Rectifying Opinions Contrary to the Doctrine of the Church of England, Text (2 of 3)

Rectifying Opinions Contrary to the Doctrine of the Church of England · Text (2 of 3)

p. 94But to proceed with the next words of the Author.

I will add this for a Concluſion toPag 112. this Diſpute; This my Opinion of the poſſibility of fulfilling the Law, p. 95ſo far as it ever was impoſed by God, upon men as a Law, is not a new upſtart Opinion, but an Opinion approved by the common Vote of all the Antients, who wrote before the Pelagian Controverſie had muddied the Rivulets of the more pure and primitive Doctrine. Yea, and Auſtine himſelf, though otherwiſe too hot in this unhappy Controverſie, did not doubt to confeſs, that God commanded poſſible things; and, in this ſenſe, only what all particular Believers are able to fulfil. Here he cites ſome Antients for this Opinion, that God doth not require what men have no powerPag. 112, &c. to do; which takes up pag. 112, 113, & 114. almoſt.

I grant, it is apparent they did hold, as I alſo do, that God requires no more than men have the Natural power to do. But yet I dare challenge any to name one, accounted no Heretick, that held this Opinion (that follows by evident conſequence from the Authors Opinion): That every man (for that follows by conſequence,) or that every man by that meaſure of Grace which p. 96God communicates to him, or is ready to communicate to him, may for any Impotency in him to the contrary, ſo live as not to fail in any thing the Law requires, ſo far as to ſtand in need of pardon, or Chriſts ſatisfaction for ſuch failings. Yea, or this Opinion which he expreſly holds, as you will preſently ſee more fully, viz. That after the receiving of the Goſpel, or Converſion, men may, for any Impotency on them to the contrary, ſo live as not to ſin at all, as not to fail at all in obedience to the Law; or ſo, as not to do any thing that deſerves, or is by any Law threatned with Eternal death.

He goes on.

From the things which we havePag. 114. already ſpoken, I ſuppoſe it to appear plain enough: That the Law of Moſes did not require moſt perfect Obedience, that is, all manner of ſinleſsneſs in the higheſt degree, under the peril of Eternal death, and ſo that the Apoſtle's Argument is not built upon that Suppoſition. It remains, that we conſider, by what Reaſon the Apoſtle proves his Concluſion. p. 97Therefore I judg (ſaving honour to better judgments) this Argumentation of the Apoſtle, to lean upon two foundations chiefly.

Firſt, That all, both Jews and Gentiles, were guilty of hainous ſins, and ſo obnoxious to Judgment, and Divine anger; this is hinted concerning the Jews chiefly, and alſo of all who did ſeek Righteouſneſs in the Law (as I ſaid before, in my anſwer to the firſt Objection) in that place, Gal. 3. 10. But the ſame is largely demonſtrated of all without difference, Rom. 3. Where he charges many hainous ſins, both upon the Jews, and Gentiles. But that the Context of the whole place may be rightly underſtood, two things are chiefly to be noted, one belonging to the Accuſation, another to the Perſons Accuſed.

Firſt, As for the Accuſation it ſelf, it is to be Noted, that it is not of any kind of ſins, but they are accuſed of ſins more properly ſo called; that is, of hainous ſins, and worthy of Eternal death. This is clearly manifeſt; p. 98Firſt, out of the words by which the Poſition, [or Affirmation] of the Apoſtle (which was proved in the former Chapter, and is in this Chapter further Demonſtrated) is expreſſed, v. 9. We have before proved, that both Jews and Gentiles, are all under ſin. Where that Phraſe [to be under ſin] manifeſtly ſignifies to be under the dominion of ſin, or to be addicted to hainous ſins; whoſoever is ſuch a one, is ſaid by the Apoſtle, to be ſold under ſin, Chap. 7. 14. Secondly, It is apparent out of the whole Context of the Apoſtle, in which all the ſins that are enumerated, are of a more **The Apoſtle indeed doth inſtance in hainous ſins, and ſo the import of his Argument, Rom. Chap. 1, 2, 3. ſeems this, viz. If ſo be that ſins ſcarce to be named, were to be found frequently, almoſt univerſally polluting even thoſe learned Gentiles, Chap. 1. 22. that excelled all other Ge…t…les in knowledg, where the ſtudy of Divine and humane Knowledg abounded, and were great Profeſſors of Wiſdom; And if amongſt the Jews, even in the beſt times, the days of David, horrid wickedneſſes were to be found very frequent, ſo that even in a manner, the whole body of the people were guilty of ſuch hainous ſins; it may be well and facilly gathered, that all are ſinners, and cannot be juſtified by the Law, that is, without pardon of ſin.hainous ſort, as will eaſily appear to any one, viewing the place.

p. 99Secondly, If you enquire concerning the Perſons charged by him, they are as well Gentiles, as Jews, v. 9. 19. 23. but both conſidered as they were before, and without the Grace of the Goſpel, which is even manifeſt from the ſcope of the Apoſtle, whoſe purpoſe it was to ſtir up both Jews and Gentiles, convinc't of their guilt and miſery, to ſeek and embrace the Grace of the Goſpel. Therefore Paul contends, that both Gentiles and Jews conſidered in this eſtate, to be all under ſin. You will Object, But there were ſome, at leaſt amongſt the Jews, who liv'd a holy and unblamable life, before the Faith of Chriſt [or, their faith in Chriſt] and a life moſt alien from the Vices which the Apoſtle here reckons up, and from all of the like kind; ſuch as were Zachary, Elizabeth, Simeon, Anna, and others.

I anſwer: I confeſs it; yea, I do not doubt, but amongſt the Gentiles p. 100††I dare not affirm this: For then I muſt hold their Salvation, whereas I read, Salvation is of the Jews; and that the Gentiles were without hope, without God in the world. Neither yet da…e I ſay, that none did thus ſincerely.alſo there were ſome who abhorred the Vices here mentioned, and alſo did ſincerely, and from their hearts, love and follow (Coluerunt) Virtue and Righteouſneſs, ſo far as it was known to them: And both right Reaſon, and St. Paul himſelf perſwades me to be of this Opinion, who doth not obſcurely teach it himſelf, Rom. 2. v. 14, 15, 26, 27. But becauſe the Objection is made only concerning the Jews, I will anſwer only concerning them, leaving it yet to the Reader, to accommodate or fit the ſame Anſwer to the Gentiles (mutatis mutandis) changing what is to be changed.

I ſay therefore, that Firſt, Theſe Pious men amongſt the Jews were very few, and, being compar'd to others, as a drop in the Sea; and therefore the Apoſtle was to take no great notice concerning them: But it was reaſonable, that the great p. 101ſcarcity of good men ſhould (as one ſpeaks) give its teſtimony to the numeroſity of the wicked. And certainly, univerſal ſpeeches of this ſort that the Apoſtle here uſes, do often occurr in Scripture; which yet it is certain, are ††That is, all put for the moſt. This then is to ſay, that the moſt men are guilty of ſins deſerving Eternal death, and needing pardon by Chriſt; but he contradicts this ſence after.Hyperbolical, ſee John 3. 32. Iſa. 66. 23. Joel 2. 28. Acts 2. 17. Pſal. 14. 23. & 145. 14, 15. Phil. 2. 21. &c.

