Rectifying Opinions Contrary to the Doctrine of the Church of England, Text (1 of 3)

Rectifying Opinions Contrary to the Doctrine of the Church of England · Text (1 of 3)

p. 1An endeavour to Rectifie ſome prevailing Opinions.

THe Learned Author's deſign is very commendable, viz. To reconcile ſuch ſeemingly contrary Expreſſions of the Apoſtle Paul, and James, as theſe [You ſee therefore that a man is juſtified by Works, and not by Faith only, Jam. 2. 24. We conclude therefore that a man is juſtified by Faith, without the works of the Law, Rom. 3. 28.] which Scriptures he ſets down before his diſcourſe, as the Chief, or 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.

p. 2His whole firſt Diſſertation concerning the ſenſe of the Apoſtle James, in affirming Juſtification by Works as a condition, is Acute, Solid, and Cogent; yea, and ſo is all generally in his ſecond Diſſertation to the 5th. Chap. and part of it; he ſpending thoſe Chapters in diſcovering the weakneſs and falſehood of the attempts of many deſigning to reconcile ſuch places, and in proving the Apoſtle Paul, means not one ſingle virtue by Faith, but the whole Goſpel-condition, the whole duty required for Salvation, or the obedience of Faith. And I judg thus much of it (which is near one third part of the Book) highly worth the Reading of any that have any other apprehenſions of the meaning of James, or that are not ſatisfied that the Apoſtle Paul by Faith, means the whole neceſſary duty of a Chriſtian.

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

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

Secondly, That there is no ſuch thing as pardon of ſin poſſible as to Eternal puniſhment, or puniſhment after this Life; neither did Chriſt ſatisfie for the breach of any Law as to any Eternal puniſhment, or puniſhment after this Life, but onelyonly 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 p. 4Argument againſt Popiſh perfection or meriting, ſo far as to need no pardon, from thoſe paſſages in Pauls Epiſtles, that deny Juſtification by Works; but meerly ſuch a vain uſeleſs Speculation as this, That good Works done without knowledg of, or reſpect to a future recompence of reward, do not merit; and works done by one that hath in no ſenſe any ability to do them, do not merit.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yea, it is a Contradiction in the very Words, keeping to the ſame Law (as the Authour doth) to ſay, Any Law doth not require perfect Obedience; for it is to ſay it doth not require all that it doth require. We may indeed ſay, the Goſpel doth not require the perfect Obedience of another Law, that is, the whole condition of the Original Law, which it was made to pardon our failure in; becauſe ſincere Obedience only to that Original-Law, was made the condition of it: but it is impoſſible but the Goſpel being a Law (it is a Law of Grace, commanding ſincere obedience, with a penalty of our otherwiſe not having p. 22the benefit offered by it); I ſay, it is impoſſible, but that it ſhould require perfect Obedience to what it doth require as it's condition, whereon we ſhall attain the pardon offered by it; and this condition is perfectly all that it doth require as a Remedying-Law, or Act of Oblivion: For, if there be any thing that it doth not require of us, ſo as we ſhould loſe the offered Pardon if we do not perform it; this thing is not it's condition, nor any part of it, which is required, that we might not ſo fall ſhort. Alſo, as was demonſtrated before, No Law either doth, or can, remit any thing required by it ſelf. If a man fail in any thing required by the Goſpel, under the penalty of having no benefit by it, he is Remedileſs.

Fourthly, Another fundamental cauſe of his Miſtake of the Apoſtle's ſenſe, is, want of true notions about the Law of Moſes, which he thinks to be a Law that had only Temporal Promiſes and Threats, and to be void of Spiritual and Internal commands; and alſo that the Apoſtle only excludes it, and its works, from Juſtification. Now becauſe I p. 23know not of any that ſpeak exactly, and ſatisfactorily of the Law, in the ſeveral Notions and Acceptations of it, nor in all things **I mean, not rightly, only becauſe not comprehenſibly enough, ſo as to include all the ſenſes of it here to be mentioned.rightly, (however not in my judgment, which in this may poſſibly differ from all others); I think it needful to ſpeak here ſomething largely and diſtinctly of it; not to deſtroy the Author's Opinion about the Apoſtle's ſenſe, ſince that may be done in few words: but that I may lay a foundation for the right underſtanding, not only of the paſſages of the Apoſtles in debate; but other paſſages alſo of this Apoſtle, and of the Authour to the Hebrews, reſpecting the Law; where they take it in a different ſenſe from that wherein it is mainly taken in the places now in diſpute. My thoughts are theſe:

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

And firſt, to ſpeak of it as to Temporal p. 24concernments only, it may in this reſpect be conſidered, either ſtrictly, or as affording pardon.

1. The Law of Moſes may be conſidered as to Temporal reſpects, in its utmoſt exacting Rigour, I mean in its utmoſt Rigour, threatning Temporal Puniſhments; as Dearth, or Barrenneſs to their Land; and, by that, Calamity to the Community; as alſo by Peſtilence and Baniſhment out of their Land, to be executed by God: And as the Inſtrument of the Jewiſh Polity, or Common-wealth (for they had no other Temporal-Law of their Land) threatning violent and untimely Death to all **It threatn…d as the Common-wealth-Law, this violent death to every external viſible Breach, whether Omiſſi…n or Comm…ſſion, of every expreſs Law, either M… ral, Judicial, or Cerem… nial This appears plain enough …y that Sanction, Curſed is every one that continues not in all things, &c. The penalty was threatned to every Tranſgreſſ…, and what this penalty was, app…a…s by its contrary, the Life promiſed to the Obedient, which all will grant to contain temporal Life: But it moſt undeniably appea…s by that of a Beaſt's blood being offered in ſtead of the offender's. I do not think, it threatned as the C…m…n-wealth-law, this death to a breach in thought or will, with us any viſible (I mean by this word, that may b… ſeen, or Externally perceived, if any man was by to perceive it) external Om…ſſion, or C…mmiſſion; nor to a not-expreſs, but only by remote conſequence implied breach; nor was the Magistrate bound to infl…ct death on the offender, guilty of ſuch ſinful thoughts or deſires, or refuſing to offer ſacrifice for them, though it ſome way came to his knowledg, as by the parties confeſſing ſuch inward ſins to him, and declaring his reſolution, not to …ffer ſacrifice for them: Yea, it ſeems apparent, that none of their ſacrifices were to be offered for ſuch Internal ſins.Tranſgreſſors of it, to be Executed p. 25by the Magiſtrate; or if ſecret from him, or in the Magiſtrate's neglect or default, by God himſelf, Lev. 20. 3, 4, 5. Yea, and it enjoyned excluſion from Society, and from the Congregation, for pollutions, Lev. 15. Numb. 19. Which were, at leaſt moſt of them, no ſins (though ſo called figuratively) not being forbidden, being generally altogether Involuntary; and it might often be, a man's duty to pollute himſelf; as for Example, by Burying the Dead. Though yet it was a ſin (yea, and might be a preſumptuous ſin in the ſenſe of Numb. 15. 30.) to neglect wittingly the Expiation, or Purgation in that caſe appointed, and alſo to come into ſociety, till the Purgation finiſhed. This would take up too much time to ſpeak more particularly & exactly of.

I would ſpeak more plain if poſſible: let me Repeat it in other words, which may be plainer to ſome underſtandings. I ſay, the Law may be conſidered in this External political ſenſe, viz. ſo far as the Offences might be Expiated by their Sacrifices, or were excluded poſitively by it, from being expiated by their Sacrifices (for that Excluſion was p. 26meant only as to Temporal puniſhment, taking no notice of the Future or Eternal): In this ſence, it had only, as Temporal puniſhments of Offenders, ſo only Temporal promiſes of Peace, or Proſperity, or Long-Life in the Land of Canaan, upon obedience to the Law; and alſo had, in this ſenſe, no Spiritual or Internal precepts. Now the Law in this ſtrict temporal ſenſe, wherein it threatned ſuch calamities to every Offender, was a ſhadow of things to come, Puniſhments to come; a Shadow and Commemoration of the ſame (I mean, materially the ſame) Law's **It was a ſtrangely: ſevere Common-wealthlaw (even beyond Draco's Laws, that, for their ſeverity, were ſaid to be writ in blood) and this ſeverity would even appear irrational and unaccountable unto us, did we not conſider its typicalneſs, and repreſentation of the great ſtrictneſs of the ſame law in a higher ſenſe, curſing with eternal death, every one not continuing in all, &c. And alſo. did we not conſider that it w…s given with a R…med…ing Law, acc…pting the blood of beaſts, in ſtead of a man's, in moſt caſes.ſevere threatnings of Future puniſhments to every Tranſgreſſion, either External, or Internal; And a ſhadow or pattern of Good things to come, Heb. 10. 1. and of Heavenly things, Heb. 9. 28. of the ſame (in another ſenſe) Law's promiſes of future Heavenly happineſs to perfect Obedience; and was much ſuited to put them in mind of the great Concernments of the ſame Law, as pertaining to Conſcience, and the future Life.

