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

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

p. 188And without doubt, there was no Jew ever ſaved by that Law of Moſes, taken in the Goſpel-ſenſe, as all good men that lived under it were, that did not more than was required by that Law in the ſtricteſt ſenſe, as the Law of the Land threatning violent death to be Executed by the Magiſtrate. As for example, that did not love and fear God, and endeavour inward Holineſs, and the repreſſing of the inward ſins, which the Law in the Political ſenſe required not. And again, All ſaved by that Law, did far leſs than was required by that Law, as the Original ſtrict Law under the penalty of Future-death, For all ſaved, were pardoned as to Future-death, as to ſome Heart-ſins; which could not be, if ſuch ſins were p. 189not Threatned with Future-death.

Now upon this falſe foundation (viz. That the Law of God as to Conſcience, required no more than it required as the Law of the Land) was without doubt built that Interpretation of the 18. ver. of Pſal. 66. given by the Ancient famous Rabbi, David Kimchi, who upon the words, which are theſe [If I regard iniquity with my heart, the Lord will not hear me,] gives this as the meaning, viz. Though I ſhall ſee Iniquity in my heart, which I am forward to execute in fact; Though God do ſee it, yet he will not hear it (meaning he will not impute it to me for ſin:) For God doth not charge a wicked Thought, for a wicked Act, except only a wicked Thought againſt the Faith and true Religion, ſo as to worſhip Idols: For this, ſuch Doctors did hold to be ſin threatned with Future puniſhment, though it proceeded not to the Fact, but not any other wicked Thought or Intention.

And it ſeems apparent, the Apoſtle Paul took the Law in this Vulgar ſenſe, when he ſaith Phil. 3. 6. He had been a p. 190Phariſee, and touching the righteouſneſs which is of the Law blameleſs. That is, he had lived without fault, ſo far as the Law required in that ſenſe, wherein the moſt Jews then, and he himſelf formerly (being ſo taught by his Maſter Gamaliel) underſtood it, viz. in this external Political ſenſe. And though he had formerly accounted that perfect Obedience to the Law, or however all required to his ſalvation; yet now he looketh upon ſuch Righteouſneſs as inſignificant as to Future ſalvation, and underſtood the Law was truly Spiritual and required more, yea more neceſſarily for ſalvation, even Internal Piety; and ſo could not have ſpoken after that manner, of his Righteouſneſs according to the Law, in the true important ſenſe of the Law.

And hence it comes to paſs (ſince the Law was uſed by moſt of the Jews in thoſe days, in this external Political, and Ritual ſenſe.) That the Author to the Hebrews, doth almoſt (I think altogether) conſtantly uſe this word, the Law, in this ſenſe, but confutes their erronious Opinion, that held that p. 191in this ſenſe it availed to Salvation in a Future-life; and ſhews it in this ſenſe, made none perfect as to Conſcience, or Future-life concern's, but only as it threatned violent death, and excluſion from Society; ſo the Sacrifices for Expiation, reached not to Expiate ſins as to Future-life concerns, but only to free from the Temporal puniſhment of Death, and Excluſion from the Congregation.

And hence alſo it comes to paſs, that the Apoſtle Paul often uſeth the word, the Law, in this Political ſenſe, Though it is apparent he doth not ſo, when he denies Juſtification by the Law as to Future-life, by reaſon of mens ſinfulneſs; as it is apparent he doth in thoſe places, that ſeem oppoſite to St. James. (And this Author alſo confeſs it) For mans ſinfulneſs, could not poſſibly be any reaſon why men were not Juſtified as to Future-life by the Law, in that Political ſenſe, wherein it neither promiſed Future-life, nor threatned Future death.

You muſt obſerve diligently, as you deſire to underſtand the Apoſtle Paul in p. 192many places, that he often paſſes from the Conſcience ſtrict ſenſe of the Law, oppoſed to the Goſpel, to the Common-wealth ſenſe of the Law, as Gal. 3. and often runs them together, as Rom. 7. uſing the word ſometime, in one of the ſenſes, and intermixing paſſages that agree to it in the other; which I could give you, I think, a ſatisfying account of, and would indeavour by reciting the particular places; but that I am ſenſible, I ſpeak more largely than is ſuitable for ſuch a ſhort Diſcourſe as I intend.

Now, to draw to a concluſion of this long Digreſſion, deſigned to help you to underſtand many Scriptures. Since ſo many took the Law in this low ſenſe, as requiring ſo ſhort an obedience, and fooliſhly promiſed themſelves that Eternal happineſs, in the obſervance of it ſo far, which it never promiſed them; It is no wonder that you find ſo many extenuating Expreſſions of it, in this ſenſe. Not that any ſuch Expreſſions extenuate it as the Common-wealth Law; for it was an excellent one impoſed by the only Wiſe God, and fitted to the temper p. 193of the Jewiſh people, and to Typifie the great things; But they extenuate it: 1. As a way of Salvation, for it promiſed no ſuch thing, made nothing perfect as to Conſcience and Eternal life, though obſerved with the greateſt exactneſs.