Secondly, Thoſe few that were Righteous under the Law, did not receive their Righteouſneſs from the Law, but they owed it to Goſpelgrace, which even before the Promulgation of the Goſpel, did (indeed more ſparingly and rarely) put forth it's force through all paſt-Ages. In a word, they were led with the Spirit of the Goſpel, and not of the Law, and ſo deſerved to be accounted with thoſe who are not of the Works of the Law, but are of Faith. Whence the Author of the Epiſtle to the Hebrews, p. 102ſhews that all the works of Pious men, who ſhine in the Hiſtory of the Old Teſtament, proceeded not from the Law, but from Faith. Thirdly, It is ††Sure this is too eaſie a word, that it is likely ſuch did commit ſuch a ſin, as to deſerve Eternal death, ſo as to need Chriſt, and Pardon.likely that thoſe few did not ſo carry themſelves through the whole courſe of their lives, but that they ſome time fell into ſome ſins, or into ſome more hainous ſin, and worthy of death; Yea, this is to be accounted for certain; ††This doth not prove his Opinion, for though theſe did not, yet it is probable, Some did live without any hainous ſin, in his ſenſe, in the whole courſe of their lives, and ſo did not need pardon as to Eternal guilt, by his opinion.becauſe it is expreſly read concerning thoſe very men to whom in the Old Teſtament, an unblamable and perfect obſervation of the Divine Law, is aſcribed; That ſometimes they fell into ſome ſins, and thoſe enormous ones, and moſt worthy of Death, as of Aſa, 2. Chron. 16. Of David, 1 Kings 15. 5. Of Joſiah, 2 Chron. 35. 22. And I think, that which follows with the p. 103Apoſtle, v. 23. muſt be interpreted to this ſenſe, viz. All have ſinned and come ſhort of the Glory of God. That propoſition ſeems plainly Univerſal, ſo as to except none; implying there is no man who hath not been guilty of ſome ſins, or of ſome more hainous ſin; either ſome one time, or for ſome time [Sive aliquando, ſive aliquandiu.] And this ſeems to be that very thing which the Scripture in many places aſſerts; as for Example, 1 Kings 8. 46. For there is no man who doth not ſin, 1 John 1. 8. If we ſay we have no ſin, we deceive our ſelves, and the Truth is not in us. Which ſpeech, that it ought to be underſtood of ſins properly ſo called; not only of lighter faults, and alſo that it is Univerſal, the very matter ſhews, and the things which are afterPag. 118. added in that Epiſtle. Chap. 2. v. 12. wherein alſo that is to be noted, that St. John ſpeaks in the Praeter-tenſe; If we ſay we have not ſinned, viz. before the knowledg of the Goſpel; that is to ſay, The holy Apoſtle, would have the Chriſtians to whom p. 104he writes, diligently to take heed to themſelves, of the fault of an ingrateful mind; And that they would not attribute this, that they are purged from Vices, either to themſelves, or the Law of Moſes or Nature, but only to Goſpel-grace. Otherwiſe, he doth not ſeem to deny, but that after the knowledg of the Goſpel, and its Grace received, ſome could be without ſin; ſo as the word Sin is taken by him, not ſo as it ſhould ſignifie meer Ignorance, or ſuddain Motions; but thoſe evil acts, which have (tractum) a continued courſe (as Grotius ſpeaks) and do not go before deliberation; yea, he doth not obſcurely hint that this is poſſible, 1 Epiſt. 2. 1. Where he doth ſeriouſly exhort Chriſtians not to ſin. Perhaps, one may reply, that the Apoſtle in the aforeſaid Chapter, v. 3. doth uſe the Preſent tenſe. If we ſay, we have no ſin, &c. Therefore he implies, That no man even after the Faith of the Goſpel, is free, or can be free from thoſe ſins more properly ſo called. But the anſwer is eaſie, p. 105for, to have ſin, and to ſin, or to do ſin, do not ſignifie the ſame. Becauſe to have ſin (as Grotius ſaith rightly) is not now to be in ſin, but to be guilty, or to be made guilty for ſins formerly committed, as doth moſt manifeſtly appear from John 9. 41. and 15. 22, 24. The ſenſe therefore is; If we ſay that we have not hainouſly ſinned before the knowledg of the Goſpel, and, becauſe of thoſe ſins, to have been guilty of Eternal death, and ſo yet to be guilty, unleſs the Grace and Mercy of the Goſpel ſhould Relieve us, we are plainly Lyars, and baſely ingrateful toward the Goſpel, and that Truth which we profeſs. What need of many words? John himſelf is a manifeſt **Why may not both Speeches be true? Or why may not the latter Speech as well be Expounded by the former? I could ſhew that theſe words were ſpoken againſt ſuch as pretended Perfection, and that Grotius's interpretation is not right; but that would require too many words. It is a ſhorter way to refer you to other Scriptures, ſpeaking in the Preſent tenſe, Jam. 3. 2. In many things, we offend all. He puts himſelf into the number, and ſaith not we have offended, Eccleſ. 7. 20. There is not a juſt man upon the Earth that doth good, and ſinneth not. 1 Kings 8. 46. There is no man that ſins not. If it ſhould be replyed, Such are not properly ſins, I ſhall ere long anſwer that.Jas 3:2Eccl 7:201 Kgs 8:46Interpreter of himſelf; when afterwards he p. 106Expounds, not by, we ſin in the Praeſent tenſe, but, we have ſinned in the Praeter tenſe, that which before he had ſaid, viz. We have no ſin. But let us return to Paul.

It appears from what we have ſpoken, that this is the Sum of the firſt Hypotheſis, the Apoſtle's Argument leans on, viz. That both Jews and Gentiles, if you conſider the far greateſt part of them, were plainly under the dominion of ſin, enſlavedPag. 119. to moſt filthy Vices. And they who were the beſt, and moſt holy of either Nation, had not ſo ordered their life, but at ſome time they had faln into ſome ſins, or at leaſt into ſome ††But they all according to his great Argument could have lived without all theſe ſins. or without that grievous ſin worthy of Death, and conſequently, ſo as to have no need of Pardon, or Chriſts death, to free them from Eternal de…th, elſe no Law could require them to live free from ſuch ſin; and conſequently would be guiltleſs in committing that Act, and not need pardon for it, and conſequently not need pardon, or Chriſts death at all.one, more hainous ſin and worthy of death. And ſo all, both Jews and Gentiles, without difference, and without acception, were guilty before God, Rom. 3. 19. were obnoxious to Divine wrath, and Eternal death.

Thus he, verbatim.

p. 107His great Argument againſt the ordinary Interpretation of the words of the Apoſtle Paul, viz. That no Law of God requires any more than a man can do (which I grant to be true, but not in his ſenſe) in the ſenſe that he uſeth, it will do ſtrange feats. By the ſame Argument that he proves, that God doth not require his people to be free from their dayly failings (viz. Becauſe no man cloathed with fleſh, can live without ſuch) he may prove that any man for any Impotency on him to the contrary, may be free from ſtanding in need of Pardon, or the Blood of Chriſt: thus.

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

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

p. 108But, the Law of God requires him to live without ſuch ſin: Ergo. Yea: And he might produce Aquinas, and others affirming, that though a man may live a little while without Venialſin, though yet not long; yet he may live without Mortal ſin, all his life. Yea this Argument will as well prove, the Heathen may live perfect and without ſin, as any elſe. If they do what they can do, what they can do. And it is a contradiction (he ſaith) to ſay otherwiſe. The conſequence he may prove ſtill thus: That no Law requires any man to do more than he can.