p. 272. Still keeping to Temporal Concerns. This amazingly-ſtrict Law as to Temporal puniſhment, may be conſidered as given with, or comprehending in it, a Remedying-Law, as to theſe Temporal ſeverities, viz. As affording pardon upon Sacrifice, as to theſe threatned Deſtructions, for the moſt Tranſgreſſions; (not for all, as one may be apt to wiſh, for Type-ſake; for the community muſt not be ſundamentally prejudiced to make a Type more full, by pardoning all offences as to Temporal puniſhment upon ſacrifice.) And ſo this Political Temporal-Law was (I will not ſay the Goſpel it ſelf, for it was not, but), if I may ſpeak, a little Goſpel in reality, a Law of Pardon as to the Temporal puniſhment threatned; and a Shadow or **I doubt not but the Book of the Law in the Temporal ſenſe I am now upon, being ſprinkled with blood, was a pattern of the Laws, in the Eternal ſenſe I ſhall after ſpeak of, being ſprinkled with a better ſacrifice, and that the Law in this laſt ſenſe, was one of thoſe healy things ſpoken of, Heb. 9. 19. 23. Though the Heavenl… things mentioned, do moſt immediatel… denote the more clear Diſpenſation of the Goſpel then in being, when thoſe words were written.Heb 9:19Heb 9:23pattern, or Repreſentation of its own (materially conſidered) Goſpel favour in admitting Tranſgreſſors of it to p. 28favour, as to its Obligation to Future and Eternal puniſhment, by pardon upon the account of a great Satisfaction to come, which ſuch ſacrifices Typified.

Now it is apparent, that the Law and Covenant, or Teſtament of Moſes, is often taken in the New Teſtament in this ſenſe, viz. For the Law under this conſideration, ſo far as it threatned only what might be remitted by Sacrifice, or threatned what was denied by it to be remitted upon Sacrifice. Yea, no man can poſſibly give any rational account of the meaning of the Author to the Hebrews, in the places where he ſpeaks of the Law; but by affirming, he takes it in this ſenſe, as Chap. 7. 8, 9, 10. For the Law, only in this ſenſe was Typical; and not at all Typical, but the reallity, in the ſenſe I ſhall after ſpeak of it in. He ſhews, the Law made nothing perfect as to Conſcience, or future Concernments; and that Sacrifices did not Expiate any further than as to the purifying of the Fleſh that they might come into the Congregation, and to p. 29the taking off of Temporal guilt and Puniſhment; but not as to Eternal, or Future-life puniſhment; or coming to the Congregation in Heaven; and alſo ſhews that they were a commemoration (foreign) 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, p. 30or 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 foreign, He that contemptuouſly ſinned againſt, or ſet-at-nought, Moſes Law, i. e. in ſome ſtubborn and vain-glorious way;) or he committing Idolatry, Adultery, or Murder, or ſome other particular Crime excluded, as Blaſphemy, Witchcraft, Curſing or Smiting his Father or Mother, defiling the Sabbath, or being a ſtubborn and rebellious Son. As p. 31for Inſtance, David was pardoned and went to Heaven, and he never offered Sacrifice for thoſe his Crimes; for there was none appointed or admitted in ſuch caſe; for he was by that Law, in the ſenſe in hand, to Die without mercy; and ſhould have been put to Death, had there been any Superiour Authority on Earth to do it; except ſome Prophet had come from God, who, being chief Rector, could diſpenſe with his own Laws, to tell ſuch Authothority, that God had pardoned him as to Temporal puniſhment; or God, had ſome way notified, he would not have the Law executed on him. And it is alſo apparent, that a man might be guilty of no Fault, threatned by the Law in this ſenſe, but what was fully Expiated by his Sacrifices, as to Temporal violent Death, and Excluſion from Society; and yet go to Hell, being no true Penitent, or ſincere Servant of God. Becauſe all the Crimes that a man might poſſibly be only guilty of, might be Expiable, and newly Expiated by Sacrifice, ſo far as their Sacrifices could expiate, though he never p. 32truly repented. It was only in ſome few caſes of Injuſtice, that there was Confeſſion to the party, and Reſtitution to the party wronged, required, elſe this Sacrifice was not accepted to Remiſſion as to Temporal guilt, Lev. 5. 5. Chap. 6. 2, 3, 4, 5.

I would have ſpoken more largely and particularly, of the Law under this Conſideration; and have given an accou… here, why the Apoſtles ſometimes take it only in this ſenſe (which I ſuppoſe, I ſhall do ſome-where upon occaſion, before I have done) but I am ſenſible I am ſomething out of my way in ſpeaking ſo largely here, as I have done. And now I have thus ſpoken, I can make little more than this uſe of it, ſhould I keep ſtrictly to ſpeaking of the places of the Apoſtle in diſpute, than to lay it quite, or almoſt aſide; and to make it appear that the Author had done well, unleſs he had ſpoken more exactly of it, to have done ſo; and to wiſh every one would do ſo, (viz. would lay it aſide) for interrupting them, when ſpeaking or thinking of the Apoſtle Pauls meaning, in p. 33moſt of the places in diſpute, viz. Places denying Juſtification by the Law, and Works of the Law; ſince it is apparent, he ſpeaks of Juſtification as to Conſcience, and Future life, and ſpeaks of Moſes Law as referring to Conſcience, and Future life, (which ſenſe I now come to ſpeak of that Law in.)

Secondly, The Law of Moſes may be conſidered as to Conſcience (Conſcience eſſentially reſpects the Future ſtate) and Life to come-concernments, viz. as requiring Obedience with a promiſe of Future happineſs, and under the Peril of Future or Eternal death; and alſo as Remitting and Pardoning ſins, as to Future miſery. Now in this high important ſenſe, this ſame Law (I mean materially, and in words the ſame) muſt be conſidered, both as a ſtrict Law, and a gracious Law or Goſpel. What is a Law, but a ſignification of the Rector's will any way whatſoever, obliging the Subjects to Obedience, by promiſing rewards to the Obedient, and threatning puniſhment to the Diſobedient. Now in this very p. 34Law in this high ſenſe, there are ſignifications of his Will, both of an Original ſtrict Law, conſtituting Eternal or Future death due to every Tranſgreſſor; and of a Remedying-law, promiſing Pardon to Tranſgreſſors upon Repentance, and ſincere Obedience: even as in the Temporal conſideration of the Law, (already ſpoken of) there was a Law requiring the Offender's blood upon his failing in the leaſt in it; elſe there could have been no Pardon of him as to violent death upon a Sacrifice, if the Law had not threatned death to him; and alſo there was the Remedying-law of Pardon upon a Sacrifice: So here this conſideration, This very Law given in the ſame words at Sinai, did Reveal and Signifie theſe formally-diſtinct Laws.

Firſt, A ſtrict exacting of Obedience all their lives, to all that he commanded, under the peril of Future death, or wrath to come; elſe, as I have made apparent before, there could be no Pardon as to wrath to come, or Satisfaction by Chriſt for wrath to come, due by this Law, as to ſuch ſins. p. 35And in this ſtrict ſence, the Apoſtle Paul uſeth the word Law in the moſt of thoſe places in Diſpute, which the Author chiefly inſiſts on, to reconcile them to St. James, viz. the 3d. and 4th. Chapter to the Romans; and Gal. 3. v. 10, 11, 12, 13. And in this ſenſe the Law was no Type or Shaddow, nor to vaniſh away, but ſtands in Force unto this day.