2. It is not extenuated as a ſhadow or reſemblance, Typical of the great things, for it was a wonderful perfect Shadow and Type; But it is extenuated as being but a Shadow (which the the Jews would have to be the very ſubſtance, the way of Salvation it ſelf) of the great concernments; a poor and beggarly Rudiment, or **I could, I think, give ſatisfying Reaſons, that th… Law in this ſenſe only, is by the Apoſtle called a School-maſter, to teach the firſt beggarly Letters, or Elements, and ſo to cea…e its imployment, and not at all in the ſtrict Conſcience ſenſe.Element, or rude firſt Draught, or repreſentation of the great Realities.

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

4. This is called the Letter; the very outward Letter of the Old Teſtament p. 194for the moſt part (though yet frequently otherwiſe) holding forth the Law in this Common-wealth ſenſe, with the rewards, proſperity in Canaan, and the threats, Temporal death. And in its being called the Letter, it is oppoſed to the Internal and Spiritual meaning of that Law, as it was the ſtrict Law and the Goſpel; and to this cleerer Diſpenſation of both the Law and Goſpel under Chriſt, and called the Oldneſs of the Letter, being the Old common way they had been taught by their Doctors, and educated in. For the Goſpel, and more Spiritual way of the Moſaic-Law, was New, and ſtrange to them (as you may perceive by John the Baptiſt's Doctrine of Repentance for the Remiſſion of ſins, being rejected by the Phariſees) as well as this cleer Diſpenſation under Chriſt, though that was the true way of Salvation from the beginning ever ſince mans fall.

5. The Law in this ſenſe, is ſaid to kill, and to be a Miniſtry of condemnation, though not only in this ſenſe, I ſuppoſe, but alſo in this ſenſe taken in p. 195Conjunction with the ſtrict Law of Works revealed in, by, and with this Law. It is ſaid to kill, and condemn: 1. Becauſe this Law did condemn with Temporal violent death, every one that did neglect any ſuch external Work whatſoever. But did not juſtifie to a proſperous life in Canaan, any but they that obſerved every puntilio of it. 2. Or rather, ſince the Apoſtle uſeth ſometimes to run the Law in the ſtricteſt ſenſe, exacting perfect Obedience, and the Law in this Political ſenſe together. The Law may be ſaid to condemn, and to be a Miniſtry of condemnation, becauſe the Law did as the Original ſtrict Law of Works in reality, though not in their Opinion, condemned every man that did not all whatſoever required; yea, that fail'd in obedience to any Internal command, and did alſo condemn as to Conſcience, all External failings, which they alſo held, but did not quicken, or revive, or juſtifie any as to Future-life; Not the Political Law, through it's own weakneſs and default, having no ſuch Promiſes to any performances whatſoever: p. 194duplicate page p. 195duplicate page p. 196Not the Law in the ſtrict Conſcienceſenſe through mans default, becauſe all are ſinners. 3. This Law taken ſtill conjunctly, may be ſaid to condemn, and kill men in another reſpect; Taken politically, it condemned men, and killed them as to Eternal death by occaſioning men, or rather, men taking occaſion by it, to go on in all Internal wickedneſs ſecurely, even to condemnation by the Law in a higher ſenſe; becauſe the Law in this Political ſenſe, never forbad thoſe ſins, that is, did not forbid them with its penalty of violent death, and they took occaſion hence, to think ſuch inward Impiety was not forbidden by the Law in any ſenſe, nor ſuch inward Piety required to their Salvation, (which may be the meaning of Rom. 7. 8, 11.) and ſo fell under Eternal condemnation, through the neglect of ſuch Piety. It proved to them a Miniſtry of condemnation in the event, through their own fault, they abuſing this …itual Political diſpenſation againſt the end and aim of it.

6. The Law alſo in this ſenſe, is ſaid to be-get Bondage and Baſeneſs, and p. 197Servility of Spirit, even diſingenuous and unfilial Tempers; yet through their abuſe of this Political Law, making all that it required in this ſenſe to be all required of them. As for inſtance, How is it poſſible but the Popiſh Doctrines believed, ſhould produce and foment ſuch ſervility of Spirit, that place all neceſſary to Salvation in Externals, in the opus operatum, in Penances, and ſaying ſo many Prayers though by way of penalty, and undergone by them as ingrateful Penances; That teach, it is no matter for loving God, as ſome do expreſly; or Teach, as generally they do (which amounts to the ſame) That Attrition is enough for Pardon, and Salvation, without contrition, provided they have but the Prieſt's Abſolution joyned to their Attrition; explaining Attrition by trouble or affrightment for ſin, upon the account only of danger to our ſelves by it, without any ſorrow for ſin as an offence of a good God. So here we may without doubt ſay, that they that underſtood the Law, as requiring only ſuch External Obedience without Love, or any Internal, and ſo did perform p. 198the External without any **Luke 11. 42. The Phariſees tithe Mint, &c. and paſs ever Judgment and the love of God. Obſerve, this Love is called Faith, Mat. 23 23. And by both, Faith and Love, is meant Internal worſhip.Luke 11:42Matt 23:23love to God, which makes his Commands for being grievous, were void of filial ingenuous Diſpoſitions.