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

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

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

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

p. 111If they be not meerly indifferent, will you ſay that the abſtaining from ſuch things is commendable, though not commanded? And ſo ſay, as this Author rightly tells us, the Phariſaical Jews held; that thoſe Commands that required Spiritual and inward Holineſs, as the Tenth Command, were not Commands, but Counſels. If ſo, then the abſtaining from ſuch Sins, is a work of Super-erogation; And then indeed, the failing in not doing works of Super-erogation cannot be pardoned, nor need Chriſts ſatisfaction.

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

But to go on with his words.

The other thing which the Apoſtle ſuppoſes in his Argument, is this, viz. That there was no true and perfect Remiſſion of Sins, or deliverance from Divine Anger, or Eternal death due to ſins, promiſed in the Moſaic-Law. It is manifeſt enough, the Apoſtle had reſpect to this, ver. the 20th. of the foreſaid Chapter (viz. Rom. 3.) Where having drawn his Concluſion only from the firſt Hypotheſis, p. 113(viz. that all are guilty) he preſently ſubjoyns this other (without which, his whole Argumentation would have been infirm) in theſe words; For by the Law, is the knowledg of Sin. Which ſentence, is, without doubt, to be underſtood excluſively, thus, By the Law is only the **Methinks, This very place, viz. Rom 3. 20 (which this Author inſiſts on, to prove the Apoſtl…, by the Law, meant a Law having only Temporal threa…s, and External commands) ſhould have convinced him; that he meant by it a Law that had Future threats and Internal commands, even the Law in the ſtrict Conſcience-ſen…e… ſince it is hard to imagine how there ſhould be much conviction or knowledg of ſin and its danger, by a Law, that had no Spiritual, or Internal commands, nor Future-life-threats: And the Apoſtle's Argument here is this, viz. We cannot be juſtified as innocent, by the Law that convi… ces us we are ſinners.Rom 3:20knowledg of ſin, and not Remiſſion: Now I ſaid expreſly, that the Law of Moſes did contain no true and perfect Remiſſion of ſins. Becauſe I well knew that there was given in the Law of Moſes ſome kind of Pardon, ſuch a ſlender one as it was, to Sins; and that to voluntary and hainous ſins. For though the Sins which were done by Pride, notorious Rebellion; or, as the Scripture ſpeaks, p. 114with a high-hand, could be expiated with no Sacrifices, but were puniſhed with death without Mercy or Pardon, except the ſpecial Mercy of God did intervene, as Numb. 15. 25, 26. is to be read: Yet, they are not all to be accounted amongſt theſe ſins (as the moſt Learned ††This is the common obſervation of Learned men.Epiſcopius hath moſt highly well obſerved) which are done voluntarily, or are done Spontaneouſly, or, in ſome meaſure, on purpoſe; but they only which are done with an impious contempt of Gods Commands, or with the ſtubbornneſs of a wilful mind. And ſo, they are They, to which the Puniſhment of Death was appointed by God. It is plain, that they that think otherwiſe, are in a manifeſt Errour; as appear's from that, that we ſee, God appointed ſacrifice for ſuch ſins as theſe, viz. Not reſtoring a Pledg; The taking away ſomething from another by Force; The denying of what one found of another's; yea, and that with an Oath, Lev. 6. 2, 3, 4. Therefore there was granted Remiſſion p. 115in the Moſaic-Law, to hainous ſins. But what a kind of Remiſſion? Why, External, Civil, Temporary, and which belonged only to this Carnal life.

For the Law, as it was an Inſtrument ordained for the Political Beatitude of civil Society, did promiſe long Life to thoſe who lived according to the Law, Lev. 18. 5. and, on the contrary, did threaten violent death to the Tranſgreſſors of it, as we learn out of Exod. 20. 7.

But the higheſt Law-giver, the merciful GOD, that all the people might not be exſtirpated with the puniſhments of their ſinning, appointed that ſome moſt atrocious offences indeed (that did wage open war againſt the Life, and civil Converſe of men, and this Political Theocracy, or Government of God, for the defence of which, the Moſaical-Law was inſtituted; ſuch as Idolatry, Murther, Adultery, &c.) ſhould only be expiated with death; But, Sacrifices were ſlain for men unclean, or defiled with Sins leſs hainous. Therefore p. 116the Puniſhment of Temporary death, which the men deſerved, was transferred upon a Beaſt. Therefore the Moſaical Sacrifices, did afford only a Carnal Redemption, in as much as they did, by Divine appointment, free a man indeed from a violent and immature death; but they did afford no remedy againſt death it ſelf. In a word, they did not afford ſuch Remiſſion as is conjoyned with the giving of Eternal life: There being no mention, in the Law of Moſes, nor Promiſe, made of it.

The divine Author to the Epiſtle to the Hebrews, had reſpect to this, Chap. 9. Where having ſpoken of the Sacrifices preſcribed in the Law, He denies they could make the Sacrificer perfect according to Conſcience, v. 8. that is, Free the man from Internal, and Eternal guilt of Sin, in the ſight of God; but they availed only to the Purgation of the Fleſh, v. 13. that is, That a man might be Externally freed from Puniſhment, and Corporal death.

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

In which place, by Perfection, he chiefly underſtands Full and Perfect, that is Eternal, Abſolution, not only from leighter faults, but from moſt hainous; which he moſt deſervedly denies to be afforded by the Law of Moſes. It cannot but be manifeſt to him that rightly underſtands theſe things, wherefore it is that the Apoſtle denies Juſtification to the Law, viz. Not becauſe it requires perfect, and ſo impoſſible Obedience as the condition of Juſtification, but rather becauſe it grants no Juſtification at all (that is conjoyned with the Donation of Eternal life) upon any condition whatſoever.

Out of theſe Premiſes, therefore, the Apoſtle at length draws his Concluſion, viz. Neither Jews nor Gentiles (which be comprehended under theſe words, no Fleſh,) can be juſtified by the Law of Moſes, [in the ſight of God,] Chap. 3. 20. Which words are added by way of Emphaſis, becauſe p. 118he was to grant ſome kind of Juſtification by the Law, viz. [Before men, and ſuch as would ſtand a man in ſtead for Temporal felicity only, but not to obtain the Kingdom of Heaven.]

Therefore this whole Argumentation of the Apoſtle, may be comprehended in this Syllogiſm.

No man can be juſtified by the Law of Moſes, in foro Dei, in the ſight of God, who is guilty of thoſe Sins to which no Remiſſion, in the ſight of God, is granted by this Law:

But all (as well Jews, as Gentiles) are guilty of thoſe Sins, to which no Remiſſion in the ſight of God, is granted by the Law of Moſes:

Therefore no man (Jew nor Gentile) can be juſtified by the Law of Moſes, in the ſight of God.

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

p. 119Firſt, Here is an Arguing per ſaltum, by a great Leap, by ſuppoſing things, according to this Authors way, impoſſible, viz. That all men are obliged to Eternal Condemnation for their ſins; whereas there is no poſſibility of this: For if thus obliged, let it be asked, By what Law? Now there is no Law, according to him, either promiſing Future happineſs upon Obedience, or threatning Future miſery upon Diſobedience, but only the Goſpel it ſelf. If it ſhall be replied, that all were obliged to Eternal puniſhment for their ſins by the Goſpel, by the Law of Grace, and Pardon revealed in former times amongſt the Jews and Heathens: It is ſo abſurd, that I ſhall ſpeak no more to it than I have. Chriſt was ſent to Redeem us from the Curſe of the Law, and not of the Goſpel.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But to go on with the Author.

