stumble me more to believe, how he could believe Blessedness, without pardon of sin, and eternal life. I cannot tell whether I shall satisfie another, but I p. 506have satisfied my self in this matter, from these Considerations: 1. That Abraham upon his believing, was justified in the sight of God; and methinks it looks like a mere whimsey, to fancy a Notion of Iustification in his sight, that has neither pardon of sin included in it, nor eternal life attending of it. It's strange to me to hear of Iustification before God against Temporal Evils: And if Abraham had no other, I think he was never perfectly justified. 2. The Determination of the Church of England is no light matter with me, Artic. 7. They are not to be heard, that feign the Fathers looked only for Transitory Promises. But it seems, that in this one particular, the Church was not infallible; for they are to be heard, and read, and licensed, and advanced too, who dare f…ign, and write, and preach, That the Patriarchs either looked for none, or at the best but Transitory Promises. 3. When I read, that Abraham was so earnest to see Christ's day by Faith, and when he got a sight of it, he was glad; I begin to think with my self, what should be the ground of so great a joy, at so great a distance. Spiritual Promise he is allowed none; and was it worth the while to rejoyce in the foresight of some temporal Advantages that should come to the Jews, when he should be turn'd to dust and nothing? especially, seeing the coming of Christ either brought spiritual Mercies … the Seed of Abraham, or none at all: So that he had more cause to sit down and lament, that he had no promise of Love from, or Life with God, either for his Person, or Posterity. Ay! but (says he) the Promise was not so clear, but men might mistake i…. That may be I confess! And so may the clearest that ever God gave to the sons of men. If men will p. 507set their wits on work, and serue, and torture, and vex, and wrest every letter and syllable, and in all this forsake the Conduct of God's Spirit, and scorn the Catholick Judgment of the Church in all Ages, to gratifie their Airy Crotchets, I do not remember a Promise of God to secure them against mistaking his Promises. Ay! but (says he) we know that the whole Iewish Church did so for many Ages. If he knows it, he knows more than I do (but that is no great wonder) and than any man alive besides his own Knowing self: And yet they had more particular Promises concerning Christ than that was, and yet expected only a temporal Prince. I will deal openly with him; I do not believe, that the whole Iewish Church for any Age, much less for many Ages, no not for any one day in any Age, did expect a Messiah to deliver them only from temporal evils: That there was great degeneracy in that Church in some Ages, I deny not (there is so amongst Christians) especially towards the latter times of their Churchstate: But that ever the whole Church so far degenerated, as to lose the expectation of a Redeemer to deliver them from sin, and its consequents, and to endow them with spiritual Blessings, I demand better proofs than Confidence, before I subscribe. And, 1. For Abraham, it's evident he sought a heavenly Country; and therefore I conclude, That the believing Jews, who had (says our Author) more particular Promises concerning Christ, sought a heavenly one too; or their more express Promises were ill bestowed on them, Heb. 11. 9. By Faith, he (Abraham) dwelt in the promised Land, as in a strange Country. The promised Land was a strange Country to him that sought a heavenly one, whereof p. 508that was but the figure, the rind and bark; for that Promise had greater excellencies underneath, to his discerning Faith; ver. 10. For he looked for a City that had foundations, whose builder and maker is God: Vers. 13. All these died in the Faith—Confessing that they were Strangers and Pilgrims; for they that say such things, declare plainly that they seek a Country. Vers. 16. But now they desire a better, that it, a heavenly Country; therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God. 2. It's evident, that the Messiah was promised, Isa. 53. 4. To bear their sins, and carry their sorrows. Vers. 5. To be wounded for their transgressions, and bruised for their iniquities. Ver. 6. To have all their iniquities laid upon him. Ver. 8. To be stricken for the transgression of God's people. Ver. 10. To have his Soul made an Offering for sin: And now to assert, That the whole Iewish Church expected only a temporal Monarch, is to throw such dirt in the face of God's people, as is very scandalous. 3. If any of them at any time expected temporal Deliverances, temporal Honours, Revenues, &c. from the Messiah, it was not inconsistent utterly with an expectation of better things from him; for the Disciples themselves had been hammering some such conceit in their heads, Acts 1. 6. (perhaps mistaking in the Chronology, and Antedating that Mercy, which in its season they might have reason to expect) and yet by our Author's good leave, I will be so charitable as to presume they looked for pardon of sin, and eternal life from Christ: Nay, I could name instances nearer home of those that expect from the Gospel large in-comes, and yet we may reasonably believe, have nobler things in their eye, and would scorn his Atheistical spirit, who would p. 509not forgo his part in Paris, for his share in Paradise. (2.) He must know, that Christ was to die for our sins, without which (according to our Doctor) it's impossible God should forgive sins, considering the Naturalness of his Vindictive Iustice to him. Now to untie this knot in the Bulrush: 1. I question not that Abraham understood clearly, That God was essentially holy, and that his Rectoral, or Governing Iustice, was founded therein, Gen. 18. 25. Shall not the Iudg of all the Earth do right? That it should be with the righteous, as with the wicked; or with the wicked as with the righteous, were far from God: Which Consideration might stagger his Faith about the pardon of his own sin, and his only relief could be from the Faith of the Messiah's undertaking with God: In which he had this satisfaction, that however he found difficulties in the way of believing, yet still he gave credit to God, and his Testimony concerning a Redeemer, leaving the Modes and Circumstances of the Mediatory Office, as a secret in God's bosom. 2. I am confident our Author cannot prove, that Abraham knew nothing of Christ's death. This I know, he had Sacrifices, which might sufficiently instruct him in the demerit of sin, and what the sinner had deserved, and in the necessity of Compensation to be made to God's Justice, for his violated Law, and reproached Government: And whether Abraham might not once open his mouth to God, to be instructed in their noblest signification and design, I cannot tell. 3. I do not know of any absolute necessity, that Abraham should understand the Circumstances that should lead towards the fulfilling of the Mediator's work, or in what particular way God would justifie a sinner: It was enough p. 510that God had firmly revealed, that he had made sufficient provision for it by a Mediator. Abraham believed stedfastly, that the means God had chosen were proportionable to their end, and the rest was to be left to God. 4. And herein lay much of the Bondage that Believers were in: Under the Old-Administration of the Covenant of Grace, they had not so satisfactory an account of the particular means how the Redeemer should work out their Deliverance; which way he should accomplish the great work of Propitiation; and therefore when fresh guilt, contracted by fresh sin, lay upon the Conscience, their faith was staggered, and peace broken, because they had a clear Objection against their pardon, from their sins; but not so clear a Solution from the promise of the pardon of it; the Promise being encumbred with so many intricacies, that the only refuge was a Retreat to the Faithfulness of God in general: Which yet was no easie work, under the Scruples and Cavils of present guilt, and the Accusation of Conscience. Ay! but (says he) this was more than the Apostles understood, till after the Resurrection, though Christ had expresly told them of it▪ Was it so? Then, 1. They could never know it to the World's end: For if telling, and express telling will not make us know, there's no remedy, we must be content to be ignorant: But this is our Author's humour, to reproach all the World for So… and Fools but himself, and a few more Rational Heads. The Jews were all Fools, they had more particular Promises than Abraham, and yet they looked only for a temporal Prince: The Apostles they were all Naturals, for they had been told, and expresly told of it, and yet understood no more than p. 511the wall. I wonder what could have been done more to make them know it, unless it had been beaten into their heads with a Beetle. I suppose our Author has got this fancy from some such place, as that Mark 9. 31. The Son of Man is delivered into the hands of Men, and they shall kill him, and after that he is killed, he shall rise again; but they understood not the saying. But can we be so vain as once to imagine, that they understood not the Grammar of those words? that they knew not the literal sence of dying. No! but they had not such clear satisfaction about some of the Consequents of it: Perhaps they had not such a firm and stedfast belief of the truth of it, as might bear up their hearts at an even rate of Tranquillity and Calmness, under their temptations and tryals; they might not improve the Truth, to encourage in a patient waiting for the Resurrection of Christ: And that this was it that pinch'd them is plain▪ they declare it, Luke 24. 19, 20, 21. Concerning Iesus of Nazareth—how the chief Priests delivered him to be condemned to death, and crucified him, but we trusted that it had been be, that should have redeemed Israel. They believed his Crucifixion, but were staggered about his Resurrection: Hereupon Christ rebukes their slowness of heart to believe all that the Prophets had spoken, how Christ ought to suffer, and to enter into his glory, ver. 25, 26. Besides, it's a common Rule, That verba intellectus implicant affectiones; words that in their bare sound, only denote the understanding, yet in their true intent and meaning, take in the will and affections: And again, Negatives are often put for Comparatives; I will have Mercy, and not Sacrifice, that is, I will have Mercy rather than Sacrifice. So here, They understood p. 512not, that is, They understood not so much of it, as such clear Expressions deserved.