Though I grant ſome Scriptures of the like import, may poſſibly be aplicable to the whole Moſaic-Diſpenſation, even as it was the Goſpel, as being a more ſervile and burthenſom way, by reaſon of the multitudes of the ritual commands which they were bound by it carefully to obſerve univerſally, which had no Intrinſical goodneſs in them to command them to right reaſon, and ingenuous lovers of God and Holineſs. But meerly the Authority of the Lawgiver, and ſo the motive to perform ſuch, could not but be comparatively to this Diſpenſation we live under, more eminently from fear in good men, as doing them becauſe they muſt do them; and not becauſe the doing them was that which a gracious heart would chuſe through Religion, and love to Holineſs, p. 199to promote and increaſe Holineſs, the Image of God in his ſoul; which may be ſaid of almoſt all the Precepts under this preſent cleer Diſpenſation of the Goſpel; and ſo ſome ſuch Speeches may be underſtood comparatively, as I ſaid before, though I incline, you ſee, to Conſtrue them poſitively and abſolutely in the moſt places.

But now to conclude: Firſt, There was a ſenſe wherein the old Teſtament-Diſpenſation, and Law of Moſes was really, or held out really the ſtrict Law of Works as to Eternal concernments, threatning Future death to every ſin; And the Apoſtle indeed excludes any from being Juſtified, and affirms all to be condemned by it in this ſenſe, becauſe all are ſinners. But this is not ſaid to vaniſh away, for it remains in force unto this day; yea, and for the ſubſtance of it will do ſo to all Eternity. This is never affirmed to be Carnal, but is Spiritual; This indeed gives no life, though it was a Law to life; but that it gives none, is not through its own want or default, but through no mans performing the condition. This was no p. 200Shadow, or Type, or beggarly Element.

Secondly, There was a Senſe, yea, and this was the chief Important ſenſe, wherein the Old Teſtament Diſpenſation, or Law of Moſes, was the Remedying-Law, or the Goſpel-promiſing Pardon as to Future-life, of all Tranſgreſſions of the Law, in the ſtrict ſenſe, upon Repentance and ſincere Endeavour, to obey all Gods Commands, Internal and External. The Apoſtle never ſpeaks againſt the Law in this ſenſe (however no way except comparatively to this cleerer Diſpenſation) but call's it the Promiſe, the Righteouſneſs of Faith, which He and other Apoſtle's Preached; The Promiſe, which was Yea, and Amen, in Chriſt. This is not ſaid to vaniſh away, but is made more clear in the Diſpenſation of of it under Chriſt. This was no Shadow nor Type, but the very Goſpel or Law of Grace, and Pardon it ſelf. The perfect Law of Grace converting the Soul, and giving life to men converted. This was the Law of Grace, that Moſes, Samuel, and David, yea, p. 201and the ſame for ſubſtance, that Abraham was juſtified and ſaved by: For it was this, That if men did ſincerely repent of their ſins, and believe Gods Teſtimonies, and Love, and Fear, and Serve God, and endeavour to do all God required of them, without alowing themſelves in any known ſin, they ſhould be ſaved notwithſtanding their ſins, and the Future puniſhment due to them by the Law in the ſtrict ſenſe; And this is the ſubſtance of the Goſpel, or Law of Grace now.

If it ſhould be asked, How cometh it to paſs, that the Author to the Hebrews ſhould uſe the words [The Law of Moſes, firſt Covenant-Teſtament and Law] in this Political, and not in this Conſcience-ſenſe? The account is eaſie, Becauſe his buſineſs in that Epiſtle, was againſt thoſe Judaizers, that would impoſe it on Chriſtians, to comply ſo far with the Jews (however to avoid Perſecution, For the Jews in thoſe days, were the chief Promoters of all their Perſecutions) as to keep the Law of Moſes in the ſenſe wherein it was now ceaſed, and they were not to keep p. 202it: Therefore he taketh no notice of the Law in the Conſcience-ſence, wherein it was agreed by both (or however known to be held by him) to be incumbent on Chriſtians for the ſubſtance of it; but he in ſpeaking againſt the Law of Moſes, means, the Law of Moſes in that ſenſe wherein it was ceaſed, being but a Shadow, and ſhews that in this ſenſe it had only Temporal promiſes, and advantaged only to the purification of the Fleſh, and eſcaping Temporal calamities. Now to reply, it had alſo another ſenſe, would be true, but nothing to the purpoſe, ſince it had not in this ſenſe wherein he oppoſed it.