Hence moreover the Apoſtle infer's, that the Jews and Gentiles ought p. 124to flee to another Covenant of greater Mercy, viz. that Covenant eſtabliſhed in the Blood of Jeſus Chriſt, in which there is promiſed, not only Temporal, but Eternal Redemption, and Salvation, Heb. 5. 9. and 9. 12. and a moſt full and perfect Remiſſion of all Sins, even the moſt hainous, conjoyned with the donation of Eternal life, to all thoſe who ſhall from Faith in Chriſt, repent heartily of thoſe ſins, and give up themſelves to God, and a holy Life. And here the Apoſtle doth urge that upon both Gentiles and Jews, which other-where he had ſeriouſly preſſed upon the Jews chiefly, in theſe words, Acts 13. 38, 39. Be it known therefore unto you Brethren, that by him there is is Preached to you the Remiſſion of ſins; And by him every one that believes, ſhall be juſtified from all things, from which you could not be juſtified by the Law of Moſes. Where the Apoſtle ſeems to affirm two things, viz. Not only, that Spiritual Remiſſion of Sins (which the Law granted not at all) was Preached p. 125through Jeſus; But that every Believer ſhould be Juſtified by him from all ſins, from which no man could ſo much as carnally be Juſtified by the Law of Moſes. Hitherto, concerning the firſt Argument of the Apoſtle.

He might have ſaid, Hitherto of all that hath any ſhew, that he ſaith of the Apoſtle's meaning. And I will add hitherto, I have tranſlated him, ſince I begun with his Argument, almoſt at leaſt, verbatim; But in going forward, will bind my ſelf to do it no further, ſince this firſt Argument is all the Arguments he brings, that can with any fairneſs, be pretended to be the Apoſtle's Argument, to exclude Juſtification by the Law, and works of the Law. I will relate the ſubſtance of his other Arguments, which is all he pretends to be the Apoſtle's, and the relating and expatiating upon which, takes up the reſt of his Book almoſt wholly, I will alſo relate all ſuch Paſſages, as have any conſiderable ſhew, to ſupport his Expoſition of the Apoſtles words in ſuch places, as this Book is Written p. 126to Reconcile to Saint James.

The other Argument of the Apoſtle, which equally hath reſpect to the whole Law, whereby the Apoſtle clearly proves the Impoſſibility of Juſtification by the Moſaic-Law, is taken from another defect of this Covenant, from the defect of Helping, or Auxiliary Grace; even as the Old Law indulged no full and perfect pardon to paſt ſins, ſo neither did it ſupply ſufficient aid for the avoiding of Future ſins. The Apoſtle is much in this Argument, ſhewing the Law was very Infirm in it ſelf, and plainly deſtitute of ſtrength, whereby miſerable men might be drawn from the dominion of ſin, and from an inveterate Cuſtom of ſinning, to true and ſaving Righteouſneſs, or Holineſs.

Firſt, This Argument from a diſability of the Law, to ſanctifie men (ſuppoſe it true, which is indeed true of the Law, as the Common-wealth-Law, but not when the Law is uſed in the ſenſe wherein it was the Goſpel, or Law of Grace; for then this Diſability p. 127can only be affirmed, at the moſt, comparatively to this clear Diſpenſation ſince Chriſt) and conſequently that Sanctification muſt be by ſome Grace and Favour of the Spirit; would by no means prove Juſtification to be of Goſpel Grace, or Favour, or by Pardon. For ſuppoſe that God ſhould by his Spirit, take ſome effectual courſe, to preſerve a man wholly free from ſin; this Sanctification of a man would be free, and of Grace, and Favour, but not his Juſtification; but that would be of Works, and the Law in the ſtricteſt ſenſe of it, ſo as not to be of the Goſpel, or of Mercy and Pardon. The Sanctification of the humane Nature of Chriſt; was of Grace and Favour, and by ſpecial Diſpenſation: but his Juſtification was of Debt by the Law, and of Juſtice in the ſtricteſt ſenſe, and not of Grace, or Mercy, or Pardon, or by Imputation of Righteouſneſs, to one unrighteous.

Secondly, The Apoſtle doth not anywhere, to my remembrance (though it may have a true meaning in a very remote ſenſe) much leſs in any of the p. 128places propounded to be reconciled to St. James, make uſe of this Argument: That Sanctification is of Grace and Mercy, therefore Juſtification is ſo, and not of Works, or Debt. So that whether it be a good Argument or no, it is not the Apoſtle's Argument.

Thirdly, The Author ſeems now in the proſecution of this Argument, not to keep Juſtification, or Sanctification, or the grace and favour of Juſtification, and Sanctification, diſtinct, as he hath done hitherto; one being the working a real change (I mean real in oppoſition to a Law, or relative change) in the Soul; and conſiſting in the favour of Converting a man: The other being a Law-Act, and conſiſting in acquitting, or abſolving a man from an Accuſation. He ſeems to forget that he had pag. 8, 9. well and convincingly confuted the Opinion of Grotius, who herein Symbolizing with the Papiſts, affirm's that the Apoſtle Paul by Juſtification, means not in a Law-ſenſe abſolution from ſin, but Sanctification, or Purging from Vices; whereas there is not p. 129one place where the word, foreign, to juſtifie, is uſed where it ſo ſignifies, except Rev. 22. 11. He that is righteous, foreign, let him be further juſtified ſtill: And concerning this place, the Author ſaith it is probable, and it is alſo affirmed by Grotius himſelf, that it ſhould be there read, according to ſome antient Manuſcripts, foreign, let him do righteouſneſs ſtill. Now, as I ſaid, this Author ſeems to forget this in the whole proſecution of this Argument, as, for Example, when pag. 253. he will have the meaning of thoſe words [Tit. 3. v. 7. That being juſtified freely by his Grace] to be, that being enabled by the Grace of the Holy Ghoſt, to do thoſe things to which Juſtification is promiſed: Which is, in effect, to ſay, being juſtified by the Grace of Sanctification; or, being juſtified by the gracious operation of the Holy Ghoſt in Sanctifying. Which alſo is an Interpretation alien from the meaning of thoſe words. The meaning whereof is, as may appear to any, peruſing the words foregoing; That, having the Goſpel-condition wrought in us, by the p. 130operation of the Holy Ghoſt, being Regenerated, we might be juſtified by his Grace, that is, by his Grace in Pardoning; not by the gracious Operation of the Spirit in Sanctifying. For though the Grace and Favour of Sanctifying, be aſcribed frequently to the Spirit as it's peculiar operation, yet not the grace and favour of Juſtification; but is peculiarly aſcribed to God the Father, as Judg and Rector, being a Law-Act. It is GOD that juſtifieth, who is he that condemneth?

The Law had a defect of ſtrength to Sanctifie men: Why? Becauſe it wanted External help, neceſſary to work true Sanctification; and Internal help, neceſſary to work true Sanctification. It wanted an External help, neceſſary to work true Sanctification, viz. it wanted a promiſe of Eternal life, to encourage men to obey it: It wanted an Internal help, neceſſary to work Sanctification, becauſe it wanted the Gift of the Holy Ghoſt.