(3.) Another great Scruple (for I see there's no end of them) is this, He must understand the perfect holiness, and innocency of Christ's life: But that was the least thing of a thousand: He needed no Elias to explain that; a very Nullifidian would have believed, that he whom God had designed to bless others, must needs be perfectly blessed himself. 'Tis true, had Christ's work been no other than what our Author has cut out for him, he might have discharged it, without an absolute sinless Perfection: A Prophet might have revealed the whole will of God, and afterwards confirmed his Doctrine by his death; but to be a Propitiatory Sacrifice, this required that Christ the Antitype, should be holy, harmless, undefiled, and separated from sinners: And in this God was punctual and precise, under the Law, that the Sacrifice of Atonement should be without spot, and without blemish. And thus much Abraham might learn from his own Sacrifices; and had he conceived the least suspicion, that Christ would prove a sinner, it had damped his joy and triumph in the foresight of his day. Ay! but (says he further) he must understand that he fulfilled all Righteousness, not for himself, but for us. Answ. 1. It's a most wretched and unrighteous way of procedure, to call things clear and evident into question, for the sake of some that are obscure and disputable: It becomes ingenuous persons, to agree to what is clear and certain, leaving them upon their own Basis, and to reduce the doubtful to them. It's plain that Abraham was justified by Faith, his Righteousness, was the Righteousness of Christ: If the measure of his knowledg herein, be p. 513unknown to us, yet that he had a knowledg, is not so. If God revealed this to Abraham's Faith, I doubt not but he believed it: That he did not, is more than our Author can prove. If he shall attempt it, his Arguments may be considered; in the mean time, his Conceits and Crotchets ought not to prejudice the Truth: But if God did not reveal it, Abraham's Faith might live, though not be so vigourous and strong without it. 2. Abraham might know, that what Christ suffered, he suffered not for himself, but in the stead of those for whom he suffered; for he saw the Sacrifices die, and yet not for their own sins. And why he might not conclude, That what a Redeemer did was for others too, I cannot tell. 3. There's many a sincere and sound Believer, that understands not all the Terms of Art that are used in the Explication of the Doctrine of Justification, that perhaps cannot tell you, which part of Christ's obedience answers this, and which the other exigency of the sinner; and yet believes the Thing, that Christ is made to him Righteousness of God: He is not so well versed in the Nomenclature of the Schools, as to call every thing by its proper name, but goes downright to work; he renounces his own Righteousness, sees the necessity of a Redeemer to make his peace with God; accepts of life upon God's terms, and leads a holy life suitable to his present mercies, and future hopes, and leaves the rest to the Learned World to wrangle about, who may perhaps dispute themselves gravely and learnedly into Hell, whilst the poor honest man believes his Soul into Glory.

(4.) He must understand the great mystery of the Incarnation of the Son of God. Understand the mystery of the Incarnation? I assure you it's fair if it be p. 514well believed! I have not met with many, not with any, that understand the mystery of it, to this day. It's more adviseable for our Author, to secure his own Faith in this point, than Abraham's Understanding. Abraham was a Believer, and received his Religion upon the Authority of the Revealer; but our Author will own none but what approves it self to his Reason; and whether the Incarnation of Christ have had that happiness with him, I cannot tell: and therefore to deal plainly with him, I have some Conjectures that may weigh against his Prejudices, which incline me to choose Abraham's Faith even in this particular before his own. But however that be, the Scripture assures us, that Abraham was justified the same way that New-Testament-Believers are: One God, one Lord Iesus Christ, one Holy Spirit, yesterday, to day, and the same for ever; and if his poor prejudices must controul divine Revelations, I cannot help it. An Atheist would believe there i… a God, but that he cannot get over all Objections; and our Author would believe the Gospel-report, of the way of Abraham's Justification, but that he cannot weather all the Prejudices, which he first creates, and then pleads.

(5.) He must understand the nature of Faith, and of rowling the Soul on Christ for Salvation, and renouncing all Righteousness of his own. Answ. I question not but the Father of the Faithful, one so much in the exercise of Faith, understood very well the nature of it, and that he would hardly have lighted his Candle at our Author's Torch; but it's grown the Mode, for junior Understandings to vilifie the grey Heads of the Fathers, and to count them all Bl…ck heads, that think not to a hairs breadth with p. 515them. Abraham knew, that Faith consisted in a firm belief, that what God had promised was true, and that the things of the Promise were exceeding good, and so to him: He gave a full assent and consent to both, with their special Reasons; he embraced the mercy of the Promise with thankfulness, and joy; and credited the veracity of him that made the Promise, with security of mind; and he felt by experience, that quiet, and satisfaction of Soul, that arises from an interest in him that gave, and that Redeemer that was given in the Promise: And if he must be jeered for rowling himself on God, and on his Christ, for ought I know he must bear his burden.

[5.] And now conformable to his old awkward humour, our Author will attempt the deciding the Controversie, Which way Abraham was justified, from Heb. 11. And this, I say, is a perverse and awkward way of proceeding, to wave the proper places, Rom. 4. Gal. 3. where the Apostle professedly disputes the point, and fix upon one where he disputes it not. Two things he would perswade us to believe him in.