I ſuppoſe you now ſee, that it is far from Truth which this Author affirms, viz. That the Apoſtle Paul charges the whole Moſaic-Diſpenſation, with the defect of having no Promiſes of a Future-life.

I have taken liberty to ſpeak largely of theſe things, becauſe I know of none, that in my weak opinion, do ſpeak ſatisfactorily or truly of them; And I have much confidence that none can give any true tollerable Interpretation p. 203of ſuch Paſſages of the Apoſtle's uſed in Derogation to the Law, without ſuch Notions and Diſtinctions of the Law, as I have here deſcribed and explained; and alſo I hope, that any one of ordinary abilities for ſuch things, may, holding to theſe Notions of the Law, give a rational and ſatisfactory account of the moſt Scriptures of ſuch derogatory import.

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

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

p. 204I will not ſpeak much here in anſwer to this, becauſe I have ſaid enough already, either here, or in another Diſcourſe.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I ſhall ere long take notice of this.

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

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

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

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

But p. 217how doth the Apoſtle gather thisPag. 264. from the words cited. I anſwer: Some think that this Argument is placed in the word foreign, was accounted, or imputed, as if the word ſignified graciouſly accepting, or accounting according to Grace and Favour; and that it ſignifies accounting or rewarding according to Debt, either never, or very Improperly. Whence Eraſmus Interpreteth the word, acceptum fert; adding, Eſt autem acceptum ferre, pro accepto habere quod non acceperis, quae apud Jureconſultos, nifallor, vocatur acceptilatio. That is, the word imputed it ſelf, ſignifies ſuch a Law acceptation, as when one grants he hath received a thing, and acquits as if he had received it, when indeed he hath not received it. Many moſt learnedPag 265. Interpreters, follow this Interpretation of Eraſmus, thus forming the Apoſtles Argument.

If the reward had been given to Abraham of debt, it would not have been ſaid, God Imputed Righteouſneſs unto him: For Imputation denotes p. 218gracious and free Donation. But the Scripture ſaith, God Imputed Righteouſneſs to Abraham. Ergo, &c.

But this Interpretation doth not pleaſe me, ſince it is manifeſt from the Scriptures, that the word foreign, uſed in the Old Teſtament, and alſo the word foreign, uſed by the Apoſtle in the Greek, and which anſwereth to the Hebrew word, are uſed concerning the Imputation of a thing to (or for) ſin, 2 Sam. 19. 19. which every one will grant is Imputation in Juſtice; yea, and the ſame word often ſignifies in Scripture, a true and juſt Eſtimation, and Judgment of a thing, Deut. 2. 11, 20. And it is too manifeſt, that the Apoſtle himſelf in the very next verſe, ver. 4. uſes this very word, for rewarding according to debt. Therefore this Argument of the Apoſtle whereby he infers from the Text cited, that the Juſtification of Abraham was meerly Gracious, cannot lean upon the naked ſignification of the word foreign, that is, Accounted, or p. 219Imputed, or Reckoned.

Since this Objection hath a colourable ſhew, and the right Interpretation of this Chapter, Rom. 4. doth depend wholly upon it (as I have ſhewed in a ſhort Diſcourſe of the Apoſtles meaning) and ſince many Learned men are perplexed ſo with this difficulty, as to be driven to Interpret this place otherwiſe than right, thinking the very word doth not ſignifie Accounting of Grace and Favour, and ſo that the Apoſtle's Argument cannot lean on this word; And ſince none that I know of, have attempted to Anſwer it, I ſhall ſpeak largely in Anſwer to this, that I may ſpeak ſatisfactorily.

I know the Hebrew and Greek words in diſpute, are Polyſema, have divers ſignifications; (juſt as the Engliſh word Account alſo hath) For they ſignifie properly, and in the firſt ſenſe, meerly the immanent Acts of the Underſtanding, as to Think, Eſteem (as alſo the immanent acts of valewing, computing Sums together, deviſing, inventing, though not ſo primarily:) Now when theſe words are uſed in this p. 220ſenſe, they may be according to the reality and truth of things, or not according to the reality or truth of things. If there be an Accounting, or Eſteeming, in this ſenſe, not according to the reality and truth of things, it is an errour of the Underſtanding, and a fault or weakneſs (though it can neither be an Act of Kindneſs, or Severity) and ſo cannot be aſcribed to God; his Judgment, and counting, and valuation in this ſenſe, being always according as things are.