Firſt, As to the firſt, It wanted this External help, to work true Sanctification, p. 131in that the Promiſes, and Threatnings of this Law, wherein the ſtrength of every Law lies, were only Temporal and Earthly, and men might eaſily contemn theſe. Thoſe Earthly good things, would not much move the mind of an intelligent man. Yea, the Law of Moſes upon that account, that it contained only Earthly Promiſes and Threats, was in it's own Nature apt to beget in men a baſe and ſordid Temper; yea, a Temper plainly alien from true Piety. The chief parts of Piety, are the denying of ſelf, bearing the Croſs, dayly Prayer, Meditation on the Life-tocome, and a moderate and a ſober uſe of the good things of this Life. But how could it be that this Law, that bound their minds only to Earthly profits, and worldly delights, ſhould work ſuch Piety in men? And hence it cometh to paſs, that the Precepts of this Law, were much a Kin to the Promiſes of it, viz. Earthly.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There are frequent Promiſes, That if they will keep his Commandments, He will be their God. The Apoſtle cites, Lev. 26. Where it is ſaid, If you will walk in my Statutes, and keep my Judgments, and do them; then I will be your God, and you ſhall be my people, Ver. 3. 12. Which was Gods part of the Covenant, his Engagement made to the people at Mount Sinai, as appears, Ver. 46. Now the Apoſtle having cited this Promiſe, amongſt others, p. 1462 Cor. 6. 16. adds, Having theſe Promiſes, let us cleanſe our ſelves, &c. Which ſhews, That he underſtood theſe words, of Gods being one's God, to extend to Future happineſs. So Mat. 22. 31, 32, 33. Have you not read concerning the Reſurrection of the Dead? I am the God of Abraham, and Iſaac: Now God is not the God of the Dead, but of the Living. So Mark 12. 26. By the words tranſlated, Reſurrection of the dead, in Mat. and Riſing in Mark, ſeems to be meant Immediately, and Primarily, only ††See Doctor Hammonds Annotation, Mat. 22. 31. well clea…ing this.Matt 22:31ſubſiſting, and being in a Future-ſtate after death. And this was that which the Sadduces denied (as well as other things, conſequential thereto, and of leſs concernment, to ſupport this Opinion): And this was a moſt wicked Tenent, ſubverting virtually all Religion, which cannot be ſaid of an Opinion only denying the Reſurrection of the Body, provided a man did but hold a Future-ſtate of being, or ſubſiſtence of the Soul in happineſs, or miſery, according p. 147to a mans works in this life: But ſuch an erronious Opinion might poſſibly be held, (for any thing I can ſee to the contrary) in thoſe more dark times, conſiſtent with this foundation of true Religion; that God is a Rewarder, in a Future life, of Obedience in this; and Puniſher of Diſobedience. And further, I do not think that the Reſurrection of the Body, was ſo clearly delivered in the Old Teſtament, as that one, believing all the Books of it to be Divine, might not yet hold it a diſputable Point; conſidering the difficulties that Oppugne it, and the obſcurity of the Scriptures affirming it; Though none of competent underſtanding, believing the New Teſtament, can now doubt of it. Now our Saviour's Argument drawn from theſe words, I am the God of Abraham, and of Iſaac, &c. ſince this was ſpoken to Moſes, and therefore after Abraham and Iſaac were dead; is cogent to prove (againſt the main foundational wicked Opinion of the Sadduces) viz. That Abraham and Iſaac were then in being, and alſo in Being in happineſs; for, had they been utterly extinct, p. 148or in beeing, but in no eſtate of happineſs, He could not have ſaid, I am the God, but only, at the moſt, I was the God of Abraham. He is not ſo much as the Suſtainer, as the God, in ſuch a low-ſenſe, of the dead, viz. of men totally extinct; but of the living, viz. of men in actual being. And He cannot be called the God (which implies ſome wonderful, great, and infinite favour) of men, being indeed, and ſubſiſting after their death, but being in miſery, and dead in the ſenſe wherein the Law threatned Future death; But only can be called a God to ſuch men departed, as are in being, and alſo are in great happineſs, and ſo are alive in the ſenſe, the Law promiſed Future life.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

p. 159For, Firſt, Almoſt all the Arguments I have uſed, do convincingly prove this, That the Law of Moſes to the Jews, promiſed Future-life, as well as threatned Future-death. Now whether this Author holds the Law of Moſes threatned Future-life-death to any ſin, or not, I know not, but think I have proved both ſufficiently. Alſo, the Threats of Moſes Law, are expreſſed in as temporal a ſtile, as the Promiſes: ſo, it would be irrational, to affirm it threatned Future-death, but promiſed not Future-life.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But it is probable alſo, this Scripture is to be underſtood comparatively, to the Jewiſh diſpenſation of the Law and Goſpel, by Moſes and the Prophets. And indeed, though it is ſo apparent, that the Jews were taught a Future-life p. 164of Retribution by the Scripture of the Old Teſtament, elſe thoſe Scriptures could not have taught the Foundation of Religion, and they did ſo underſtand the Scriptures: That it is a wonder, ſo many Learned men ſhould incline to any Notions contrary; yet, the evidence they had of theſe things, was very obſcure, to what this open-fac'd Diſpenſation of the Goſpel affords; and eſpecially, as to the exact manner of the great Judgment by Chriſt Jeſus, Acts 17. 31. And of Bodys being raiſed, and made glorious like Chriſt's Body, &c. And alſo, without doubt, the beſt of them had very little particular hope and aſſurance, ordinarily comparatively to this cleer Goſpel-diſpenſation; That they themſelves in particular, ſhould enjoy the Future bleſſed ſtate: For they that knew but little of Chriſts ſatisfaction as comparatively to us, they did (which being now with open face known, anſwereth ſuch perplexing difficulties, as they were ordinarily perplexed with, and made ſubject to Bondage through fear of death) could not ordinarily but be much perplexed, p. 165thinking, though it is apparent by the Teſtimony of God himſelf, he will pardon ſinners, yet every truly Pious perſon might be ready to ſay, he will ſurely hardly pardon ſuch great ſins as mine are: How can he with ſafety to his Juſtice?