Secondly, Alſo it did Reveal, that though they ſhould ſometimes during their life (which is enough for Condemnation by this Law in the firſt ſenſe) fail in obedience to it; yet their condition ſhould not be hopeleſs, the Puniſhment made due to them by this Law ſhould be pardoned, and they ſhould yet enjoy the promiſed Future life, upon condition they did Repent, and ſincerely love and ſerve God, endeavouring Obedience to all his Laws, Moral, Judicial, and Ceremonial, with the prevailing deſign, and bent of their Souls. Now in this ſenſe, the Law of Moſes was no Type or Shaddow, but the very Goſpel, the Word of Faith which the Apoſtles Preached, Rom. 10. p. 366, 7, 8. And in this ſenſe, David takes the Law in moſt of his Encomiums of it, and in this ſenſe Juſtification and Salvation, are not denied to it, or the Works of it, by the Apoſtle, to them that lived under this Diſpenſation; nor to us by it: For it yet continues the ſame for ſubſtance, having the ſame Sanction, and Condition, or Precept in the general, viz. That if we ſinners repent, and ſincerely obey all his Commands, he will be our God to Bleſs us, to Juſtifie and Save us from all our ſins; Though many of the former particular Precepts are ceaſed, and ſome new ones added, and the whole Diſpenſation more intelligible and clear. It is apparent that the Law of Moſes, though it was given deſignedly (as to the end of the Revelation of it) as a Covenant of Grace and Pardon, even for the Salvation of ſinners, and not for their Deſtruction; yet it was given (ſubſerviently ſtill as to the ſame end of Salvation) alſo to Reveal the Law in its utmoſt exacting Rigour. For though an Original ſtrict Law may really be, and ſo may be Revealed without a Remedying-Law; p. 37yet it is a plain impoſſibility to Reveal, (however ſo as Offenders ſhould be ſenſible of pardon and favour in it) a Remedying-Law of Pardon (as this from Mount Sinai, mainly as to the deſign of it, was) without Revealing and making known the ſtrict Original-Law. For, without knowing what the Law in its Rigor requires from us, and what it threatens to them that fail in the leaſt, we cannot be thankful for Pardon offered on the Goſpel-terms of Sincerity, nor know, we ſtand in need of Pardon ſo we be but ſincere. Neither can this Author poſſibly reconcilably to his Principles (as you will ſee) tell us how Pardon is either needful to one, or poſſibly conſiſtent with, performing the Goſpel-condition, ſince he maintains, That ſincere imperfect Obedience, or the Goſpel-condition, is all that any Law of God ſo much as requires. Thus you ſee my Judgment concerning the Law of Moſes, And that I ſuppoſe that Threat [Curſed is every one that continueth not in all things written] had theſe four ſignifications, or did notifie theſe four p. 38diſtinct Sanctions, with their diſtinct Conditions. 1ſt. Every one ſhall be puniſhed with a violent Temporal death, or, ſuch death ſhall be due to him, that obſerveth not every External Precept. 2ly. Every one ſhall remedileſly be puniſhed with the foreſaid death, that offendeth in the great Inſtances exempted from Pardon, or in other faults, and obſerveth not the Sacrifices appointed for the Expiation of them. 3ly. Future Death or Wrath to come, ſhall be due to every one that obeyeth not every Command, both Internal, and External. 4ly. This Future-death ſhall remedileſly befal every ſuch Offender that ſhall not repent of his ſins, and ſincerely endeavour obedience to every Command, Internal, and External. And to the like extenſive Import, mutatis mutandis, that Promiſe [The man that doth them, ſhall live in or by them] may and ought to be Interpreted.

Now you will ſee theſe four grand Miſtakes which I have here ſpoken to, cauſing the failings of his whole Diſcourſe, in determining what the Apoſtle Paul means by Works, and by the Law, p. 39in denying Juſtification by Works, and by the Law; which Diſcourſe I ſhall now propound to your View, Tranſcribing ſome of it Verbatim, yea, all that is Argumentative in it, without leaving out any thing in the leaſt material, and telling you when I leave out any thing that is not, but may ſeem, material. Which I thus begin,

The Author having before made it apparent, that though Faith in ſome other paſſages of the Apoſtle, doth mean one particular Grace; yet in thoſe Speeches where he ſpeaks of Juſtification by it in oppoſition to Works, he means by Faith all required to Salvation, the obedience of Faith: He tells us, Chap. 6. pag. 98. That the Apoſtle doth not exclude all Works from Juſtification, but Works of the Law of Moſes, and that in ſo doing, in excluding them, he doth alſo reject the corrupt Interpretations or Opinions, which the Scribes and Phariſees, had faſtned on this Law, or added to it: And alſo that the Apoſtle, though ſpeaking little about it, and on the bie, doth implicitly affirm that Works done according p. 40to the Law of Nature, and proceeding from the ſtrength of Nature, doth avail nothing to Salvation.

Chap. 7. He tells us what works of the Laws of Moſes in theſe words, pag. 101. This Law conſiſts of two Parts, viz. of Moral and Ritual Precepts: The Apoſtle without doubt had reſpect to them both. For that he ſpeaks alſo of the Moral Precepts of the Law of Moſes, whatever ſome ſay to the contrary, is too manifeſt out of his own words, Rom. 3. 20. Wherefore by the Works of the Law, ſhall no fleſh be juſtified in his ſight: for by the Law is the knowledg of ſin. From whence it may be gathered, that it is that Law by which is the knowledg of ſin, whoſe works he he excludes; which without controverſie is ſpoken of the Moral-Law written in the Decalogue. For ſo the Apoſtle expounds himſelf, Rom. 7. 7. citing that out of the Decalogue, Thou ſhalt not Covet. So Rom. 3. 31. Do we deſtroy the Law by Faith? God forbid, yea, we eſtabliſh p. 41the Law. Now the Ceremonial-Law, can ſcarce be ſaid to be eſtabliſhed by Faith. The Law worketh wrath: For, where there is no Law, there is no Tranſgreſſion, is chiefly true of the Moral-Law: For almoſt, all Tranſgreſſions are againſt the Moral-Law; therefore the Diſpute of the Apoſtle, pertains alſo to the Works of the Moral-Law. In the mean time, I muſt add this, that the Works of the Moral-Law, are not ſimply excluded by Paul from Juſtification; but only ſo far as they were preſcribed in the Moſaic-Covenant, and were made part of the condition annexed to this Covenant. It is certain that no man could come to true Juſtification by the Moſaic-Covenant, by Works of the Moral-Law, though they were rightly, yea, and exactly performed, according to the Rule of the Law; becauſe, it promiſed no true Juſtification at all, That is, Juſtification joyned with Eternal-Life. For, that great Benefit comes only from the Covenant of Grace, made in the Blood of the p. 42Mediator. So that, if you reſpect the Moſaic-Covenant, even the works of the Moral-Law, are together to be excluded from Juſtification, and are indeed excluded by the Apoſtle.

I know you are at a loſs about the Author's meaning; what he means by this Moſaic-Covenant, that no man could be juſtified by, as to Future life, though free all ſin, and perfectly obeying the Moral-Law; becauſe, this Moſaic-Covenant, promiſed no Juſtification as to Eternal life, upon any terms whatſoever. Now becauſe you will not underſtand what he ſaith here, on the two Arguments he brings in the next words, which he pretends are only the Apoſtle's Arguments againſt Juſtification by this Moſaic-Covenant, and that this is all the Law and Covenant, that the Apoſtle proves againſt Juſtification by; I will bring together here, all that he ſaith, to tell us what he means by the Moſaic-Covenant, that there is no Juſtification by, as he ſaith, as to a Future life, though there was as to this Life; and you will ſee it apparent, that p. 43he means by it only that Law, or Laws, which I before cited out of him, by the name of an Original-Law, and Remedying-Law, which threatned a violent Temporal death to the Tranſgreſſors of the Law; and promiſed, upon offering a Sacrifice, they ſhould eſcape ſuch violent Temporal death; but promiſed nothing of Happineſs in a Future life, if they offered ſuch Sacrifices; or Pardon of thoſe ſins as to a Future life: He apparently either means this Remedying-Law only, or both together; the Original-Law, as it threatned a violent Temporal death, and the Remedying-Law freeing from a violent Temporal death, upon the death of a Beaſt: And he thinks, that the Law taken in ſuch a ſenſe as to threaten Eternal death, or promiſe Eternal life, was the Goſpel it ſelf, and that Paul doth not diſpute againſt being Juſtified by any ſuch Law; And that the Law given from Mount Sinai however had no Promiſes or Threats of a Future life, not ſo much as obſcure ones; and he builds the ſenſe he gives of the Apoſtle Paul upon this Foundation. You p. 44have ſeen this paſſage already, where he ſaith, it promiſed no Eternal life-Juſtification, to any whatſoever, though Sinleſs, and perfectly keeping the Law, Pag. 208. The Promiſes and Threatnings of the Law, were only Temporal and Earthly, Pag. 210. And the Precepts did wonderfully accord with the Promiſes Pag. 212. He ſpeaks largely to prove this. The Apoſtle doth in many places tax this defect of the Moſaic-Law, that it had no promiſe of a Future life. And hither ſome refer that Text, Rom. 8. 3. where it is ſaid, The Law was weak through the Fleſh, i. e. ſay they, It contained only carnal Promiſes: But I chuſe rather the common Interpretation, viz. of Fleſh, for Sin. The 5th. verſe of the foregoing Chapter, is more appoſite, where the Law is called Fleſh; for thoſe words, When we were in the Fleſh, muſt be expounded, When we were under the Law, as is manifeſt from the Antitheſis, which they have to Verſ. 6. and alſo from the ſcope of the whole Chapter. And the Moſaic-Law ſeems to p. 45be called Fleſh; not only becauſe the moſt of the Precepts were carnal only, and External, but alſo becauſe the Promiſes with which this Law was enforced, did not look beyond this Carnal life. To the ſame ſenſe Grotius expounds the words of the Apoſtle, 2 Cor. 3. where he calls the Law, a Miniſtry of Death, becauſe all its Promiſes were ended with Death, without any hope of Reſtitution. So v. 6. The Law of Moſes is ſaid to kill, viz. as the ſame Grotius notes; As the Hebrew word to make alive, is uſed of him who did not kill a man, Exod. 1. 17. Judg. 8. 19. So, that is ſaid to kill, which leaves a man to die, and doth not free from Death. But that I may confeſs the truth, I rather believe theſe Phraſes [to Kill, and a Miniſtry of death] to ſignifie ſomething elſe, viz. the written Law of Moſes, to make men Obnoxious to Divine anger, and Eternal death, if it be alone, and deſtitute of the Spirit; not through p. 46its ††It is well, he here grants it is through the default of the Man, and not f…om the Law; but this deſtroys his cauſe; and He a few Lines after, contradicts this.own fault, but through the infirmity of the Fleſh. The Apoſtle's words, Gal. 3. 13. ſeem more clear. The Law is not of Faith, but he that doth them, ſhall live in them: That is, the Law neither requires Faith, neither doth it promiſe thoſe things which require Faith or Belief, properly ſo called (which is the evidence of things not ſeen, Heb. 11. 1. Rom. 8. 24.) becauſe it promiſes only good things of that ſort, which are things of Senſe, and belong to this viſible World, but ſaith not a tittle concerning a Future life: It excites us not to Piety, with any promiſes of this ſort; but requires that we do its commands, not adding any ſuch promiſe to excite us: Only ſaying, Thou ſhalt live here a proſperous and fortunate life, as appears, Lev. 18. 5. but that place, Gal. 3. 21. is moſt clear: If there had been a Law which could have given life, verily Righteouſneſs ſhould p. 47have been by that Law. The Law is ſaid to give, or do, what it promiſes. The ſenſe thereof is, If the **Here He lays the fault on the Law, and denies it virtually to be the fault of the Man, unſaying what he had ſaid before,Law had had promiſes of life, (viz. Eternal) then men could have attained by the Law, true and perfect Righteouſneſs, or true and perfect Juſtification; that is, Juſtification conjoyned with Eternal life: But the matter was far otherwiſe, the Law contains only promiſes belonging to this Life.