1. That the Apostle in this Chapter discourses of a justifying Faith. To which I answer, That the Apostle does indeed Treat of a Faith that justifies, but not of Faith as it justifies. A justifying Faith has many excellent, and admirable uses, does a Christian noble service, besides that of justifying him before God. It teaches him to trust God in all the ways, and methods of his▪ Providences, to depend on him for all the good things of this life, as well as those of a better: It deals with the Promises of the life that now is, and those of that to come: It encourages us to pray, Give us this day our daily bread; as well as, p. 516Forgive us our trespasses. It instructs us to commit our concerns to his fatherly love, and care; to wrestle vigourously with all the oppositions we meet with in the Profession of Christianity; to walk comfortably, chearfully, conscientiously in our particular Callings; to despise the things that are seen, which are but temponal, in comparison of those which are not seen, and are eternal. It taught Abel to offer Sacrifice to God, whereby he had the witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts. And if our Author can see no difference between being made Righteous, and having the witness of it in his Conscience, he needs a Collyrium which I cannot help him to. It taught Enoch also to walk with God; from whence he had the same testimony, that he pleased God: The same Faith that justified him, procured him a testimony of his Justification, but not as it justified him. The Direct Act of Faith is one thing, and the Reflecting Act of Faith another. It taught Noah also to take Gods warning of the approaching Deluge, and to prepare an Ark to escape the danger: Whereby he condemned the World, and became heir of the Righteousness which is by Faith; that is, he had more full assurance of his Acceptation with God; According to a common Rule, Multa tun… fieri dicuntur quando facta esse manifestantur.

2. He would perswade us into his Notion of a justifying Faith: This justifying Faith (says he) is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. But the Apostle does not here intend to give us a strict Definition of a justifying Faith, but a Description of its most noble effects: A justifying Faith produces these effects, but not at all times, nor in all persons justified; it's Faith in its vigour, not p. 517in its essence, that is here described: By this Faith the Elders obtained a good report before men, and their own Consciences; yet was it not this Act of Faith that justified them before God, though it was the same Faith that produced this Act, by which they were justified. Whereas therefore he would oblige us yet more by his critical skill in the Gr. foreign, is a firm and confident expectation of those things we hope for… and foreign, an Argument of the Being of those things we do not see; For my part I am not much edified, and therefore let him make merry with his own Talents. That which follows will be more for our Information; for he will now speak to the Act, the Object, and the several kinds of Faith.

(1.) For the Act of Faith: It is (as he says) such a firm and stedfast perswasion of the truth of those things that are not evident to sense, as makes us confidently hope for them. But this seems to me to be a hungry description of the Act of justifying Faith▪ The Scripture has other apprehensions of this matter, which describes the Act of faith by receiving, John 1. 12. To as many as received him, to them he gave power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name. Where, if the Evangelist may be trusted to make his own Exegesis, Receiving of Christ, and, Believing on his name, do mutually interpret each other. It's not enough that the Understanding be engaged in this work, which may be found in the worst of men and Devils; the Will must also conspire with the Understanding: For that which Faith is conversant about, being not only true, but good, there must be an Act of Choice, as Knowledg, that the whole man may be employed about it.

p. 518(2.) Says he, The Object of Faith must be unseen things; As the Being, or Providence of God, or a Future state, something past or to come, the Creation of the World, or the final Dissolution of it, or the accomplishment of any Promises or Predictions. I grant indeed, that these things may be called tropically, the Object of our Faith; but as they are things to be obtained, they are more properly the Object of our Hope: But that which Faith primarily eyes, that which is its proper Object, is the reason of its Assent and Consent: And thus God in Christ, through the Promise, is the proper Object of a justifying Faith. The mercles of the Covenant of Grace, are many of them reserved for a future estate, when the Soul shall be better qualified to enjoy them; but Faith respects God actually giving himself in Covenant to be our God, through a Mediator: When we say, we believe Heaven, we belief Life Everlasting, &c. the meaning is only this, we believe God has promised to give Heaven, to give Life Everlasting, through Jesus Christ: I believe such a thing will be; that is, I believe God, who has engaged that such a thing shall be. The Authority of God speaking in the Promise, is the true Reason, and proper Object of Faith, and the things contained in the Promise, as they are such, are not the Object of my Faith properly, but have other powers of the Soul that are concerned about them.

(3.) The different sorts of Faith (says he) result from the different Objects and Motives of it. The Apostle takes notice of two kinds of Faith in this Chapter (Hebr. 11.) and faith in Christ makes a Third, which are all the kinds of Faith the Scripture mentions. Now I am afraid I shall grow every day p. 519less in love than other with our Author's Accurateness in Divinity: For, 1. What a mad way is this, to distinguish Faith into its several kinds and sorts, from the multiplicity of the things that it believes! for at this rate he could have minted not three only, or threescore, but three hundred sorts and kinds of Faith. The different sorts, or kinds of Faith result (says he) from the different Objects and Motives of it. But (say I, in his sence) the Objects and Motives of Faith are innumerable, and therefore the sorts and kinds of Faith are innumerable also. The Object of Faith (says he) must be unseen things; The Being, or Providence of God, or a Future state, something past or to come, &c. Now according to this Doctrine we must believe the Being of God with one sort of Faith, his Providences with another; the Creation of the World with one kind of Faith, its Dissolution with another; Heaven with one kind of Faith, Hell with another; things past with one kind, things to come with another; Prophesies with one kind of Faith, Promises with another: And then for the Motives of Faith, they are various; The Power of God, the Wisdom of God, our Experience of God, the Goodness of God: So when I believe any thing, and take the Power of God able to accomplish it, for my Motive; I believe it with a Faith of another kind from that whereby I believe the same thing, and take the goodness of God for my motive: And now there's a Foundation laid for one of his plain Demonstrations, that Abraham's Faith differed toto genere from Pauls; because Abraham in believing, took his encouragement from the faithfulness of him that had promised; and Paul, from his Abilities to keep what he had committed unto him: So that I think I have not over-shot my self p. 520in saying, That he may upon these principles, coyn as many several sorts, and distinct kinds of justifying Faith, as he can possibly spend in seven years time, and as he grows out of sorts, he may stamp as many more. 2. I am not satisfied that the Apostle mentions two, and but just two sorts of justifying Faith in this Chapter: For the Apostle mentions one and the same Faith; By Faith, we believe the Worlds were created; by Faith, Abel sacrificed; by Faith, Enoch walked with God; by Faith, the Elders obtained a good report; by Faith, Noah took Gods warning; by Faith, Sarah conceived; by Faith, Abraham offered up Isaac, &c. But if these Faiths were of several sorts and kinds, the Apostle could not manage his Argument with Consistency; nor should he so insensibly have passed from one sort of Faith to another, without fair warning, that he had no plot upon his Readers imbecillity. 3. It's full as easie to make All the sorts of Faith appear in the Chapter, as two, if it had pleased the Painter: For, 1. Here's evidently the Faith of Christians, vers. 3. Through Faith we understand, [we Christians] that the Worlds were framed by the Word of God. 2. There's Enoch's and Abel's Faith, which our Author allots for a second kind of Faith. And then, 3. The Faith of Noah, Abraham, and all the rest, and their's constitutes the third sort o… Faith. 4. Much less am I satisfied, that Faith in Christ makes a third kind of justifying Faith, distinct from the other two: Faith is but one; the Reason into which our Faith is ultimately resolved, is but one; the Mean whereby we believe in God, is but one, even Jesus Christ, by whom we believe in God: But the things, the good things propounded in the Promises are infinite: So that I doubt not when p. 521any necessity shall urge him, he can reduce all these three sorts of Faith into one again by Synaeresis, or split any one of them into a couple, by a Diaeresis: But now let us look into his three sorts of Faith.