Now further, to enable any to anſwer many Scriptures, which this Author brings, to maintain his extenuating Expreſſions of the Law (Though ſuch Scriptures are not immediately ſerviceable to diſcover the Apoſtle's meaning, where he aſcribes Juſtification to Faith, in oppoſition to Works, elſe I would have taken more particular notice of them) Remember what I ſpoke before, that ſometimes, not only the Author to the Hebrews, but this Apoſtle in ſpeaking of the Law, underſtands by it; the Jewiſh Common-wealth Law threatning Violent, Immature, Temporal death to all External viſible ſins, and in ſome caſes, allowing Sacrifices, in the ſtead of this violent death, in other caſes not. And the occaſion of the ſo uſing the word, Law, (which you may poſſibly think very Improper, when p. 166ſpeaking of Conſcience-concernments) is this; It was the common, yea, almoſt Univerſally profeſſed Opinion of the Jews, ſometime before, and about thoſe days of the Apoſtles, taught them by all their Rabbies, As this Author alſo affirms, pag. 306. That the Law did not threaten Future puniſhment to any ſins, but to thoſe that it, as the common Law of the Land, threatned Temporal violent death to, to be Executed by the Magiſtrate: And that the Law required no more to Future ſalvation, than ſo much as was made neceſſary by it, to eſcape violent death; And alſo, that the expiation of their Sacrifices (which were for faults, granted by them to be ſins threatned by their Law with Future death) reached ſo far as to expiate, and abſolve them from ſins as to Future puniſhment; which Opinion, the Author to the Hebrews at large oppoſes. And ſince they could not but grant, that there were commands of inward Holineſs, forbiding Heart-adultery, and Heartmurther, and meer inward coveting, as the Tenth Commandment, and commands to fear and love the Lord, and p. 167walk in his Ways, and keep his Commandments with all their heart and ſoul, Deut. 10. 12. Chap. 11. 13. And it would not be Senſe, or it would be Remiſs ſenſe to ſay, that keeping the Commandments (as for example, of not doing Murder, or not committing Adultery) with the whole heart, was only to abſtain from the outward Fact, without avoiding the occaſions, beginnings, or cauſes thereof; They held theſe were not properly Commands, that any penalty of Excluſion from Heaven, or that Future-life death was threatned unto; But that theſe Precepts, were only Councels recommended to them that had a mind to do the beſt, and that it was commendable, and men did well to obſerve them; but the refuſing to obey theſe, was not ſin by their Law, nor puniſhable with any Future miſery. And the Scribes and Phariſees, the wicked Doctors of this, and ſome former degenerate Ages, making it their ſtudy almoſt unanimouſly to excuſe themſelves and others from inward Piety (which they were reſolved againſt, as being the moſt difficult part of true p. 168Religion, and moſt ingrateful to fleſh and blood) might have this pretence from the Law it ſelf, to maintain their Fleſh-pleaſing expoſition of the Law, to quiet their own and others Conſciences in the neglect of inward Purity, viz. There is no violent penal Temporal death threatned to ſuch ſins, to be inflicted by the Magiſtrate, as there is to all External ſins; therefore it is likely, there is no Eternal, or Future puniſhment threatned by the Law for ſuch; there are no Expiations appointed for ſuch ſins, ſurely therefore they are no ſins, and need no Expiations.

Theſe Phariſaical Doctors did hold, their Law promiſed Future-life, and threatned Future puniſhment; but **I ſhewed you at the beginning, four true ſenſes of the Jewiſh Law, all intended by the Lawgiver. But the Phariſaical Jews maintained a fifth ſenſe, and that a falſe and pernicious one, viz. That their Law promiſed the Future-life happineſs, to their obſerving the: Law Politically and Externally.taught the people that if they were but juſti ad legem (righteous according to the Law, in the ſenſe that Seneca uſeth the word; ſaying, Exignum eſt ad legem bonum eſſe,) that is, Righteous ſo far as the p. 169Law of the Land was to compel them by Temporal puniſhment, as all thoſe were that had committed none of thoſe Crimes, that were excluded from attaining Temporal pardon by Sacrifice, and had offered Sacrifice for their other External faults; they were as perfectly righteous before God, as their Law in any ſenſe required them to be. So becauſe the Law, as the Law of the Land, appointed no puniſhment for one that put away his wife for any light cauſe, ſo he did but ſet her wholly at liberty by a Bill of Divorce to marry another, they were taught it was no ſin ſo to put away a Wife, Mat. 5. 31. Alſo, becauſe the Law, as the Common-wealth Law, gave men liberty to require an Eye for an Eye, and Tooth for Tooth, and if they ſo required it, the Magiſtrate was bound to Inflict it, Deut. 19. 21. They were taught, it was no ſin to ſeek this revenge in any caſe. And ſo, that the Commands of forgiving Injuries, were but Counſels, as Prov. 24. 29. and Chap. 20. 22. Say not, I will do to him, as he hath done to me, Lev. 19. 17, 18. Thou ſhalt not hate thy brother p. 170in thy heart, thou ſhalt not avenge, nor bear any grudg, &c. But ſhalt love thy Neighbour as thy ſelf, Rev. 25. 21. If thy enemy hunger, give him meat, &c. Exod. 23. 4, 5. If the Aſs of thy enemy wander, or be faln under his burden, bring him back, or help him up: Which Opinion of theirs, Chriſt confutes, Mat. 5. v. 21. You have heard, that it hath been ſaid, by them of old, or to them of old, thou ſhalt not Kill, and whoſoever ſhall Kill, ſhall be in danger of the Judgment.

That is, you have been told it as a Tradition, taught by the Ancients, or to the Ancients, by ſome Ancient Rabbies, that you break not any Law of God, nor incur danger of Future torments by anger, hatred, or approbrious ſpeeches; but only he that actually kills, ſhall be in danger of Future puniſhment; of the Court of Judgment, the foreign, which litterally ſignifies, is in danger of the Court of the 23 Elders, that ſate in the ††Deut. 16. 18. Chap. 19. 11, 12.Deut 16:18Gates of the City, and put Offenders to death by the Sword. Now, ſince Murtherers in Fact were to be put to death only, & not they p. 171that only hated or reproached another, the **Damnat Chriſtus in Phariſaeis quod legis Doctrinam ad Politicum or dinem tranſtulerant, ut ſufficeret externis officiis defungi. Ita fiebat ut ſe ab homicidio abſolveret quiſquis hominem manu non occiderat. Se purum & castum putaret coram Deo quiſquis Adulteria corpus non polluerat. H…c vero erat minime ferenda Legis profanatio, quum certum ſit ſpiritualem Dei cultum a Moſe requiri, & Deus cordibus non minus quam manibus & oculis loquutas eſt: Reus erit judicio. Hoc membrum confirmat qu…d diximus, vitium illud reprehendi, quod lex Dei quae regendis animis tradita fuit, in Politiam converſa erat. Calv. in Loc.Doctors hence gathered, and taught the people by this Argument, that none elſe was threatned by the Law, with Future puniſhment. And ſo that the Commandment reached no further than to prohibit the External act, under a Future penalty; and that ſuch ſpeeches as, Thou ſhalt not hate thy Brother in thy heart. And, Be not haſty in thy ſpirit, to be angry: Anger reſteth in the boſome of Fools, Eccleſ. 7. 9. were but Counſels.

Now ver. 22. Chriſt teacheth them the true meaning of the Law, and ſince their Rabbies uſed the word, the Judgment, to ſignifie Future puniſhment, he doth ſo too. But I ſay unto you, that he that is angry with his brother without a cauſe; though his anger do not proceed p. 172ſo far as to kill him, nor to any outward Expreſſion, is yet guilty of Murder in the ſenſe of the Law, and ſo obnoxious to the Future death ſignified by you to be due to the External act, and meant by the Word, the Judgment, in the former Speech; which primarily ſignifies, putting to death with the Sword.

And he that ſhall proceed ſo much further in cauſleſs anger, as to uſe only ſome leſſer words of reproach, as Racha, ſhall be yet in danger of a greater puniſhment in the Future-life, ſhall be in danger of the foreign, The Council; of the Jeruſalem-Court of Seventy; that is, of a ſeverer Future-death, anſwerable to the Puniſhment which uſed to be inflicted by the Sanhedrim (which word came from foreign) who ordinarily puniſhed Offenders, with ſtoning to death.