Being no better ſupplied with proofs, than with theſe out of the Apoſtle Paul, he brings ſome out of the Author to the Hebrews; and might have brought many more, and clearer, to ſhew, that Author means by the Law, the Law of Sacrifices, which Sacrifices did only expiate Temporal guilt, as real propitiatory Sacrifices; and not at all guilt as to Eternal puniſhment, but only Typified that which did.

Pag. 215. Queſt. Is there no promiſe of Eternal life, extant in the Old Teſtament? Anſw. Either you p. 48mean by the Old Teſtament, the Covenant made in Mount Sinai; or all things contained in Moſes, the Hagiography, and the Prophets. If taken in the latter ſenſe, it may perhaps be granted, there are ſome, not obſcure, hints of a Future life, though not a clear and expreſs Promiſe of Eternal life. But theſe hints, ſuch as they were, were only Praeludiums, and Anticipations of Goſpel-Grace. They did not belong to the Law. For the Law as it is conſidered by the Apoſtle in his Diſputations with the Jews, doth properly denote the Covenant made in Mount Sinai, Gal. 4. 24. And that, had earthly Promiſes, and earthly only. It is true indeed, that thoſe earthly Promiſes, added to the Law of Works, were ſigns of thoſe good things which did follow the Law of the Spirit, and thoſe were comprehended in them, in the intention of God himſelf. It is alſo true, that there are extant ſome general Promiſes, or Promiſes made in general terms, in the Law it ſelf, in which it is manifeſt, that Eternal p. 49life not only might be, but was contained in Gods Intention, As [I will be thy God, and I will Bleſs you]. For, who doubts but in theſe Promiſes thus generally pronounced, there might be contained every ſort of good things, yea, thoſe which come only after Death? For God to be willing to be one's God, what is it elſe, then God to be willing to embrace a man with Divine good Will? Now Divine good Will, or Benignity worthy of God, What is it elſe than the higheſt Benignity, and than which there can be no greater, or further? And therefore with a Benignity moſt long in duration, that is Eternal; moſt powerful in Operation, and therefore freeing from Death and Deſtruction. For, it is manifeſt by the Interpretation of Chriſt himſelf, and his Apoſtles, that Life-eternal in the Intention of God, was comprehended in theſe words, ſee Mat. 22. 31, 32. Heb. 11. 16. 2 Cor. 6. 16, 17, 18. compared with Chap. 7. 1. Rev. 21. 3. 7. But theſe things do not ſuffice that we may ſay, that Life-eternal p. 50was promiſed in the Moſaic-Covenant. For, Promiſes annexed to a Covenant, ought to be clear and expreſs, and ſuch as may be underſtood by either Party: but it was almoſt impoſſible that any one ſhould underſtand theſe Typical, and general Promiſes, without ſome adventitious Interpretation. Again, this Eternallife ſhadowed with Types, and comprehended in theſe general Promiſes, was not given to the external Righteouſneſs required in the Letter of the Law; but to that ſpiritual Purity and Piety, of which this other External, was only a ſhadow. For, even as Eternal good things lay covered under the bark of Temporal good things; ſo alſo the Bodily-Religion preſcribed in the Law, was a Shadow and Type of Spiritual-Righteouſneſs, to be revealed more clearly in the Goſpel. In a word, the Law conſidered Carnally, and according to the Letter, neither required Spiritual-Righteouſneſs, nor promiſed Eternal-life; but being conſidered Spiritually, was the very Goſpel it ſelf, p. 51neither doth the Apoſtle move any controverſie about here it, being ſo taken.

Pa. 232. He again largely tells us what Law it was, that the Apoſtle only meant when he exclude's the Law, and Works of the Law, from Juſtification; where denying the Spirit to be given by that Law, he thus ſpeaketh.

If by the Law, you underſtand the Covenant made in Mount Sinai, and given to the Iſraelites, Moſes being the Mediator, which I have even now ſaid, is the moſt proper and genuine Acceptation and Notion of it in Paul's Epiſtles, it is manifeſt it contained no Promiſe of the Holy Spirit. But in other Books of the Old Teſtament, yea, and in the writings of Moſes, though not in the Moſaic-Covenant it ſelf; we may find a Promiſe cleer enough, of giving the Grace of the Holy Spirit to the Iſraelites, as that, Deut. 30. 6. The Lord thy God ſhall circumciſe thy heart, and the heart of thy Seed, to love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, &c. Now this cannot be p. 52done, as all that differ from Pelagius confeſs, without a great force of the Holy Ghoſt. But this did belong to the Goſpel-Righteouſneſs, which firſt Moſes himſelf, and after other Prophets, did ſhew to lie under the Bark of the external Rites and Ceremonies; for the Righteouſneſs of Faith which is manifeſted in the Goſpel, was in times paſt, teſtified by the Law, and the Prophets, as the Apoſtle expreſly affirms, Rom. 3. 21. Yea, I will ſhew you further, that this was part of the New Teſtament promulgated by Moſes. For, that the Covenant made with the Jews, Deut. 29. and 30. in which theſe words are found, was plainly diſtinct from the Covenant made in Mount Sinai; and alſo doth contain a Renewing of the Covenant made with Abraham, that is, of the Goſpel-covenant, then more obſcurely Revealed, may be Demonſtrated by many Arguments.

Firſt, It is expreſly ſaid, Deut. 29. 1. p. 53that the words which there **It is not ſaid the words which follow] I rather think that the Expreſſion [theſe are the words of the covenant] meaning the laws or Precepts of the Covenant, hath reference to the Laws before recited in this Book of Deuteronomy, rather than to the words following in this Chapter; And that this Verſe, if a right diviſion had been made, ſhould rather have ended the former Chapter, than have begun this.follow, were words of the Covenant which the Lord commanded Moſes to make with the Children of Iſrarael, in the Land of Moab, beſides the Covenant which he made with them in Horeb. They weakly trifle, who here underſtand **Such an Interpretation is not ſo weak and trifling, but, had I no other evaſion, I would fly to it rather than affirm here, as this Author doth, a new Covenant on Gods part, having quite different Precepts, Promiſes and Threats.a renewing of the Covenant made in Mount Sinai, and do contradict the moſt plain words of the Text. Neither can the words of the Covenant made in Mount Sinai, repeated and renewed, in any ſenſe, be called the words of the Covenant, which God made beſides that he had made in Sinai.

p. 54Secondly, It is expreſly ſaid, **It is only ſaid, That he might be to them a God as he promiſed them, meaning from Mount Sinai; and alſo had ſworn it before to Abraham, &c. as appears, Lev. 26. 45, 46. and from many other places, Exod. 19. 5, 6. Deut. 26. 15. 18, 19.Lev 26:45Lev 26:46Exod 19:5Exod 19:6Deut 26:15Deut 26:18Deut 26:19that this Covenant is altogether the ſame with that which God made and confirmed by Oath, with the Iſraelites Anceſtors, to wit, with Abraham, Iſaac, and Jacob, v. 12, 13. which Covenant, was the very Goſpel ſomething obſcurely revealed, as Paul ſaith, Gal. 3. 16, 17.