1. §. The first (says he) we may call, A natural Faith. I confess he may call things what he pleases, only let him be sure he do not miscal them; the rather, because he has not Adams faculty, to make inspection into their Natures. But what is this natural Faith? A belief (says he) of the Principles of natural Religion, which is founded on natural Demonstrations, and moral Arguments, as, that God is, and that heis a Rewarder of them that diligently seek him. But I am still of the same mind, that there is no such thing, (nor ever was) as a Religion of sinners, whereby they can draw nigh to God, and worship him with Acceptation, but what supposes Divine Revelation, as the means of Manifestation; and a Redeemer, as the medium of Reconciliation. It is owned, that this is a Principle of all Religion, that God is, and that he is a Rewarder of them that diligently seek him: But there must be somewhat more than this, namely, Ability and strength from God, that we may diligently seek him, and a Mediator through whom we may seek him, with him, with Acceptation. But (says he) This was the Faith of Abel, and Enoch, whereby they pleased God. Answ. There was this in their Faith, but this was not the whole of their Faith: Well! he will prove it; 1. There's no mention made of the Faith of Abel, and Enoch in the Old-Testament. A worthy Argument! A non scripto negativè, in a matter of Fact! The Old-Testament mentions it not, therefore there was no such p. 522thing; this is pure trifling: For though the OldTestament mentions not expresly their Faith, it mentions their Acceptation with God, which without Faith is impossible to be obtained. And secondly, The New-Testament mentions both their Faith, and their Acceptation: Which Faith was of the same kind with the rest of those eminent Worthies mentioned with them; as is evident from that even Tenour of Discourse the Apostle uses: By Faith Abel, by Faith Enoch, by Faith Noah, by Faith Abraham, &c. without any ground of the least suspicion that he leaps from one sort of Faith to another. 2. God (says he) required no more of these good men. Answ. 1. But there was something required to make them good men. 2. How can he prove, that God required … more of these good men? God required more of Adam, even Faith, in that first Promise of a Mediator; and how Abel should lose it, or having it, not believe it, and yet be such a good man, is past my skill to conceive. 3. He tells us, p. 26. That God afforded good men the frequent Apparitions of Angels: The head of whom was the Son of God, who, in praeludium futurae incarnationis, frequently appeared to the ancient Fathers: And he is not sure either what God revealed to them, or required of them. 4. God required more of Abel, a Sacrifice; and that not meerly as a part of his Obedience, but as Propitiatory, which by the blood and the fat, which always accompanied that kind of Sacrifices, is evident. 3. Says he, They had no other particular Revelations of God's with Answ. If they had no other, they had none at all▪ for natural Demonstrations, are not particular Revelations. 2. Adam had more particular Revelations; and it being a Promise wherein Posterity was p. 523concerned as well as himself, and concernid so deeply, I shall not question his fidelity in deriving it to posterity, without proof. 3. Abel had the use of Sacrifices, which suppose Revelation: For what Light of Nature could teach me, that God would delight in the death of his Creatures, that had not transgressed the Laws of their Creation: Abel's was foreign, a bloody Sacrifice; nor is God ever the more entitled to, or possest of any Creature by being offered dead, than if it were presented alive: And if natural Demonstrations, the Light of Nature, was the Foundation of the Practice, it is still obliging; for natural Light, with its Demonstrations, varies not. 4. We are sure, that Enoch had the Spirit of Prophecy, was an eminent Prophet in his days, and therefore had particular Revelations; and amongst many, one Revelation of Christ, Jude, ver. 14. Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesi…h of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his Saints, to execute judgment upon all, &c. The same with that of the Apostle, 2 Thess. 1. 7. The Lord Iesus shall be revealed from Heaven, with his mighty Angels, in flaming fire to take vengeance, &c. for to Christ is the power of executing vengeance committed, John 5. 27. And therefore I cannot but conclude, That he who had a particular Revelation of Christ's coming to judg the World, had particular ones also, that he should come into the World to redeem it. And now how vain must our Author's Argument needs be, from the silence of the Old-Testament, to infer, That Enoch and Abel had no particular Revelation, when the NewTestament proves, that Enoch had particular Revelations: And if Enoch had this Revelation, which yet is not mentioned either in the Old-Testament or p. 524the New, but only in this place, how many more might he have, which are drowned in the Gulph of Time, and this one, by special Providence, scaped the common Shipwrack? But, 5. That which abundantly proves, that they had particular Revelations, and Revelations of Christ too, through whom God is a Rewarder of them that diligently seek him, is this, That their Sacrifices in God's Institution of them, and their own Application of them, from the first rise of them, had respect to Christ, who is therefore called, The Lamb slain from the Foundation of the World, Rev. 13. 8. Which, without partiticular Revelation, they could never have understood.

§. 2. His second sort of justifying Faith, he calls a Faith in God: Which puts me to a stand, Whether he would have us take the former for a justifying Faith or no. If the former were not a Faith in God, how could it justifie? If it was; then how comes Faith in God, to constitute a new and distinct kind of justifying Faith? But what is this Faith in God? A belief (says he) of those particular Revelations, which God made to the Fathers of the Old-Testament. From whence it is easie to prove, that every time our Author repeats his Creed, I believe in God, we are bound to take him for one of the Fathers of the Old-Testament: If this be a true Definition of Faith in God, all the Saints in the New-Testament are misbelievers. But of this (says he) the Apostle gives us many examples, Noah▪ Abraham, Sarah, Moses, &c. Perhaps the Reader will wonder why Enoch and Abel should be left out of the Catalogue of the Fathers of the Old-Testament; p. 525but he must reflect, and remember, that they are rank'd already in the Classis of examples for the natural Faith: And truly, if he had pleased, he might have created a new sort of Faith for every Pair in the whole Chapter: Thus Abraham and Sarah would have done well in a Form by themselves; nay, to have advanced the Conceit, he might have created a particular kind of Faith, for every particular person of them: Each of them had their particular Revelations, and particular Motives; Noah, believed the Deluge; Abraham, the promise of a Son; and David, the warning that God gave him of his Danger, &c. Now we are told, that the object of Faith is something to come, or something past, &c. and that the different sorts of Faith, result from the different Objects and Motives of it: and therefore it had been easie to have allotted to each of them a different kind of Faith: But let us hear him improve his Notion. Noah (says he) believed God, when he forewarned him of the Deluge, and in obedience to him, provided an Ark; and this was imputed to him for Righteousness: He became the Heir of Righteousness, which is by Faith: But I find no such thing in all the Copies that I have, that it was imputed to him for Righteousness. This I find, that he became Heir of the Righteousness which is by Faith: Which two things are more different than any of his three kinds of Faith. Noah was an Heir of Righteousness, that is, he inherited those advantages, which come by Righteousness; he had the peaceable fruits of Righteousness. As a Son by being his Fathers Heir, inherits the Purchases, Possessions, Honours of his Father: Thus Noah by being an Heir of Righteousness, enjoyed whatever Priviledges the Promise of God had p. 526entailed upon Righteousness. Noah was foreign: The Heir of Righteousness; where Righteousness is not Ge…itivus materiae, but efficientis. It denotes not that Righteousness was the thing he inherited, but the true Reason why he inherited those blessings: Righteousness answers not to the Possession, but to the Ancestor; not what, but from what he inherited. And this is clear from this one Consideration, That Noah was righteous before God, before that particular Revelation was made to him: He was not made righteous, because he believed that particular Revelation; but God made him that particular Revelation, because he was already righteo…. Gen. 6. 8, 9. Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord▪ Vers. 9. Noah was a just man, and perfect in his Generations, and Noah walked with God. Vers. 13. God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me. Ver 14. Make thee an Ark of Gopher wood. Ver. 17. And behold I, even I, do bring a Flood upon the Earth.