But the words cannot have this proper ſenſe here, as is apparent, for imputing Righteouſneſs, is either an Act of Mercy, or Juſtice: For Acts of Juſtice and Mercy, belong not to the Underſtanding, nor are Acts of that; for they proceed from the Will; and are not neither meer immanent Acts of the Will, but tranſient Acts proceeding from it, and cauſed by it. Therefore let this proper and moſt common uſe of the words paſs, as not capable of being meant in ſuch Speeches.

Sometime theſe words are uſed, not for Acts of the Underſtanding, as I ſaid; But for the Rectoral tranſient p. 221Acts of Rewarding, or Puniſhing, of dealing Kindly, or Severely; Graciouſly, or Juſtly. For theſe words, when uſed of ſuch tranſient Acts, are capable of either of theſe ſignifications; and which of the ſignifications they have in particular places, is known readily by ſeeing whether it be ſome good or evil, that is reckned, or imputed, or whether it be ſome good or evil thing that is not reckned or not Imputed. But, let theſe words, when uſed in this Rectoral Law-ſenſe, be uſed in whether of the ſenſes they will, (viz. of doing Juſtly, or Mercifully; Severely, or Graciouſly) yet this is true of them, that they always ſignifie the accounting or imputing ſomething that is not in reality the thing, that it is accounted or imputed for; but only by a kind of Law Conſtruction, or Acceptilation; or the not accounting, or not imputing the thing that is that in reality, which it is not accounted, or not imputed for. Now if this be true, (which I ſhall after make appear, by producing all the places of Scripture, where the word is uſed in any ſenſe, different from a meer Act of the Underſtanding) p. 222then it follows, that when ever we read of Imputing, or accounting to a man, a thing that is a good thing (as here Righteouſneſs or Reward) then it is an act of Grace or Law acceptilation and kindneſs, and that God might juſtly have done otherwiſe; becauſe the word Implys, a man had not that Righteouſneſs, that perfect Innocency, that was accounted to him; And alſo when ever we read of God's not Imputing, or not accounting that which is evil to a man (as Sin, Iniquity) then it was an act of Kindneſs, or Grace, becauſe the very word Implys, the man had that ſin, had done that evil, that was not accounted to him.

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

Firſt, Let theſe Scriptures be conſidered, wherein the words are uſed in p. 223the Penal, or Inimical ſenſe, and not in the Benigne, rewarding favourable ſenſe, Lev. 7. 18. Where, ſpeaking of a mans Peace-offering, It is commanded, that he eat all he eats of it in two days, and burn the reſt with fire; If any of it be eaten by the man on the third day, the Offering ſhall not be accepted, neither ſhall it be imputed to him that offereth it. That is, though he did offer indeed this Offering; yet, this Offering for an offence committed three days after, ſhall be null and void, for any benefit coming to the man by it, even as if he had not offered it at all; not that Godwill account that in reality, he did not offer it. So Lev. 17. 4. If any man kill a Beaſt in Sacrifice, and bring it not to the door of the Tabernacle, Blood ſhall be imputed to that man, he hath ſhed Blood, and he ſhall be cut off from among the people. That is, he ſhall be accounted in Law a Murtherer, Murther ſhall be Imputed to him, viz. He ſhall in judgment of Law, be accounted a Murtherer, ſo far that the ſame puniſhment ſhall be due to him, and Inflicted on him that would have been due, if he had committed p. 224Murther; not that he had in reality, or was eſteemed in reality to have ſhed Humane blood, Philemon, verſ. 18, 19. where there is a word near akin to this, but not altogether the ſame. If he have wronged, or oweth thee any thing foreign, Impute it, Account it to me, I will pay it. Not that he did owe it, or had wronged him; or that he would have him count that in reality he had wronged him, or ought it to him; but require it of me: I put my ſelf into that ſtate in reference to Law, as if I did owe it, or had wronged thee.