Thirdly, Paul cites ſome words of this Covenant, as words of the **So Paul doth cite theſe words, Lev. 26. 12. I will walk among you, and will be your God, and you ſhall be my people (which words we…e ſpoken at Mount Sinai, as appears by v. 46.) as a Goſpel-promiſe, as indeed they were, 2 Cor. 6. 16. and begins the following Chapter thus, Having theſe Promiſes, let us cleanſe our ſelves, &c.Lev 26:122 Cor 6:16Goſpel-covenant, which holds forth the Righteouſneſs of Faith: ſee Rom. 10. 6. &c. compared with Deut. 30. 11. I am not ignorant, that ſome determine theſe words, to be accommodated to the Righteouſneſs of Faith, only by way alluſion: But I cannot believe them, ſince Paul manifeſtly alledges theſe p. 55words, as the very words of the Righteouſneſs of Faith; that is, as the very words of the Goſpel-covenant, in which this Righteouſneſs is revealed. And, that I may confeſs the truth, I have always eſteemed theſe Alluſions (to which ſome flie, as to the holy Aſylum, or Sanctuary of their Ignorance) for the moſt part to be nothing elſe, then manifeſt abuſes of the Holy Scripture.

Fourthly, All the things contained in this Covenant, do wonderfully fit, or agree, to the Goſpel.

1. As for the Precepts, there are only commanded here, **There are no particular Laws recited, not ſo much as the Ten Commandments, in theſe two chapters, which he will have to contain this whole Covenant.things belonging to Manners, and which are in their own nature Honeſt, there being no mention here made of thoſe Rites whereof the whole Legal-covenant is almoſt full, which being conſidered according to the words, may ſeem childiſh; and further, the whole obedience which is here required, may be ††So may equally all Covenanted by the people, at Mount Sinai, or required of them by God.referred p. 56to a ſincere and diligent endeavour to obey God in all things, Chap. 30. 10. 16. 20.

2. As for the Promiſes, God here promiſes full Remiſſion of all ſins upon Repentance, even of the moſt ‖‖So he doth as fully from Mount Sinai, Lev. 26. 40, 41.Lev 26:40Lev 26:41heinous, Cap. 30. 1, 2, 3, 4. which favour was never granted in the Legal covenant; And further, the Grace of the Holy Ghoſt, whereby the hearts of men may be circumciſed, that they may love the Lord with all their hearts, and ſouls, is clearly promiſed, v. 6. How far is this from the uſual vein of Moſes writings.

Fifthly, That Covenant which Jeremiah foretold, Jer. 31. 31, 32. &c. was a Goſpel-covenant, as all Chriſtians grant, and the Author to the Hebrews expreſly teacheth, Heb. 8. 8. Now all thoſe things which the Prophet foretels of that Covenant, do ††Alluſions being too much built on, may be Illuſions.exactly anſwer to this Moabitiſhcovenant. Jeremiah calls his Covenant, a p. 57new Covenant, altogether different from that which God plighted with the Anceſtors of Iſrael, going out of Egypt; Moſes ſaith the ſame of the Moabitiſh-covenant: Jeremiah gives this cauſe why God would make a new Covenant, viz. becauſe they brake the Old, wanting Gods powerful Grace; The ſame reaſon Moſes gives here, of making this new Covenant, Deut. 29. 4. Jeremiah's, promiſed circumciſion of heart; ſo this: That promiſed Remiſſion of ſins, Jer. 31. 34. So this, Deut. 30. 1, 2, &c. Jeremiah ſpeaks of the clearneſs, and facility of the Precepts, which are contained in the New-covenant, that they might know and obey them, without much ſearch and labour: So doth Moſes, Deut. 30. 11, 12. compared with Romans, 10. 6. All theſe things ſeem very clear to me. I have dwelt ſomething long upon theſe things; Both that it may be manifeſt hence, that all things in the Moſaic-writings, do not belong to the Moſaic-Covenant properly ſo called; And to ſhew how neceſſary p. 58it is to reſtrain the old Law, properly ſo called, only to the Covenant made in Mount Sinai. And alſo, chiefly that the Wiſdom of God might appear, in diſpencing the Covenant of Grace. God had made that gracious Covenant with Abraham, many years before the giving of the Law, to which Covenant, it afterwards pleaſed him to add another Covenant, made up of many painful Rites and Ceremonies; by which he might keep in their Duty; that is, reſtrain from the Idolatrous-worſhip of the Heathen, the rude and carnal poſterity of Abraham, lately brought out of Aegypt; and ſo, too much addicted to Paganiſh Rites, and Superſtitions. But the moſt wiſe God foreſeeing, that this People of a fooliſh, or hard-heart (obtuſi pectoris) would not underſtand his purpoſe; after he had made this carnal Law, He commanded Moſes, that he ſhould promulgate a New-covenant to the Iſraelites, or rather, that he ſhould renew that Old-covenant, which he many years before had made with Abraham, p. 59which did chiefly require ſpiritual Righteouſneſs, and was full of Grace and Mercy. That from hence the Jews might know, that the Abrahamatical-covenant was yet in force, even after the Ritual-Law was made; and alſo was to be accounted for the Covenant, by which only their Salvation was to be attained, ſee Gal. 3. 17. Who would not here cry out with the Apoſtle? O… the depth of the Riches, and Wiſdom, and Knowledg of God!

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

A Covenant in the ſtricteſt propriety of the Word, is a mutual Engagement p. 60of Parties, two at the leaſt. If one ſide promiſe, his part is not a Covenant, except both do. So that, that tranſaction between God and the people at Sinai, was properly a Covenant, Exod. 19. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8. though God had not yet told the People what Laws he would require Obedience to in particular, for Moſes come's with a meſſage to the people from God, and tells them, that if they will obey his Voice, and keep his Covenant, i. e. his Law, they ſhould be a peculiar Treaſure unto him, and a Kingdom of Prieſts; that is, He would be their God to bleſs them, if they would be his people to obey him. This was Gods Promiſe in this Covenant; the people give this anſwer unanimouſly, We conſent, we will obey God in all his Commands, be they what they will, though they were not told yet what his Commands ſhould be. But this, though a Covenant, was but in order to the great Solemnization of this Covenant, which was, Exod. 24. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8. Where having given the Moral-Law, the Ten Commandments, and ſome Judicial and Ceremonial Laws; Moſes comes p. 61down 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.

p. 60duplicate page p. 61duplicate page p. 62Sometimes the word Covenant, is uſed for the Promiſe of one of the Parties only, as Gods conditional Promiſes, that if we will in ſincerity Love, Serve, and Obey him, he will be our God to bleſs us. This is not a Covenant in the ſtricteſt ſenſe, but a conditional Promiſe; yet is ſo called frequently in Scripture, becauſe it is Gods part of the Covenant, yea, all God's part of the Covenant of Grace, and all that he Seals or Promiſes; and when we do in ſincerity promiſe our part, theſe together make it actually a Covenant; He engaged actually to bleſs us, and we to ſerve him. Yea, if we promiſe only hypocritically, yet we are engaged ſo as we are guilty of Covenant-breaking; though God is not engaged by his conditional Promiſe, we not being real in performing the condition.

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

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

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

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

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

Now Moſes, well knowing all theſe things, and that his departure was at hand, for he died within a Month after his beginning this Repetition of the Law to the people; for he began it the firſt day of the Eleventh Month, in the Fortieth year, and died in the end of that Month, for the people mourned p. 65for him Thirty dayes, viz. the whole Month after, Deut. 1. 3. and Chap. 34. 8. compared. I ſay Moſes foreknowing this, and earneſtly deſiring to tye the people (that he was about to leave) faſt to God, and his Laws; he begins, in the hearing of the people, in the Land of Moab, a Month before he died (Deut. 1. 3. 5.) to take an effectual courſe, to inform them in the knowledg of God's Laws, and to engage them to Obedience, by reciting, and Summing up the Tranſactions of God, towards them in the Wilderneſs, and all the Laws Moral, Judicial, and Ceremonial (yet leaving out for the moſt part, thoſe Judicial and Ceremonial commands, that concerned the Prieſts Office, or were not of ordinary Practice) and adds ſome commands, eſpecially concerning things to be done by them, when they come into the Promiſed Land: And affectionately exhorts them to obey theſe commands, with all their Heart and Soul, ever and anon intermixing diſcourſes of the Bleſſings would come on them by their obedience; and Miſeries by diſobedience. p. 66This is the Sum of his Diſcourſe to this, Chap. 29. He that ſhall think, that all the Promiſes, and Threats in this Book hitherto, do only mundum ſonare, are only Temporal; ſure a vail is upon his Eyes, and Heart, in reading the Old Teſtament. And then, in this Chap. 29. Having thus far prepared them to do what they do knowingly, and affectionately, He engages them in a Covenant (even with an Oath which was more than was done in Sinai) to keep all theſe Laws. He begins his Prologue to this actual Engagement, as at Sinai, with theſe words, [You have ſeen] v. 2. v. 9. keep therefore the words of this Covenant (that is, the commands that I have repeated unto you) that you may proſper in all that you do, v. 10. You ſtand here this day all of you, before the Lord your God, your Captains, your Elders, your little Ones, your Wives, that you ſhould enter into Covenant with the Lord thy God, and into his Oath which the Lord maketh with thee this day; that he may Eſtabliſh thee to day, for a people to himſelf; that He may be unto p. 67thee a God, as he hath ſworn unto thy Fathers, Abraham, Iſaac, and Jacob, i. e. to give their Seed this good Land. And tells them, If they forſake God, and God bring on this Land the curſe of the Covenant, written in the Book of this Law, and make it like Sodom, and Gomorrah; and men ſhall ſay, What means the heat of this great Anger? It ſhall be anſwered, Becauſe they have forſaken the Covenant of the Lord God of their Fathers, which He made with their Fathers, when he brought them out of the Land of Egypt (that is, which he made almoſt Forty years ſince with the Fathers of this Generation at Sinai) v. 21, 25. And He ſpends the next Chapter, (which the Author makes part of his New-covenant) partly in telling them God would, when caſt out of their Land for their ſins, yet, admit them again to it, if they repent and turn, as He told them before; alſo (what ever this Author ſaith of that admitting no Repentance) as you may ſee apparent, Lev. 26. 40, 41, 44, 45, 46. Yea, this place of Leviticus, which is ſaid expreſly to be ſpoken at Sinai, p. 68v. 64. is rather more expreſs for Repentance, being accepted, than this the Author ſo much inſiſts on. And partly in telling them, that he hath told them plainly, what the Laws of God are, which if they obſerve they ſhall live, and need not go beyond the Sea, to enquire what they may do to be happy; and partly in warning them to keep theſe Laws.