He proceeds to Abraham: Who in obedience to the divine Revelation, left his Country, went into a strange Land, offered his son Isaac, which seem'd to thwart that former promise, In Isaac shall thy Seed be called; i. e. That from Isaac should proceed that numerous Off-spring which God had promised Abraham; and yet he was so well assured of the power and faithfulness of God, that whatever Impossibilities Humane Reason suggested, he would neither disobey Gods Command, nor distrust his Promise. Now here would arise several Queries: As, 1. Whether then Abraham's Religion was of the right stamp, seeing it would not approve it self to his Reason? and, Whether Abraham's Reason was not Carnal, that suggested Impossibilities against God's Promise? and, Whether p. 527our Author (had he been in Abraham's Circumstances) ought not by his own Principles, to have disobeyed, and distrusted God both in his Precept and Promise, because they did not approve themselves to his Reason. 2. It might be enquired, What inference he will make from hence? and that he tells us is, That the Faith whereby Abraham, and all good men were justified before God, was such a firm belief of the Being, and Providence of God, and all the particular Revelations God made to them, as made them careful to please God in all things: Now this is still the Question, and is like so to continue, for any assistance we are like to have from our Author's Arguments. But, 3. There is one thing that I shall particularly examine, Whether that Promise, Gen. 21. 12. In Isaac shall thy Seed be called, be made good in that numerous Off-spring that issued from Isaac's loyns? Now if any regard might be had to the Apostle, he would soon decide the Controversie, Rom. 9. 7, 8. In Isaac shall thy Seed be called, that is, they which are the children of the Flesh, are not the children of God; but the children of the Promise, are counted for the Seed. See here now the vast difference in mens judgments. In Isaac shall thy Seed be called; id est, (says our Author) from Isaac should proceed that numerous Off-spring: No, says the Apostle, In Isaac shall thy Seed be blessed; id est, The children of the Flesh, are not the children of God; but the children of the Promise, are counted for the Seed. Again, Rom. 4. 16. Therefore it [the Promise] is of Faith, that it might be sure to all the seed; not only to that which is of the Law, but to that which is of the Faith of Abraham, who is the Father of us all. Gal. 3. 29. And if ye be Christs, then are ye Abrahams Seed, and p. 528Heirs according to the Promise. 4. It were easie to evidence, that what the Apostle speaks of Abraham's Faith in offering up his son, related not to the Act of it, whereby he was justified, but to the Evidence of his Justification. His third sort of Faith follows.

§. 3. From hence (says he) we learn what Faith in Christ is, which is now imputed to us for Justification. From hence! From whence? If we never learn what faith in Christ is, better than from the Faith of Abel, Enoch, Noah, and Abraham, which are the whole Heavens asunder each from other, as he has ordered the matter, we must be content to be ignorant of it till our lives end. For who could learn the special Nature of one thing, from another that differs from it in the kind? But let us give him the hearing! Our faith in Christ must signifie such a stedfast belief of all those Revelations which Christ hath made to the World, as governs our lives and actions. Why so? To make our faith in Christ, answer to the faith of Abraham, and all good men in former Ages; without which, the Apostles Argument from Abraham's being justified by faith, to our Iustification by faith, is of no force. There is a necessity then granted, that our faith in Christ and Abraham's, do answer one another, lest the Apostle should be reproach'd with a Non-sequitur: Now to perform this, instead of making Abrahams to be a faith in Christ, as it really is, he debases faith in Christ, as low as, if not, below the faith of Abraham: He pretends to under-prop the Apostles Argument, but really he undermines it; and whilst he seems to provide an Expedient, that his Reasonings may not p. 529be invalidated, he renders them more than Nugatory. For, 1. How can faith in Christ, answer to the faith of all those good men in former times? Abel, Enoch? when their's was Faith without Revelations, but faith in Christ is a Faith grounded upon Revelations: The Motive of their Faith, was Natural Demonstrations; the Reason of ours is Revelation: The Object of our Faith (in his sense) is Eternal Life; but whether they had any such thing in their eye, our Author will not grant; for he that will not allow Abraham, whose Faith was grounded upon Revelations, to have had any spiritual Promises, will less allow those poor good men the priviledg, whose Faith was only built upon Natural Demonstrations. 2. How can faith in Christ, answer to the faith of Abraham? He has laid it down as the bottom of this Discourse, p. 252. that, The different sorts of Faith, result from the different Objects and Motives of it: But Abraham's Faith had different Objects and Motives from ours, (as he tells us): And therefore it's of another nature, sort and kind than ours; for so he says expresly, The Apostle takes notice of two kinds of Faith, and faith in Christ makes a third: Now will it not be hard for the Apostle to maintain his great Principle, That Abraham is the Father of the faithful, if Abraham's Faith and theirs differ toto Genere? Those things that differ in their special Nature, may yet agree in their common Nature; but those things that are of divers kinds, wherein shall they agree? But all this is but a scandal thrown upon the Apostle, who proves from Abraham's way of being justified, the way of Christians being justified, Rom. 4. As Abraham was justified without Works, so are we. Vers. 2. As Abraham had a Righte…sness p. 530imputed to him, even so have we. Vers. 11. That Righteousness might be imputed to them also: As Abraham's Righteousness, was a Righteousness of Faith, even so is ours. Vers. 11. A Seal of the Righteousness of Faith. As Abraham was justified by free Grace, so are we. V. 5. To him that worketh not, but believeth in him that justifieth the ungodly. Thus was his Righteousness, the patern of ours; his Faith the patern of ours: And is it not a strange Copy that differs in kind from its Idaea? That's a huge way off from foreign: As if you should propound a House for your patern, and draw a Horse to sample it. Once more look into Gal. 3. 8. The Scripture fore-seeing that God would justifie the Heathen through Faith, preach'd before the Gospel to Abraham: Now if Abraham had not our Faith, what needed he to have our Gospel? The end of preaching the Gospel is to beget Faith; and it was an equivocal Generation, if it begat a Faith of one kind in Abraham, another in Christians: What needed this circumspect Caution of Providence, that Abraham should have the glad tidings of the Gospel preach'd to him, which made him rejoyce and be glad, if a Faith of a lower size would serve his turn for Justification? Again, vers. 13. That the blessing of Abraham might come upon the Gentiles, through Iesus Christ. If we have his blessing, surely he had our Faith: Or could Abraham get the blessing without Christ; but Christians no other way, but in Christ? But thus has our Author vindicated the Apostles Reasonings, as if he had secretly design'd (as he openly professes of the Wriings of others) to expose them to contempt.