But whoſoever ſhall, though not kill his Brother, yet proceed ſo far in wrath as to ſay, thou fool, i. e. to uſe the moſt Villifying and Approbrious expreſſions, p. 173ſhall be puniſhed hereafter with death **Chriſt's Speech could proceed no fu… ther in keeping to the Metaphor, expreſſſing Future puniſhment by Jewiſh courts, ſince no other but the two fore-mentioned inflicted the puniſhment of death. And though it may be Objected, that one of theſe Cou…ts alſo put to death by burning, however in two caſes, viz of a Prieſts daughter committing whoredom, Lev. 21 9. And of a man lying with his Wives Mother, Lev. 20. 14. Yet theſe were, it is probable, crimes ſeldom hapning, ſo that the ordinary puniſhment of the higheſt Court was (as it is commonly agreed) Stoning: And however this would no way have ſerved to have carried on the begun Metaphor, which expreſſed the Gradation of puniſhments by ſeveral Courts, ſince this was a puniſhment by the ſame Court, and rarely uſed. Now ſince the Court of Judicature is put in this ſpeech, to ſignifie immediately the puniſhment of the Court, it was moſt conſentaneous to rational Speech, to ſignifie by it the ordinary puniſhment of the Court: And ſo he expreſſes the third Degree of Future puniſhment due to the third and greateſt Offence mentioned by him, by a burning to death in Tophet, that was often uſed by the Jews to expreſs Future puniſhment.Lev 21:9Lev 20:14anſwerable to the being put to death with fire, in the Valley of Hinnom; which was a more cruel death than by the Sword, or Stoning; and the meaning of it well known to the Jews, though no judicial death; and uſed often by them, and ſometimes by the Scripture, to ſignifie Future torments. And the word ſhould have been thus Tranſlated, viz. Shall be in danger of the fire of the Valley of Hinnom or Tophet: For as it is Tranſlated, it is apt to miniſter a doubt to the Vulgar, as if the p. 174two former ſort of offences were not by Chriſt accounted to be threatned with Hell; whereas had it been Tranſlated according to the Words, it would have been more eaſie, and occaſioned no ſuch doubt; the Judgment, the Council, the fire of Hinnom, all equally ſignifying Future death and puniſhment, and only here uſed to denote Degrees of puniſhment in Hell. Yea, and Chriſt here aſſigns as great a Future puniſhment to the leaſt offence, viz. Anger, as they did to actual Murther.

Now it will appear to you, no great unlikelyhood, that the Jewiſh Doctors gave ſuch a looſe Interpretation of the Law, if you conſider, that it is a growing Opinion at this day, taught by ſome of our own Doctors (as well as by Socinus) that no more was commanded to the Jews; however, not under the penalty of Future death, but only ſuch External obedience. And if perhaps, there were any Commands in the Old Teſtament-Scriptures, requiring ſuch Internal obedience, as is required by Chriſt in his Sermon on the Mount, they were glimmerings of p. 175the Goſpel, and not Univerſally commanded to all under threat of Eternal puniſhment, but only recommended to them that will do what is beſt, Pract. Cat. pag. 141. Though now, ſince Chriſts Sermon in the Mount, they are acknowledged to be Commands, which not to do, is a ſin; and not only Counſels of Perfection, which to do, is to do better, pag. 142. But Doctor Taylor (if I can underſtand him) holds, that now no Law threatens Hell to the neglect of them, but that they are yet Counſels left to a man's choice. Unum Neceſ. pag. 48, 49.

You may find this Opinion maintained by many, who pretend that Chriſt's oppoſitions, Mat. 5. to what hath been ſaid by others, were however in ſeveral of thoſe ſayings referring to the Ten Commandments, really Additions to the Law; and not vindications of the right true ſenſe of it againſt falſe Fleſhpleaſing expoſitions: And that the Law till Chriſt made thoſe Additions to it in his Sermon in the Mount, did not as a Law, require any, however not with any Threat of Future puniſhment to abſtain p. 176from Heart-Adultery, or Heart-Murder, provided it proceeded not to the External fact. Now I look upon my ſelf as bound, here to anſwer the Arguments for that Opinion, viz. That that is a true notion of the Jewiſh Law, as referring to Conſcience, and the Future life-ſtate. For if this be ſo, All that I here ſpeak thus largely, and make apparent chiefly from this Chapter (which you will at laſt, I hope, ſee the neceſſity of, for the Interpreting many Scriptures of the New Teſtament that ſpeak derogatory to the Law) will fall to the ground. The ſtrongeſt Arguments by which they prove their Opinion, are ſuch as theſe. Pract. Catech. pag. 136.

Firſt, The moſt of the Fathers (eſpecially of the Greeks) before St. Auſtines time ſo held.

Anſw. 1. I could eaſily, I think, make it appear, that the moſt of them held the contrary. 2. The moſt of the Citations produced, may be made appear, either not to prove that to be their Opinion, but are capable of another Conſtruction, or they might be p. 177forced to that Expoſition, to maintain now-acknowledged Errours frequent in thoſe days, as that it is unlawful under the Goſpel to Swear, or War, in any caſe, though it was not unlawful by the Law of Nature, or the Moral Law.

Secondly, The Fathers give theſe two reaſons for this their Opinion. 1. Becauſe Chriſt under the Goſpel, gives either higher or plainer Promiſes than he did before. 2. Becauſe he gives more grace now to perform them (viz. the Commandments) than before he had done. The Law given by Moſes was a Carnal Law, that is, weak, not accompanied with ſtrength to perform what it requires; but the Goſpel of Chriſt, the Adminiſtration of the Spirit, i. e. a means to Adminiſter the Spirit to our hearts, to enable us to do what he commands us to do.

As for the firſt Reaſon ſaid to be the Fathers. 1. I cannot ſee it's Cogency. 2. The Heathens knew by the Light of Nature, that Heart-adultery and Murther, and that taking Gods Name in vain in Swearing cuſtomarily, p. 178or Luſoriouſly, or Idle, were ſins; ſurely, then the Jews had Light enough to make them inexcuſable in theſe things, before Chriſt's Sermon in the Mount, and ſo ſuch were ſins in them.

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

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

Secondly, The Law of the Ten Commandments (for that is it the Doctor ſpeaks of, and only pretends Chriſts addition to) was not in the true Conſcience-ſenſe a Carnal Law, but a Spiritual, Rom. 7.

Thirdly, If the Jews had no ſtrength to perform what this Law required, it muſt be granted, that they were not obliged by the Law to avoid Heartſins, and Thought-ſins.

p. 179Fourthly, Methinks this undo's all, to give this as a Reaſon, why the Jews were not forbidden ſuch Inward-ſins as are under Diſpute, viz. Becauſe they had no ability to perform what the Law commanded: For it is to grant, the Law did command them to abſtain from ſuch things, which this Argument is brought to prove, it did not forbid till Chriſt made that Addition.

Thirdly, The word Tranſlated, fulfil (ver. 17. Think not that I am come to deſtroy the Law, or the Prophets; I am not come to deſtroy, but to fulfil them) ſignifies to perfect, and fill-up that which was imperfect before.

I Anſwer, It cannot be denied but the word is uſed in divers ſignifications. But ſetting aſide what other things may be oppoſed to that ſenſe of the Word, I ſhall only ſay this: The ſureſt way to know the ſenſe of the word foreign, to fulfil, in this place, is by the word here oppoſed to it, which is foreign, to diſſolve, or deſtroy the Law. Now it is apparent, that by Deſtroying, is meant Enervating, and p. 180Evacuating the Obligation of the Law, by a too favourable Expoſition, which is called in the Verſe following, breaking the Commandment, and teaching men ſo to do; Therefore by the word fulfil, muſt be meant to aſſert, and maintain it's ſtrictneſs and obligation, to vindicate it from ſuch evacuating Expoſitions. The meaning of the Verſe, is, Think not, &c. i. e. You will be deceived, if you ſhall ſuppoſe that I am come to Teach (as your Doctors) that are in the greateſt Repute, do, who make it their great buſineſs, to gratifie you in making the Law to be of very little extent, ſo as not to forbid Heart-ſins, but to alow thoſe, and many evil practices. I am not come thus to diſſolve the Law, but to fulfil, i. e. to vindicate it to it's true ſenſe, from ſuch Evacuating gloſſes.