The whole contents of this Book of Deuteronomy, to the end of this Thirtieth Chapter, was not only ſpoken to the people within a Month before his Death, which is apparent; but it is very probable, within a few of the firſt days of the Month, the latter part of the Month being taken up, with his writing it, Chap. 31. 9. And giving a charge to the Prieſts and Levites, and in his preſenting himſelf with Joſhuah, before the Lord in the Tabernacle, that God might give Joſhuah a charge, Chap. 31. 9, 10, 14, 15. and in Speaking and Writing the Song, called Moſes Song, and teaching the people it, v. 22. And in bleſſing the people, Chap. 33.

And obſerve, This Deuteronomy, this p. 69Fare-well Speach of Moſes, all of it, (however to the 29th. Chapter) was, when Moſes had written it, given to the Prieſts with a command that it ſhould be Read, in the hearing of the people met together, every Seventh year, as being very ſutably Pen'd for their Inſtruction, Chap. 31. 9, 10, 11, 12, 13. And it is commanded, that when they ſhould have a King, that he ſhall in the beginning of his Reign, Write out a Copy of this Book, Chap. 17. 18. The laſt Chapter of this Book, was added by ſome other than Moſes, as is apparent; It's likely by Joſhuah. You ſee now, there is no colour to pretend, that the Covenant ſpoken of, Deut. 39. 1. means only that Chapter, and the following; much leſs that theſe Two Chapters only of all Moſes writings, have only Spiritual commands, and Spiritual promiſes; and give way and make Promiſes to Repentance. For, as for the Spirituality of the Laws in this Chapter, it doth not Recite the Laws they were here engaged to obey, not ſo much as the Ten Commandments, whereof ſome are ſure Spiritual commands, and p. 70the ſincere obſerving of them, is certainly the condition of the Goſpel, but ſhew plainly, This Covenant obliges them to keep all the Laws given at Mount Sinai. And for the Promiſes, and Threatnings, they are expreſſed in as Terrene Expreſſions here, as in moſt other places. And as for this of Repentance, ſee Lev. 26. 40. When they ſhall be in Ages to come, almoſt deſtroyed with Judgments threatned for their ſins; if they ſhall confeſs their Iniquities, and the Iniquities of their Fathers, v. 41. And if their uncircumciſed heart be humbled, and they then accept the puniſhment of their Iniquities; I will not caſt them away, but will remember their Land, v. 45. I will, for their ſakes, remember the Covenant of their Anceſtors, whom I brought forth out of the Land of Egypt, (that is, This at Sinai, for none other of their Anceſtors were brought out of the Land of Egypt) v. 46. Theſe are the Statutes, and Judgments, and Laws which the Lord made between him and the children of Iſrael, in Mount Sinai. So Deut. 4. 29. If ye ſhall be ſcattered for p. 71your ſins, amongſt the Heathen, being driven out of your own Land, and ſhall there ſerve other Gods of Wood and Stone; If from thence thou ſhalt ſeek the Lord thy God, thou ſhalt find him, if thou ſeek him with all thy heart, and with all thy ſoul, v. 31. For the Lord thy God, is a merciful God, Exod. 34. 6. He proclaimed himſelf thus from Sinai: The Lord, the Lord, gracious and merciful, forgiving Iniquity, Tranſgreſſion, and Sin, &c.

As for Deuteronomy 29. 1. [Theſe are the words of the Covenant which the Lord commanded Moſes, to make with the Children of Iſrael, in the Land of Moab, beſide the Covenant which he made with them in Horeb]. It ſeems apparent to me, that this verſe hath reference to the Laws, and Precepts before Recited by Moſes, in his paſt Oration to the people, and the meaning of the words is this: Theſe fore-Recited Commands, are the Laws which the people covenanted to keep; which covenanting of the people, the Lord commanded Moſes to require from them, in the Land of Moab, beſide p. 72that covenanting, which Moſes required from the people in Horeb. Which I will make plain, in Reciting theſe words again, with the ſenſe they are uſed in, in other Scriptures.

Theſe are the words (that is the Laws or Precepts, for ſo words is uſed apparently, v. 9. and 2 Kings 23. 3. Deut. 27. 26. Exod. 24. 28. So alſo the Ten Commandments, are called the Ten-words, Deut. 4. 13. and Chap. 10. 4. And, the Words, (Exod. 20. 1.) of the Covenant (By Covenant is here meant, the peoples promiſe to obey, the peoples actual Engagement; ſo the word Covenant is uſed, 2 Kings 12. 17. and Chap. 23. 3. and 2 Chro. 15. 12.) which (that is, which Covenant, which actual Promiſe, not which words, for that the Hebrew word foreign uſed appropriately for making a Covenant, will by no means bear; So that it is an apparent Errour in the Septuagint to read foreign, refering to foreign The meaning p. 73is, **I had written this before Mr. Pool's Elab…tate, and uſeful Synopſis, was publiſhed; and upon …eading the Cri…icks, and ſome others, could find none concurring with me, but now in his Book, I find P…ſca…or interpreting the words [beſide the Covenant] thus, Praeter actionem illam qua foedus fuit pactum, which can mean nothing but the peoples Engagement.which actual promiſe of the people) the Lord commanded Moſes to make with the children of Iſrael; (that is, which the Lord commanded Moſes, to cauſe the children of Iſrael to make; for ſo this phraſe and word is expreſly uſed, Joſh. 24. 25. Joſhuah made a Covenant with the people that day, that is, cauſed the people to promiſe obedience to the Lords Commands that day: The like ſenſe the word hath, ſo far as concerns the Covenanting of the people, (2 Kings 11. 17.) in the Land of Moab, beſide the Covenant (that is, beſide their actual promiſing) which Moſes made with them (that is, cauſed them to make) at Horeb, or Sinai.

But ſuppoſe this Verſe ſhould have reference only to the following Verſes, in this Chapter and the following; his meaning can only be, Theſe are the words whereby he engaged the people in a p. 74Covenant, diſtinct from the words whereby Moſes engaged them in a Covenant to the Lord formerly. We find Joſhuah, a little before his death, again engaging the people in a Covenant, to obey Gods Commandments; and uſeth Words and Exhortations, different from theſe in this Chapter, in engaging them. Suppoſe we had read ſuch words as theſe, viz. Theſe are the words of the Covenant, which Joſhuah made with the people, beſides the Covenant which Moſes made with them at Mount Sinai, and in the Land of Moab. This might import, that it was a diſtinct Engaging of the people, from the other two; but not that it was another Covenant of God, having other Promiſes, and Commands, and Threats. We find the people in Nehemiah's time, Nehem. 10. 29. entering into a Covenant; But, it was into the Mount Sinai-Covenant; It was to walk in God's Law, which was given by Moſes, and we may ſee there, it was alſo to obſerve Ceremonial and Judicial commands. It ſeems they had not obſerved this New-covenant of this Authors, in p. 75theſe two Chapters of Deuteronomy.

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

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

And again, There are, by far, more Promiſes and Threatnings in this Book, expreſſed in a Carnal Temporal and Terrence ſtile, than in all the Law of Moſes beſide in Exodus, Leviti. Numb.