It may be now seasonable to examine his Definition of a Gospel-Faith; viz. Such a stedfast belief p. 531of all those Revelations which Christ hath made to the World, as governs our lives and actions. If this be to define, put but a company of Letters in a bag, shuffle them well together, then shake them out, and they will tumble into as good a Definition as this comes to: But thus did Atoms by dancing in Infinite and Eternal Spaces, justle one another so long, till at last they produced this beautiful Fabrick of Heaven and Earth. I except against it; 1. Because the whole Priestly Office of Christ is excluded by it; Propitiation, Atonement, Expiation of sin, are shut quite out of all consideration; and the Death and Sufferings of Christ of no regard, unless perhaps they may come in by way of Motive, to believe his Doctrine as a Prophet. And if this be his Faith, I must profess, I would not venture my Salvation in his Church, for the hopes of all the good, or fear of all the evil this World can either flatter or affright me with; however I beg Grace from God that I may not. He that has but half a Christ, had as good have no Christ; and he that takes him not wholly into the Definition of his Faith, may as safely leave him wholly out. As half a heart in God's account, is no heart; so half a Saviour in Faith's esteem, is no Saviour. 2. I except against it, because it may be found in Hypocrites: They may so far believe the Revelations of Christ, as to govern their lives and actions, and yet their hearts never be purified by that Faith. 3. It pretends to define Faith, and yet gives us no Genus of it: Faith is such a Belief, as governs our lives and actions; that is, Faith, is Faith that governs our lives and actions: But the Question is, What is that Faith, that will so govern our lives and actions? For it describes not any direct influence p. 532of Faith upon our Iustification, but our obedience. And whereas he pretends to assign some differences, that may distinguish it from all other Faith, true or false; yet in plain terms they do nothing less. 1. It's a belief of those Revelations Christ has made to the World. Now unless he can prove, that those Revelations which Christ has made to the World, are essentially distinct from those which God before made to the World; their being revealed by Christ, makes no essential difference: For Christ came in his Fathers name, under the New-Testament; and the Spirit came in Christs name, under the Old-Testament. All Christ's Revelations, in order to the governing our lives and actions, may be reduced either to Precepts, or Promises: Now though some have been tampering at it, I cannot find that Christ revealed either a new Moral Law, or added any thing to the old: Self-denial, Taking up the Cross, Praying for our Persecutors, &c. were Old-Testament duties, though not met with in New-Testament phrase: As a Rule of obedience, Christ medled not with it; all he did, was to vindicate it from the corrupt Glosses the Scribes and Pharisees had put upon it. As to Promises, Christ has revealed no other Heaven, no other Glory, no other Salvation; only he has cleared up these, given us more light into them, poured out more Grace, that we might live more in fellowship with God, and hopes of Glory: But this, and much more, will make no essential difference in the Revelation. 2. It's such a Belief, as governs our lives and actions: But such a Belief was Enoch's, Abel's, Noah's, Abraham▪s; their's govern'd their lives and actions too, and somewhat more; their Hearts and Consciences: This therefore will make no essential difference. 4. I p. 533except against it, that it mentions not God as the proper Object of Faith: For though Christ, who is God, be in the Definition, yet not as God; there's nothing supposes him to be so, no employment that necessarily requires it should be so assigned to him; only he is allowed Revelation-work, which a meer man, instructed with God's Commission, might have done.

And now once again he will reassume his Argument: If by the Righteousness of Faith, you understand the Righteousness of Christ apprehended by Faith, and imputed to us, you utterly destroy the Apostle's Argument for our Iustification by Faith; for Abraham, and all the good men of old were not justified by such a Faith as this is: They never heard of Christ's Righteousness imputed to us, &c. Now how does it follow, that because Abraham was justified by such noble and generous Acts of Faith, therefore we shall be justified by Christ's Righteousness imputed? But whoever overthrows the Apostle's Argument, I have some things that will overthrow, and utterly overthrow our Author's. 1. That he begs, and most shamefully begs the Question, which I think we must be forced to grant him at last to be rid of him, without any respect to his Argument: For thus we shut our hands sometimes of those importunate Mendicants, whose strongest Logick, and most prevailing Oratory, is Clamour and Obstinacy: He has hardned himself to say, that Abraham was justified without any respect to the Righteousness of Christ, that he was justified by noble and generous Acts of Faith; and then concludes, That therefore so are we: And all this, to save the credit of the Apostle's Argument. But I should rather go the other way; Believers under the p. 534Gospel are not justified without respect to the Righteousness of Christ, therefore neither was Abraham; and let that save the credit of the Apostle's Argument. As he cannot prove that Abraham was accepted of God, without any consideration of Satisfaction made to him by a Redeemer, and therefore ought not to infer, that we are accepted of God without such Consideration; so we can prove that Believers under the Gospel are accepted of God, upon Consideration had of the Satisfaction made to him by a Redeemer, and therefore may infer, that Abraham was accepted upon the same Consideration. 2. His Argument will recoil upon the Engineer: For if by the Righteousness of Faith, you understand a Righteousness of our own obedience, you utterly destroy the Apostle's Argument for our Justification by Faith: for how does it follow, that because Abraham was justified by Faith without Works, that therefore Believers under the Gospel are justified by Works? Again, If there be no reasoning from Faith of one kind, to Faith of another; and that the Apostle understood himself better, than to argue at this weak rate (for which we have our Author's Broad-Seal, p. 257.) And if the faith of Abraham, and our faith in Christ, be of different kinds, and do constitute two distinct sorts of Faith, for which also we have his Word and Warrant, (p. 252.) then let every Reader try the issue, whether our Author have not utterly destroyed the Apostle's Argument, for our Iustification by faith in Christ, from Abraham's being justified by Faith; seeing he supposes him to argue from one kind of Faith to another. For at this weak rate he makes him argue; If Abraham were justified by faith without Christ, then Believers under the Gospel are justified by faith in p. 535Christ. All that I can conclude from this Discourse of our Authors is, That he has owned the Apostle an old grudge, and has now found a convenient time to pay him home.