Fourthly, That theſe words [you have heard] ſignifies, you have been taught out of the Books of Moſes; and [It hath been ſaid by them of old time] ſhould be read (according as the Margent alſo of our Bibles tranſlates them) it hath been ſaid to them p. 181of old time, that is to the Jews your Anceſtors by Moſes.

Anſwer, 1. The words may be read, either it hath been ſaid to them of old, or by them of old, without any inconvenience or alteration of the ſenſe, for if ſaid by them of old; then be ſure, to them of old; and if it was ſaid to the Ancients, then by the Ancients. 2. The meaning ſeems to be, Theſe Expoſitions of the Law, have been taught you with a pretence of their ††Calv. in Loc.Antiquity, as being taught the Ancients, by the Ancients, i. e. that is, ſome Generations ſince by Rabbie's. 3. But that the meaning ſhould be, Theſe things were taught you by Moſes in the Ten Commandments; But I now either add, or oppoſe this Interpretation, to what was the true former meaning, ſeems wonderfully unlikely by this (to ſay no more) That this is not the uſual phraſe of Chriſt, or his Apoſtles, in citing Scripture, viz. you have heard it hath been ſaid; neither is this ††Calv. in Loc.manner of Speech, or any akin to it, ever uſed in this ſenſe; and therefore ſeems to be a way of citing Traditional Expoſitions. p. 182When Chriſt citeth Scripture, he uſeth to ſay, You have read, Mat. 12. 35. Mark 12. 26, Luk. 10. 26. Not as here, You have heard: And he uſeth to ſay, It is written, Mat. 4. 4, 6, 10. Luke 2. 23. and 10. 26. John 8. 17. Chap. 10. 38. Not as here, It hath been ſaid.

Fifthly, In theſe words, [Except your righteouſneſs exceed the righteouſneſs of the Scribes and Phariſees; that is, which they think themſelves obliged to, and teach others that they are obliged to, you cannot enter;] Sure, Chriſt doth not pitch on the names of the Scribes and Phariſees, as thoſe that were the greateſt Evacuators of the Law, by their own hypocritical Practices, or falſe Gloſſes in ſome particulars; but as the moſt exact and learned Sect, as thoſe that ſate in Moſes Chair, i. e. taught there truly the Doctrine of the Moſaical-Law, in that manner as others were obliged to perform it.

Anſwer, 1. Then Chriſt doth not bring in theſe Names here, as he is wont to do, for he uſeth to charge them p. 183with making void the Law through Traditions.

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

3. I grant they had generally the repute of the ſtricteſt Teachers, and Livers, as to External and leſs weighty matters of the Law; but yet they generally are charged to make void the Law by their Lives and Doctrines, as to Internal obedience, and moſt weighty concernments. Surely it is not all one as if he had ſaid, Except your righteouſneſs exceed the righteouſneſs of Moſes, Joſhuah, Samuel, and David, (which they taught other, and thought themſelves and others obliged to) you cannot enter; which yet ſeems to be the Doctors meaning.

4. The people were to hear them, and alſo to take heed how they heard, and beware of the leaven of the Phariſees. They were to embrace their Doctrine only ſo far as they ſate in Moſes Chair, and taught Moſes's Doctrine truly.

p. 184Sixthly, Chriſt expreſſeth the ſaying oppoſed, or added to by him in the very words of the Ten Commandments: Therefore to ſay, he ſpeaks by way of Oppoſition, and not of Addition, would be to ſay, he oppoſes the very Commandments.

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

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

The Doctor giveth us another Argument, taken from a ſaying of Saint John, which carrieth ſo little evidence in my opinion, that I would not have here ſet it down, but that he ſeems to lay ſo great ſtreſs, not only on this his p. 185Interpretation of Chriſts Words, as being (as he ſaith) A foundation of a great and weighty Superſtructure, but alſo upon that Scripture, as being (as he ſaith) a remarkable place to prove it. The words are theſe, 1 John 1. 5. God is Light, and in him is no darkneſs at all. The meaning whereof, he ſaith, is this, That God is Light, and in him is no Darkneſs at all in reſpect of his Law and Commandments, the rule of mens lives; and implies, that theſe had before (viz. Chriſt's teaching) ſome indulgence for ſome ſins; and where they had not ſo, yet they had ſome mixture of Imperfection, but now they have none; they had before ſome Vacuities in them, which are now filled up by Chriſt.

Anſwer 1. I ſee no evidence or probability, that this is the meaning of theſe words.

2. We read, The Law of the Lord is perfect, i. e. without Imperfection; and is Light, i. e. without darkneſs, and this was ſpoken of the Law before Chriſts Teaching.

p. 1863. I cannot underſtand the conſiſtency of theſe words, That the Law and Commandments, the Rule of mens lives, had before Indulgence for ſome ſins; If no Law forbad them, they were not ſins, or if it did not forbid them under the penalty of Future-death, then they were not ſins: For, I have, I ſuppoſe, made it appear, it threatned Future death to all ſins, and elſe none were pardoned thoſe ſins as to Future death, becauſe they did need no ſuch Pardon.

4. Nor can I underſtand the words following. That where the Law, the Rule of mens lives, did not allow Indulgence for ſome ſins, yet it had ſome mixture of Imperfection. I cannot imagine how this appears; for none will ſurely ſay, it appears in this, that it did not require ſome thing the Law now requires, as Baptiſme, and the Lords Supper, for that will no more prove the Law imperfect then, then that the Law of God is now imperfect in not requiring circumciſion; whereas the Law did then, as it doth now, require all to obey whatſoever he ſhould any way whatſoever p. 187command them, and that under the penalty of Future-death.

5. You may ſee by what hath been ſaid, That the Law, not as referring to Conſcience, and Future-life; but as the Jewiſh Common-wealth Law, did allow or indulge ſome things; that is, ſo far as not to threaten violent death to them at all, and ſo in this Commonwealth ſenſe, did not forbid ſuch Practiſes at all; which yet the Law in the moſt Important and Conſcience ſenſe did forbid, and ſo were ſins threatned with Future-death. As for example: The putting away a Wife for any cauſe, and Heart-murther, and Heart-adultery.

Alſo, I have made apparent, that the Scribes and Phariſees, the Jewiſh Doctors taught, and it was an Opinion ordinarily received amongſt the Jews, in the days of Chriſt and his Apoſtles, that if men were but juſti ad legem; that is, righteous ſo far, as to be free from ſuch things as Temporal death, was by the Law of the Land remedileſly threatned to, and had offered Sacrifice for ſuch as the Law allowed it p. 188for, they were either as righteous as any Law of God, in the utmoſt rigour; required them to be, or however, at the leaſt, as righteous as the Law of God in the indulgent Goſpel-ſenſe required them as neceſſary to their Future ſalvation; And that Chriſt oppoſeth in this Chapter, the common Jewiſh conceit, taught by their Doctors.