I am ſenſible, this Ignis fatuus, hath led me out of my deſigned way; for I deſigned here, only to bring in thoſe Paſſages together, (without any reflection upon them) where the Author tells us, what he ſuppoſes the Apoſtle Paul means by the Law, which he diſputes againſt Juſtification by, and by the Works of; even a Law, that either hath, or at leaſt in the ſenſe the Apoſtle oppoſeth Juſtification by it, hath neither Spiritual-promiſes, nor p. 76Threatnings, nor Precepts. There is only one place more, and that is (pag. 122, 123.) where he explains the Apoſtle's meaning by the Law; but becauſe I have been long in Reciting theſe, and that w…ll methodically be brought in, in another place, I ſhall bring it in there, and ſo ſhall return now to the place where I left off, viz. At the end of pag. 102. and ſhall begin at the top of pag. 103. where he tells us, The Apoſtle uſeth two Arguments againſt Juſtification by Works; which two Arguments this Author only proſecutes; and ſo largely, that the Setting down, and Proving, and Explaining theſe, takes up almoſt two third parts of his whole Book: Take his own words.

Pag 103. The Arguments whereby Paul oppoſes the Law, may be divided into two ſorts; one into thoſe which belong to the whole Moſaic-Covenant; the other, into thoſe Arguments, which chiefly reſpect the Ceremonial Law.

This latter ſort of Arguments, which chiefly reſpect the Ceremonial-Law, he leaves till near the end of his Book, p. 77and then ſpends but few Lines about them, as not being (as he ſaith) controverted by Chriſtians.

The Arguments of this firſt ſort, whereby the Apoſtle fights, are eſpecially two; and thoſe are taken from a double defect of the Moſaic-Covenant, viz. From the want both of pardoning Grace, and of helping Grace.

The firſt Argument of the Apoſtle reſpecting the Moſaic-Covenant, is drawn from the defect of Pardoninggrace, or Remiſſion of ſins, which that Covenant wanted: Where the Apoſtle ſhews the Univerſal guilt, as well of the Jews, as of the Gentiles; and that all are guilty of thoſe ſins, that there is no true and perfect Remiſſion to be hoped for by this Law. It is clear, that this is the ſcope of Paul, in the third Chapter of the Epiſtle to the Romans. For there, after a long Catalogue of ſins, charged both on the Jews, and Gentiles, by the Law, v. 10. &c. At length, ver. 20. he inferrs this concluſion, Wherefore by the works of the Law, p. 78ſhall no fleſh be juſtified in his ſight, viz. in the ſight of God. And alſo, the things which the Apoſtle diſputes in the 3d. Chap. of Gal. are to be referred the ſame way; where he proves alſo by this Reaſon, That all who are under the Law, are under a Curſe; becauſe it is written, Curſed is every one, that ſhall not continue in all things written in the Law, to do them, v. 10.

But here I am ſenſible, that upon the very Threſhold, I am caſt upon a great difficulty. For it may be doubted here, whether this Argumentation of the Apoſtle, doth not lean upon this Foundation; that he determines, The Moſaic-Law, as it was given to the Jews, was a Law requiring Obedience wholly perfect, and ſo impoſſible to be performed; and alſo, whether the Apoſtle conclude, that upon this account, all men are ſinners by this Law, and by, and for their ſins, guilty of eternal Death, and Malediction; and ſo, that no man can be Juſtified by this Law. Thus indeed the moſt think, affirming p. 79that the Law of Moſes did oblige (if not abſolutely, yet ††Conditionally is no good word here; For though we may properly ſay, Men ſhall periſh for their ſins conditionally, except they repent, for this is no more than to ſay, the Law that threatens death abſolutely, ſhall be executed except they repent; yet we muſt not ſay, that the Law threatens death conditionally except they repent; but we muſt hold it threatens death abſolutely repent or repent not, and that the Goſpel is a diſtinct Law, a Remedying-Law. For if God threatned death by the Law, only conditionally, except they perform the Goſpel-condition, it would follow that no man is pardoned that performs the Goſpel condition, it would alſo quite deſtroy Chriſts Satisfaction. Though I know many mean well that uſe ſuch ſpeeches, and however far better than the Author, that denies any ſuch Lawthreat, either abſolute or conditional.conditionally, viz. unleſs they fled to the Goſpel-covenant) all thoſe to whom it belonged, and that under the peril of Eternal death, to moſt abſolute obedience, that is, ſuch as comprehends all manner of ſinleſneſs; yea, and that perpetually, and did forbid all Imperfection, Inadvertency, and Infirmity through the whole courſe of their lives. But I cannot be perſwaded to the opinion of theſe, for Reaſons which I ſhall preſently give. In the mean while, that you may more rightly underſtand the ſtate of this Controverſie; keep p. 80this exactly in your mind, that theſe two things do widely differ, viz. A man to be accounted by God, unworthy of the reward of Righteouſneſs and Eternal life: And a man to be accounted of God, worthy to be puniſhed with the puniſhment of Eternal death. For the firſt, For a man to be judged unworthy of Eternal Life, it ſufficeth that he is not altogether Sinleſs; for God may, and that righteouſly, deny him the reward of Eternal Life for the leaſt Imperfection. For God might deny that infinite Gift of Eternal Life to a man obeying perfectly, if ſuch a one could be found; becauſe it is a free Gift, and cannot be due to the Merit of any Creature: But for that laſt, That one ſhould be accounted by God, worthy of the puniſhment of Eternal death, it is neceſſarily required, that he did not perform that Obedience which he could perform. Hence it follows, that no man can righteouſly be adjudged guilty of Eternal death, for the defect of perfect Righteouſneſs, ſince this Righteouſneſs p. 81is ſimply impoſſible to a man in this Life. And it is manifeſt, that the Apoſtle in the Diſpute of which we ſpeak, doth prove all Jews, and Gentiles, without difference, for not obeying the Law, not only to be unworthy of the reward of Eternal life, but obnoxious to Divine anger, and Eternal death, That every mouth might be ſtopped, Rom. 3. 19. that is, that all Jews and Gentiles, may be without excuſe, Rom. 1. 20. and 2. 1. And what is more unlikely (that I may uſe here, the words of Epiſcopius) that the Apoſtle would charge men to be guilty of Death and Condemnation, for violating, or not keeping a Law which he judged it impoſſible for them to keep: Neither is it likely, that Paul had any Adverſaries but what would grant, that no man could keep the Law ſo exactly, as not to offend in the leaſt, and ſo no man to be juſtified in that ſenſe by the Law; And who would not alſo object to him, that men were ill accuſed to be guilty of Puniſhment, when it is certain, they p. 82could not avoid the fault. The foundation of all here ſaid, is this, That it is repugnant to Divine Juſtice, that any ſhould be bound to Impoſſibilities,Pag 106. eſpecially under the peril of Eternal death.

He here make's out, That, that-uſual pretence of ſome, is very abſurd, that men have loſt their power to do what God requires of them, and ſo God may juſtly require what they cannot now do; which I grant, and have elſewhere proved to be ſo abſurd, as no way to anſwer that difficulty. He thus proceeds,

And to come to the Moſaic-Law, it is far more unlikely, that it was a Law requiring perfect Obedience. Which that I may make manifeſt, It is diligently to be obſerved, that the Old Law (as Grotius de Satisf. cap. 10. noteth) may be conſidered **This …numeration is not near large …ough, nor any thing to the pu…poſe.two ways, as having a double relation, or foreign. Firſt, Carnally, and according to the Letter, as it was an Inſtrument of the Government of p. 83the Jewiſh Polity, or the Commonwealth. Secondly, Spiritually, as having a ſhadow of good things to come, Heb. 10. 1. Now in this laſt foreign, or Habitude, ſince the Law was nothing elſe but the **The Law, as it had a ſhadow of good things to come, was not the Goſpel it ſelf: Again, ſo far as it was an Inſtrument of the Jewiſh Polity, it was a ſhadow of good things to come. And ſo far as it was the Law of Grace, the Goſpel of Salvation, it Typified nothing.Goſpel it ſelf, ſhadowed with, or ſhadowed under Types; no man in his right wits, will ſay, it was a a Law, requiring perfect obedience, viz. In that ſenſe wherein the Law was meant in this Controverſie, to require perfect Obedience.

It remains therefore to be affirmed, that the Law of Moſes required perfect Obedience under the former conſideration [viz. As the Inſtrument of the Jewiſh Government.]

But to affirm this, would be wonderfully *† It did threaten death in this conſideration, to the leaſt failing in this Political-Law. abſurd. Becauſe,

Firſt, Becauſe we read expreſly, p. 84that God by **It was not by that Law formally conſidered, but by the Remedying-Law different from it.that Law, commanded Sacrifices by which the offences, which were not done in contempt of the Law, and with a high Hand were expiated, as may be ſeen, Num. 15. from the 22d. to the 29th. v. Now **The juſt contrary is true. For there can be no pardon of the want of perfect obedience, but where perfect obedience is required.where any pardon of ſin is granted, there the requiring of Perfect-bedience cannot have place: For theſe are inconſiſtent.

Secondly, The Moſaic-Law, was ſo far from requiring Perfect-obedience from the Jews, that it is too manifeſt, that ſome things were in that Law **The doing things permitted by a Law, is no breach of that particular Law, nor hinders a man from perfectly obeying that Law.permitted to them for the hardneſs of their hearts, which things cannot be excuſed from being ſin, as Polygamy, and Licence of divorcing for leight cauſes, Deut. 24. 1. and compared with Mat. 19. 3. &c. I conclude therefore, that ſince by p. 85the Moſaic-Law, carnally conſidered, many ſins were remitted to the Jews, and ſome things (which at leaſt to us Chriſtians, are accounted ſins) were expreſly permitted; It ought to be granted without controverſie, that this Law, ſo conſidered, did by no means require perfect and exact Obedience.