Secondly, Conſider theſe following Scriptures, where theſe words are uſed in the favourable Rewarding-ſenſe, 2 Tim. 4. 16. I pray God this (viz. fault) may not be imputed, or accounted to them. That is, I pray it may be pardoned, that it may be accounted as if it had not been committed) not that he pray's God, to think really that they never committed the fault; which would be to admit an errour into his underſtanding; but that he would graciouſly pardon it, and conſequently no more puniſh it, than if he judged it not p. 225committed, Numb. 18. 27, 30. This your Heave-offering ſhall be accounted or imputed to you, as the Corn of the Threſhing-floor. That is, whereas the people are commanded to offer their Tithes, and their firſt-Fruits to God, or they cannot without Sin and a Curſe, enjoy the reſt; Now ſaith he to the Levites, If you pay this part, the giving of this ſhall by Gods favour be available in Law, to your benefit and comfort, in freeing you from a Curſe, in imploying all the reſt to your own uſe, as if you had given ſuch Tithes, and Firſt-fruits of your own Husbandry, as the people do. Not that God would account it really the Corn of their own Threſhing-floor, the Firſt-fruits of their own Husbandry, Rom. 5. 13. Where a different word is uſed, but next a-kin to this. Sin is not imputed where there is no Law. That is, could one ſuppoſe per poſſibile vel impoſſibile, that there ſhould be ſin committed by a man without a Law, it would not be Imputed, he would not be guilty, obliged to ſuffer, would not be treated as an Offender, Rom. 4. 11. That Righteouſneſs p. 226might be imputed to them (viz. the Gentiles) alſo. That is, That though they be ſinners, and ſo have not Innocence and Righteouſneſs in reality, yet it ſhall upon their becoming Chriſtians, be Imputed to them, Rom. 2. 26. If the uncircumciſed keep the righteouſneſs of the Law, his uncircumciſion ſhall be accounted for circumciſion. That is, though a man be not Circumciſed, and ſo be one that you much deſpiſe, yet if he live holily, he ſhall be reſpected by God to all intents and purpoſes, as if he had been Circumciſed, Rom. 4. 8. cited out of Pſal. 32. Bleſſed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute iniquity, implying there is iniquity, but he will pardon it, and not impute it; Interpreted by that, his ſin forgiven; therefore it Implys there is ſin, but not Imputed. Not that God accounts he never committed it.

Theſe words are alſo uſed in the Scriptures following, but are uſed in ſomething a different ſenſe from the words fore cited; becauſe, as you may obſerve, they are not capable of being Tranſlated by the word Impute, as theſe p. 227above mentioned all are, viz. Job 33. 10. Chap. 19. 11. Chap. 13. 24. He counteth me for his enemy, Gen. 31. 15. Are we not accounted of him ſtrangers, Job 19. 15. My Maidens accounted me for a ſtranger, Hoſ. 8. 12. I have written to them, the wonderful things of my Law, but they were accounted ſtrange things, Pſal. 44. 22. cited Rom. 8. 36. We are accounted as ſheep for the ſlaughter. Now this may apparently be ſaid of theſe Scriptures, that either the word ſignifies a meer Thinking, a meer immanent Act of the Underſtanding without any thing of favour, or diſfavour, as one may Interpret ſome of theſe places; or if not, they apparently imply, as any may perceive upon conſidering the places, that the thing was not ſo in reality as accounted. It would be too high in me to ſay, I am certain (upon ſo little pains as I have taken to examine) theſe are all; yet, I am very confident theſe are all the places of Scripture, where the Hebrew or Greek words, are uſed in any ſenſe diſtinct from a meer immanent Act of the Underſtanding, except that of Phineas p. 228executing Judgement, and it was accounted to him for Righteouſneſs, and the ſame words repeated again by this Apoſtle, and by Saint James, which are plain to this ſence; and the two Scriptures which this Author cites, that I ſhall now take notice of.

This Author refers us only to two Scriptures, where the words do not ſignifie meer thinking, to prove that the words are uſed for accounting, according to Juſtice, and not Grace, or according to the reality of things: But they both of them prove evidently againſt that which he produceth them to prove.

The firſt is that ſaying of Shimei, 2 Sam. 19. 19. Let not the King impute iniquity to me, neither do thou remember what thy ſervant did perverſly. Here ſaith he, Imputation of ſin is of Juſtice and not of Grace. Anſw. He forgets there is a Negation in this Speech. It is not, let my Lord impute iniquity to me; But, let not my Lord impute iniquity. Now, not to impute Iniquity, is the very ſame thing with imputing Righteouſneſs, as the Apoſtle ſhews in p. 229this Chapter, ver. 6, 8. compared. Imputing Righteouſneſs without Works, that is, without a mans being Righteous; and not imputing Iniquity where there is Iniquity, are the ſame. Shimei's meaning is, though I have committed a great fault, and in truth am guilty, and unrighteous in this reſpect, yet impute Righteouſneſs to me through Grace by pardon, as to this fault; or do not impute Iniquity to me; put me into that ſtate in reference to Puniſhment for this fault, as if I was Righteous, or Innocent as to this fault; as if the fault had never been committed. He did not mean, do thou really account I never did that fault, or do thou in Juſtice, and not in Favour, not impute ſin to me.

The other Scripture which he brings, is as manifeſt againſt him as this is, which is this, viz. ver. 4. the very next verſe after this; Abraham believed, and it was accounted to him for Righteouſneſs. Now to him that worketh, the reward is reckoned of debt, and and not of Grace. Here, ſaith he, the Apoſtle himſelf uſeth the word reckoned, p. 230for reckned of Debt: And therefore, the word reckned, doth not ſignifie reckned of Grace, of it ſelf.