He promises us now he will bring his Discourse to a head: Which I am right sorry for, hoping he had been at the foot of it: And yet I am glad it shall be reduced to a head, for hitherto it has been like the Hydra, when one head was lopt off, another, or two more sprung up in the room of it. But I mistake him: He will bring it to a head; it has been hitherto like an obstinate, inveterate Oedema, that scorns ordinary Applications; but now we shall see his Chirurgick faculty, he will bring the undigested Matter to a Head, and then I doubt it will issue out in purulent, offensive stuff: But the head of it is this, The difference between the faith of Abraham, and the Faith of Christians is this; Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for Righteousness; and we believe in Christ, and that's counted to us for Righteousness; which is a difference without a distinction, and so he has made neither head nor foot of it: For Abraham believed God, but it was by the preaching of the Gospel to him, Gal. 3. 8. The Gospel-Doctrine that was preach'd was this, In thy Seed shall all the Nations of the Earth be blessed: That Seed was Iesus Christ, ver. 16. To thy Seed, which is Christ. So that it's as plain as we can desire it, and more plain than the Enemies of the Christian Religion would have it, That Abraham was justified through Faith in Christ; and if Abraham believed in God through Christ, it's certain, that Christians do so also, 1 Pet. 1. 21. Who through him do believe in God. Abraham's belief in God, was not exclusive of Christ; our believing p. 536in Christ, is not exclusive of our believing in God: The Objects mediate and ultimate are the same, and then the Faith is so, if we may take our Author's word for it (which for his own Confutation we may venture to do;) and then where's the difference? And thus the Reader has all the head and foot I can make of this tedious long-winded Argument.