Yet there are not wanting Arguments, by which ſome endeavour to prove this Hypotheſis to be true; and that thence, Paul gathered the impoſſibility of Juſtification by the Moſaic-Law. We will weigh theſe Arguments exactly, to try if they have any thing of Solidity, which ought to prejudice ſo plain a truth: They bring two chiefly.

Their firſt Argument, is taken from that place fore-alleadg'd by me,Pag. 108. viz. Gal. 3. 10. As many as are of the works of the Law, are under a Curſe: For it is written, Curſed is every one, that doth not continue in all things, &c. Where, ſay they, it is manifeſt, that the Apoſtle gathers the Impoſſibility of Juſtification by p. 86the Moſaic-Law, from thence that by this Law, no man is free from a Curſe, who hath not obeyed all the commands of this Law perfectly.

I anſwer, It is not neceſſary, nor convenient, in the cited place this phraſe [continue in all things] ſhould ſignifie moſt Perfect-obedience, or quite ſinleſneſs; ſince ſuch Obedience is impoſſible to man encompaſſed with Fleſh; neither doth it ſeem conſentaneous to Divine equity, that any one for the defect of it, ſhould be obnoxious to Eternal Malediction. Therefore the ſenſe of the Teſtemony cited, is this; That every man is Accurſed; that is, is Execrable and Obnoxious to the Puniſhment threatned by the Law, who doth not do, and obſerve perſeveringly **Is not this perfect obedience to a Law, to do all the Law requires to be done?all thoſe things which the Law preſcribeth to be obſerved. And he is reputed to do all things, who doth not err from the end of the Law; who keeps ſafe the eſſenal parts of the Law, or (as others p. 87ſpeak) who keeps all thoſe Precepts of the Law, which contain the ſubſtance of Life; of which ſort are all thoſe Commands which are expreſſed by Moſes, in the Curſes, Deut. 27. In a word, who admits nothing into himſelf knowingly, and wittingly againſt the Law of God, although he fails in ſomething, either out of Ignorance, or Inadvertency.

That place, Jam. 2. 10. being Twin-brother to this, gives great light to this place, Whoſoever keeps the whole Law, and yet offends in one point, is guilty of all: That is, is obnoxious to the Puniſhment threatned to the Tranſgreſſors of the Law, v. 10. For he that ſaid, Do not commit Adultery, ſaid alſo, Do not kill, &c.

Here he giveth the true and ordinary Interpretation of this place ſo largely, as to take up pag. 109. and half pag. 110. which is this, He that knowingly allows himſelf in the knowing Tranſgreſſion of any one Law, is as far from Salvation, as if he kept none; for ſuch a one doth not act ſincerely in Obedience to any Law, ſince all Divine Laws p. 88have the ſame Author and Authority: Therefore he that knowingly neglects one Law, doth not keep other Laws, becauſe of Gods Authority in Commanding, or becauſe of Gods Command, but becauſe he hath not that liſt through Temptation to break them; for if he had as much liſt through Temptation to break them, ſuch a one would break the other Laws. He goes on:

But one may perhaps reply. Grant it, let that place of James be ſo expounded,Pag. 110. yet the ſame Interpretation will by no means agree to the Apoſtle's ſcope in that place of the Epiſtle to the Galatians: For ſince the Apoſtle doth prove all who are of the Law, to be under a Curſe, only by this reaſon; becauſe it is written, Curſed is every one, that doth not continue in all things, &c. he doth manifeſtly hint, that no man can continue in all things, or that the Law doth require ſuch perfect obedience, as none can perform.

Anſwer, I altogether deny that to be hinted, or implyed in the Apoſtle's Argument: Which, that it may be p. 89made apparent, I will reduce it to a Syllogiſtical form: Thus,

He is accurſed who doth not continue in all thing, which the Law commands. But whoſoever are of the works of the Law, do not continue in all thoſe things:

Ergo, They that are of the works of the Law, are under a Curſe.

The Apoſtle ſpeaks expreſly ofPag 111. thoſe who are of the works of the Law, v. 10. That is, who ſeek Righteouſneſs in the Law being ignorant of, or deſpiſing the Grace of the Goſpel, whom he oppoſeth to them that are of Faith, v. 9 That is, who believe the Goſpel and embrace it's Grace; and who have attained the Promiſes (or thing Promiſed) of the Spirit, whereby they may fulfil the Righteouſneſs of the Law, and ſo avoid the Curſe of it, v. 14. Of the firſt ſort indeed he hints, that they neither continue, nor ††Then they a…e not, according to his Argument, bound to continue in all, &c. and ſo are free from the Curſe, though they continue not in all, &c.can continue in all things written; but of the ſecond ſort, he by p. 90no means affirms it. In a word, The Apoſtle …ver ſpoke word againſt man's being able to fulfil the Law, in all things by Goſpel-Grace, ſo far as it was a Law; that is, under the penalty of Eternal death, is impoſed us, or ever was impoſed upon Mankind, ſince the fall of the firſt man; yea, he often acknowledges this poſſibility, as we ſhall ſee hereafter.

There remains another Argument of the Adverſaries (of which they boaſt, as being moſt unconquerable) taken out of that famous place, Deut. 6. 5. Thou ſhalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy ſoul, and with all thy ſtrength. You may ſee here, ſay they, that the higheſt and perfecteſt love of God, is required of all in the Law.

Anſwer, They who fight with this Argument, do kill themſelves with their own Sword. For, ſince God requires no other love, than what is done with all the Heart and Mind, and with all the Strength; it is manifeſt, that nothing is required of us beſide, or above our ſtrength (our ſtrength, I p. 91mean, helpt with that meaſure of Grace which God communicates to every one of us in this Life, or is certainly ready to communicate.) Now it is certain, that we can with all ourPag. 112. ſtrength obey God, becauſe it would be a ††It is no contradiction, but a great truth. It is appa…ent, that a man's culpable Impotency to good, is an Impotency of doing ſomething, that we have the natural power and ſtrength to do; And whoſoever doth not underſtand this, muſt neceſſarily talk ridiculouſly about ſuch matters as theſe in hand.manifeſt contradiction, to ſay we cannot do the thing we can do (or cannot do a thing according to our ſtrength.)

The truth of this Anſwer, is eſtabliſhed firmly with theſe following Reaſons. Firſt, Becauſe God promiſes that he will give to his people, that which he requires, viz. To circumciſe their heart, to love him with all their heart, Deut. 30. 6. Secondly, Becauſe God himſelf witneſſeth, that there were ſome that loved him after this manner; ſo it is ſaid of Aſah the King, and all the people, that they ſought the Lord with their whole heart, 2 Chro. 15. 2. We read p. 92of David, that he followed God with all his heart, 1 Kings 14. 8. But that is a famous Teſtimony, which the Holy Ghoſt gives concerning Joſiah the King, That he turned to the the Lord with all his heart, and with all his ſoul, and with all his ſtrength, according to the Law of Moſes, 2 Kin. 23. 25. viz. That is ſaid to be done with the whole heart, and whole ſtrength, which a man imploys his chief Thoughts and Endeavours about; even as we ſay, A man is totus in literis, wholly in ſtudies that maketh them his chief buſineſs.

I ſhall as ſoon as I have recited all he ſaith of this nature, anſwer the ſubſtance of all; But this of loving God with all the Soul, being ſomething out of the Road, I will anſwer it here. The command of loving God with all the Heart, and Soul, and Strength, muſt be conſidered either ſtrictly (as I ſaid at the beginning) as a Law with it's penalty; And ſo it requires the utmoſt of a mans natural Ability (and no more, not as much as an Angel's ability reaches to) ſo that if he fails in the leaſt degree of p. 93this, he fails ſo much of love due to God by this Law, and is under its curſe. It is eſſential to a Law, as a Law, that it require perfect Obedience to it ſelf; and to deny this, would be to deny that every Law requires all that it doth require; any thing ſhort of this, is not all the Law requires. If a man do not love God in as high a degree as this law in this ſenſe requires, he is from under its Bleſſing, and under its Curſe and Condemnation, and cannot poſſibly be Juſtified by this Law in this ſenſe, nor be pardoned by it; for no Law can poſſibly pardon an offence againſt it ſelf. But he may be pardoned by another Law, a Law of Grace. In this ſtrict ſenſe no meer man in this life, not Joſiah himſelf, ever loved God with his whole heart ſo highly as he ought, ſo high as the Law in this ſenſe required; however, me thinks, he ſhould not have pretended it of all the people of Iſrael in Aſa's time, but have ſought ſome other ſenſe at leaſt for thoſe words, and that might have brought him to the ſenſe I ſhall now ſpeak of.

Secondly, Theſe words may be conſidered p. 94as 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.