Anſw. It is ſo apparent, that any one may ſee it by peruſing the place; That theſe words [Now to him that worketh, the reward is reckned of Debt, and not of Grace] are an Argument to prove ſomthing ſaid before, as appears by the word foreign, Tranſlated, Now; and do lean upon this implied Foundation, to make them Argumentative, viz. That ſo the word reckned cannot ſignifie, when he ſaith, God accounted it to him for Righteouſneſs, but ſignifies accounted it of Grace. The Apoſtle's Argument, is this. If the reward had been given to Abraham for his Works, as being a righteous man in the ſtrict ſenſe, free from all ſin, or failing in obedience; it would not have been ſaid, that God imputed Righteouſneſs to him, which implies his being deſtitute of it: And he proves the conſequence thus, For to him that worketh, that is, that Meriteth, or is Righteous by his own works, the reward is accounted of Debt, and not of Grace; and ſo it p. 231leans upon this, as being a thing apparent in it ſelf, that ſo the word Accounted cannot ſignifie, but ſignifies accounted it of Grace and Favour, imputedrighteouſneſs to one not righteous, like not imputing ſin, to one which implys the man a ſinner. And the Apoſtle in the following verſe ſhews, that it is all one as if it had been ſaid, Abraham believed God, and upon his believing, God did not impute ſin to him. And ſaith, that if the Idolatrous unrighteous Gentiles believe as he did, Righteouſneſs ſhall be imputed to them, or ſin ſhall not be imputed to them. Suppoſe we had read expreſly theſe words [Shimei repented, or confeſſed his fault, and David imputed it to him for Righteouſneſs] would it not have been all one as to ſay, David did upon the Repentance, or Confeſſion of Shimei, not impute ſin to him; And would it not be the ſame as to ſay, David pardoned Shimei upon his Repentance or Confeſſion; and would not all theſe words [imputed Righteouſneſs, imputed not Sin, and Pardoned] equally imply Shimei was a ſinner, or one unrighteous, p. 232and conſequently an Act of grace and ſavour, in David ſo to do.

The Author having, as you have ſeen, given us his reaſon why he cannot be of their mind, that ſay the word implys reckoned of Grace. He in the next words tells us, how the Apoſtle gathers out of that Scripture [Abraham believed God, and it was counted or imputed to him for Righteouſneſs] that the reward was not imputed to Abraham of Debt, as a reward is given to Labourers, but of Grace. Thus,

I judg therefore, that the CollectionPag. 265. of the Apoſtle, whereby he infers out of that Citation; That the Juſtification of Abraham was meerly Gratuitous, doth not lean upon the naked ſignification of the word [was Imputed]; But partly upon the nature of the thing, which is ſaid to be Imputed to Abraham for Righteouſneſs, and partly on the former ſtate and quality of the perſon, Abraham; to whom it is ſaid to be Imputed.

Firſt, The nature of the thing,Pag. 266. The thing which is ſaid to be Imputed to Abraham for Righteou…neſs, p. 233was Faith and Obedience ſpringing from it. Now the obedience of Faith, doth exclude, all Merit all together in its own Notion: For the obedience of Faith, ſuppoſeth a gracious Revelation of God, firſt made to the Believer, and ſo ſuch Promiſes as do by their own excellency, ſtrongly excite a man believing them, to perform that obedience to God, by which, as by the condition, the good things Promiſed are to be attained, and ſuch Promiſes as do not only equal, but far excel the whole labour (though very great) which is undertaken through the belief of them. So it was plainly in the Example of Abraham. He indeed believed God, but firſt God had revealed himſelf to him in a gracious extraordinary manner, Acts 7. 2, 3. He had obeyed the Divine command, in calling him to a long perilous Journey; but God had added Wings to his Journey, promiſing ſuch huge good things, which might even fill a decriped old man with youthful ſtrength, and might animate him to bear any trouble p. 234cheerfully. Whatſoever therefore Abraham did worthy of praiſe, he ought to aſcribe it to the gracious Revelation, and the liberal Promiſes made to him by God of his meer Mercy, therefore there was no occaſion for Abraham to glory, No Merit.

The Apoſtle ſeems to have reſpect to this, ver. 5. where, when that which was denied of one working, (viz. the reward to be given him of Grace)**This is his miſtake, and not the Apoſtle's was to have been repeated in the following Oppoſition, and to have been affirmed of one believing thus, [but to a man believing, the reward is reckned of Grace:] But the Apoſtle doth quite otherwiſe, ſaith he, to one believing his faith is imputed for righteouſneſs, as if he ſhould ſay, upon that very account that his faith is imputed for righteouſneſs, his Juſtification is meerly gracious, ſince Faith in it ſelf ſounds forth Grace, and excludes Merit.