Having thus happily dispatch'd the difference between Abraham's faith, and the faith of Christians, he promises to give us the difference between two or three other things, or between something and nothing; for to acknowledg my ignorance, I cannot tell what. I turn'd to the Errata, and there we are bid to read—Nonsense. I was in good hopes that had been it; but the difference of the pages soon undeceived me. I shall therefore give the Reader it, as cheap as I had it, in his own words, and that's good both for Buyer and Seller: And the same difference there is between the Righteousness of Faith in a general Notion, as it is applied to Noah, Abraham, and these Worthies of old, and the Righteousness of G…d by the Faith of Iesus Christ Rom. 3. 22. and that Righteousness which is through the Faith of Christ, the Righteousness of God by Faith, Phil. 3. 9. Now I have guest, and guest and almost tired my self with guessing, what those things should be betwen which he pretends the difference: One while it seems to be, Between the Righteousness of Faith in a general Notion, as it is applied to Noah, Abraham, and those Worthies of old, on the one party; and, the Righteousness of God by the Faith of Iesus Christ, &c. on the other party: Another while it seems to be, Between the Righteousness of Faith in the general Notion, p. 537on one side; and, the Righteousness of God by the Faith of Iesus Christ, on the second; and, the Righteousness which is through the Faith of Christ, the Righteousness of God by Faith, on the third; and so the difference will be tripartite: Whatever the business is, I shall not trouble my self about it. Of two Righteousnesses I have heard; the one of Faith, the other of Works, according to the two Covenants from thence denominated; which do irreconcileably differ, and are as far asunder as the two Poles, which can never meet: Of two Righteousnesses of Faith I have not heard till of late; and a happy invention it was for them, whose faith or unbelief would not stoop to Gospel-Revelations. But that we may not let our time run waste, I shall a little consider one of his Scriptures, and wait with patience, till he shall consider the other: That which I fix upon, is Rom. 3. 20, 21, 22. Therefore by the deeds of the Law, shall no flesh be justified in his sight; for by the Law is the knowledg of sin: But now the Righteousness of God without the Law is manifested, being witnessed by the Law, and the Prophets, even the Righteousness of God which is by the Faith of Iesus Christ, unto all, and upon all them that believe, for there is no difference; for all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God: Being justified freely by his Grace, through the Redemption that is in Iesus Christ. In which words; (1.) I take notice of the Apostles peremptory Conclusion, By the deeds of the Law shall no flesh be justified in his [Gods] sight. Now as this Proposition smiles or frowns upon our Author, or his Opponent, so will the whole cause stand or fall on either side. It seems indeed to carry a smart sound of words against his Notions; but he is well enough provided against p. 538all Arguments drawn from express words; and therefore we must enquire, What that Law is, by the deeds whereof no flesh can be justified: If it proves the Moral Law, our Author will not deny that he's at least half undone; and I find him feelingly aware of that all along. Now to dally no longer with him, nor to put him to a lingring death: The Apostle (who knew his own mind best) has assured me, that by [Law,] he understands the Moral Law. 1. It's that Law by which we have the knowledg of sin. His Argument runs thus: By the deeds of that Law by which comes the knowledg of sin, no flesh is justified: But by the Moral Law comes the knowledg of sin; therefore by the deeds of the Moral Law no flesh is justified. The major is the Apostle's own, in this very place: The minor is his own too, Rom. 7. 13. I had not known sin, except the Law had said, Thou shalt not covet. From whence I argue: By that Law which says, Thou shalt not covet, comes the knowledg of sin: but that Law which says, Thou shalt not covet, is the Moral Law; therefore by the Moral Law comes the knowledg of sin. The major is the Apostle's own in the place last quoted; the minor needs no other proof, but that a man be able to read the Ten Commandments, which is the sum of the Moral Law, the Tenth whereof is, Thou shalt not covet. But now at what a weak rate must the Apostle argue to please our Author? By the deeds of the Ceremonial Law shall no flesh be justified. No: Why not? Why, because by the Moral Law is the knowledg of sin. 2. None can doubt of what Law the Apostle speaks, that considers how he draws this great Conclusion out of vers. 19. That every mouth may be stopped, and all the World become guilty before God, therefore p. 539by the deeds of the Law, &c. His Argument is this; By the deeds of that Law by which every mouth is stopped, and all the World become guilty before God, shall no flesh be justified: But by the Moral every mouth is stopped, and all the World become guilty before God; therefore by the deeds of the Moral Law shall no flesh be justified. And this evidently excludes the Ceremonial Law from any Concern in this Argument: For that Law never obliged all, or half the World, and therefore they could not violate it, and therefore not become guilty by it before God. Again, the instances which the Apostle gives of the violation of the Law, shews what Law he excludes from Justification, vers. 13. With their Tongues they have used deceit. Vers. 14. Their mouth is full of cursing and bitterness. Vers. 15. Their feet are swift to shed blood, &c. which are all apparent violations of the Moral Law. But is there never a Creep-hole at which our Author may escape the Apostles Argument? Yes! yes! p. 245. The great dispute in the Epistle to the Romans is, Whether we must be justified by the Law of Moses, or by the Faith of Christ? that is, Whether the Observation of the External Rites, and Ceremonies of the Law, and an External Conformity of our Actions to the Moral Precepts of it will justifie a man before God? &c. This sorry evasion has all its small pretence, from that foreign, from the deeds; which our Author would willingly perswade himself, signifie nothing but Observation of Ceremonies, and outward Conformity to the Moral Law. Now that the Apostle in this place directly excludes the Moral Law I have proved: All the Question is, Whether he disputes against Justification by external Conformity to its Precepts only; or against Justification p. 540by whatever Obedience is, or may be given to the Moral Law by man, under his present Circumstances? And against our Author's conceit herein, I oppose these things: 1. It appears not that ever there was such a Question started amongst any Christians, Whether Hypocrisie would justifie a man before God? much less was it ever laid down in Thesi, and Dogmatically maintained that it would do so. Many Hypocrites there were then, (there are so now) who may deceive themselves into a Fools Paradise, that Hypocrisie might not condemn and damn them; but none ever so forsaken of common sense, as to think that Hypocrisie would justifie, and save them: Many presume to be saved, notwithstanding their sins, but none to be saved for their sins: If any should so dote, they deserve to receive their Confutation from Bedlam, rather than the Divinity-Schools. I cannot therefore once imagine, that the Apostle should so operosely handle a subject; that he should rowse up his zeal, and knit all the nerves of his spiritual Reason, to confute what was either no-where, or so thin, and transparent a falshood, that to recite it, was clearly to confute it. 2. The Deeds or Works of the Law, are the Deeds and Works which the Law commands, which it primarily commands; but the Law never commanded outward Conformity of actions, without inward Conformity of heart to its Precepts: These are not the Deeds of the Law, but such as God abhors; therefore the Deeds of the Law by which no flesh shall be justified, are not external works only. 3. The Deeds of the Law, by which no flesh shall be justified, are the Deeds of every one of God's Laws, the Deeds of every particular Commandment; but the Deeds of one of God's Laws, of on… p. 541particular Commandment, are only internal Deeds; therefore the Apostle disputes not only against external deeds. By the Law, is meant the whole Law; but one part of the Law (extensively taken) reaches internal deeds only: As is evident in the Tenth Commandment, Thou shalt not covet; but according to our Author's way, the Apostle should have laid down his Doctrine thus, By the deeds of nine parts of the Law, shall no flesh living be justified. 4. The Apostle disputes against Justification by such deeds of the Moral Law, as wherein all the World is become guilty: But by the external deeds of the Law all the World is not become guilty; therefore he disputes not against Justification by the external deeds of the Law only. That all the World is not become guilty by the external deeds of the Moral Law, and a failure therein, he proves, Rom. 5. 14. where he shews, That death reigned over some, who had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression. 5. Those deeds which David excluded from his Iustification, the Apostle excludes from our Iustification; for he quotes his Proposition from Psal. 143. 2. and therefore takes it in his sense, or else he could not make use of his Authority: But David excludes all his deeds whatsoever from Justification; Enter not into judgment with thy servant, for in thy sight shall no man be justified: He durst not once think of God's entering into judgment with him, upon the account of any thing he had attained: From all which it appears, that the Apostle excl…es the Law, the whole Law, and the deeds thereof, all the deeds thereof, from having any concern in the Iustification of a sinner in the sight of God. (2.) We may observe hence, That the Apostle opposes the Righteousness of God, p. 542unto a Righteousness by the deeds of the Law: But now (says he) the Righteousness of God without the Law is manifested, vers. 21. And as in vers. 20. he says not foreign, by the deeds of the Law, but foreign, by the deeds of Law, of a Law, of any Law: So here he says not foreign, without the Law, as if he intended some singular Law, foreign, but foreign, without a Law, without any Law: And hence he fully silences and stops the mouth of our Authors Cavil, that by the deeds of the Law is meant only an external Conformity of our Actions to it. But the Apostles words leave no place for ambiguity: For if the Righteousness of God without Law, a Law, any Law, be manifested, then without either Ceremonial, or Moral Law; then also without external, or internal deeds of either: But the Apostle shuts out Law simply and absolutely, The Righteousness of God—without Law is manifested. As this term Law, foreign, is more properly predicated of the Moral, than of the Ceremonial Law; so the deeds of Law, are more properly predicated of internal, than external deeds; and Analogum per se stans, stat pro famosior, Analogato. If then (as our Author contends) we are justified by the Moral, though not by the Ceremonial Law, or by internal Conformity to it, though not by external Conformity to it only; then the Apostles Doctrine is true in an improper, or less proper sense, but utterly false in the proper, or more proper sense of the words: For had … words been inverted, they had carried a clearer truth in them; By the deeds, [the internal deeds] of the Law, [the Moral Law] shall all flesh be justified: But now the Righteousness of God with the Law, [the Moral Law,] and its internal as p. 543well as external deeds] is manifested: But this is not to interpret the Apostle, but dictate a new Gospel to him. But further: Hence I have just occasion to complain of an unrighteous surmise, with which our Author loads some men, That because they exclude Law, and Law-deeds from Iustification in the sight of God, that therefore they exclude it from having any place in their Lives and Conversations. The Apostle, who is a zealous Vindicator of the interest of the Law, as a Rule of our Obedience; yet we see discharges it wholly from any, from all use, and service in the Justification of a sinner in the sight of God: Therefore he adds, Before God; and the Psalmist, In thy sight; to teach us, That though the Righteousness of God without Law, is manifested, as to the truth of the thing, yet the Righteousness of God is not, cannot be manifested to us, without a sincere obedience to the Law. There's a Iustification before God; to this the Law, a Law, any Law, contributes nothing; but there's a Justification before Conscience, before men, and to this a sincere, and evangelically universal obedience contributes much. (3.) The Apostle assures us, That this Doctrine of his is no new fancy, broached t'other day, and set on foot lately in Gospel-times, but the same way by which all the good men of old were justified, v. 21. It's witnessed by the Law, and the Prophets: Now as to the Prophets testimony, though our Author approves not their Cryptick way of demonstrating, but is all for plain Meridian demonstration; yet they are full that Jesus Christ was the main consideration in the Justification of a sinner from of old, Acts 3. 25, 26. Ye are the Children of the Prophets, and of the Covenant that God made with our Fathers, saying to Abraham, p. 544And in thy Seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed; unto you first, God having raised up his Son Iesus, sent him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from his iniquities. Whence it appears, God's raising up Christ in the World, to bless his people with spiritual blessings, was no more than what he had covenanted with Abraham, and promised to him, even in that very Promise which our Author thinks was fulfilled in the numerous Posterity of Isaac: But now that this Righteousness of God without Law, should be witnessed by Law, this seems strange: Does the Law witness against it self? Is it false to it's own interest? But the Law, is God's Law; and when it witnesses to a sinner, it witnesses home; convinces him of the perfect holiness of that God who gave the Law; of the peremptoriness of God, in not abating one jot, or tittle of the Law; of the sinners utter inability to come up to the Demands of the Law, and therefore the utter impossibility of being justified by the Law; of the severity of God's Justice in punishing the violater of his Law, and therefore unless he can find another Righteousness, he must utterly perish. 'Tis true, the Law speaks its old Language still, Do this and live; but then it speaks it only to those who are upon a bottom of Innocency; for to a Transgressor its language is, Cursed is very one that continues not in all things. (4.) The Apostle acquaints us, what that Righteousness of God is which is manifested, vers. 22. Even the Righteousness of God, which is by the Faith of Christ. Now hence it's evident, that the Righteousness of God, and Righteousness by the Faith of Christ, are both one; and therefore Faith in God, and Faith in Christ, are both one. As is the Righteousness, p. 545such is the Faith: as is the Faith, such is the Righteousness; which perfectly overthrows that Arbitrary distinction, which our Author had studied for more need; Of Faith in God, and Faith in Christ, on purpose to shut Abraham out of Christ, and by Consequence out of Heaven, and to lock him up in the Limbus Patrum.