Here now I muſt (but as on thePag. 267. bie) a little dwell upon the words of the Apoſtle, ver. 4. To him that worketh, p. 235the reward is not reckned of Grace but of Debt. Which place, that it may be the better underſtood, two things are to be enquired. 1. What the word working ſignifies? 2. What the word Debt ſignifies? For the firſt, He that worketh, denoteth him that worketh of himſelf, and by his own ſtrength, being aſſiſted with no Divine aids. For he that worketh by the Grace of God, he doth not ſo much work as the Grace of God in him, 1 Cor. 15. 10. Gal. 2. 20. And the Context of the place confirms this; For beſide that the Apoſtle (as we have ſeen) doth profeſſedly diſpute of the works of Abraham, which he performed according to the fleſh, in the beginning of the Chapter; That is alſo chiefly to be obſerved, that he that worketh, is oppoſed to him that believeth; that is, that from the belief of the Divine Promiſes, and ſo whoſe works are to be aſcribed to the Divine Grace, which ſtirred him up to work with moſt great and liberal Promiſes, alſo adding a great efficacy of his Spirit, which alſo is received p. 236only after and by Faith.

Now in the ſecond place, to ſpeak of theſe words [of Debt] no reaſon permits that they ſhould be taken rigidly & **There is all reaſon to take words ſtrictly and properly, when it can be done, and not to fly to this Authors expreſſion▪ [it may ſeem as it were of Debt.] And had this Author given the true ſenſe of this Chapter, he might have taken the words ſtrictly; thus, If of perfect obedience to the Law, then of Debt, and not of Grace, meaning by Grace, Forgiveneſs; and if of meritorious Works, then of Debt, and not of Grace, in any ſenſe.ſtrictly. For the reward of Eternal life, cannot be ſaid properly to be owing to any man, though working moſt perfectly, and alſo from the meer ſtrength of Nature. Neither could that be aſcribed to the firſt man if he had ſtood in Innocency, and had never violated the Divine Covenant with any ſin; for the reward of Eternal life being Infinite, exceeds infinitely the works of any Creature. Therefore it is moſt certain, that theſe words of the Apoſtle, [But to him that worketh, the reward is not reckoned of Grace, but of Debt,] are not to be underſtood abſolutely and ſimply, but comparatively: So that, p. 237the Apoſtle ſignifies, that the reward is not given to him that worketh on that manner, as I have expreſſed, out of ſuch meer and pure Grace, as to one that believeth; that is, to one working from Faith. Therefore, this is the ſenſe of the words. If the reward of Eternal life ſhould be given by God to him that worketh; that is, that obeys God, and worketh righteouſneſs by his native ſtrength without the Grace of God: That may really ſeem as it were to be given as of debt, and there would be to one working, at leaſt ſome ſhew of boaſting. But when the reward is imputed to him that doth not work, but believeth; that is, who works nothing of himſelf, but from Faith, and after his believing of God graciouſly revealing himſelf. Here appears Divine Grace illuſtriouſly; boaſting is excluded, all merit is caſt off: Yea, here is ſeen double Grace of God. 1. That he works in a man the obedience of Faith by his. Grace, preceding all Merits of his; and alſo, that he imputeth for Righteouſneſs, the ſame obedience p. 238to a man which he wrought in him, and Crowning it with a great Reward, no otherwiſe than if the man had performed it of himſelf.

Whereas this Author pretends, that the ſtreſs of the Apoſtles Argument in Rom. 4. leans upon this, viz. That if men ſhould do things they have in no ſenſe any ability to do; and that in ſenſu compoſito, while they have no ability to do them: If men ſhould do that by their native ſtrength, which they have no ſtrength to do; this would Merit, or have ſome ſhew of Merit. As if Abraham had believed before God had promiſed, had believed without a Teſtimony or Revelation, or had obeyed before he had any ability to obey; this would have Merited, or have had ſome ſhew of Merit: But God promiſed firſt before Abraham believed, and afforded him ſtrength and all things naturally neceſſary to produce obedience before he obeyed, and ſo there was no Merit in his Faith and Obedience. I confeſs I am dubious whether I ſhould grant this to be true, or not; or if I ſhould grant it true, whether I p. 239ſhould deny any ſuch Suppoſitions may be allowed in Argumentation, ſince it would require many words exactly to determine this Logical diſpute, and would alſo require more Logical acuteneſs, than he or I in theſe diſputes ſeem to make uſe of, or is fit in this Controverſie to trouble the Reader with. But to be ſhort, I will grant, but it ſhall be only conditionally; That this would Merit, or have a ſhew of Merit, becauſe it would be to do what God gave him no ability to do; yea, it would be to do what all generally grant that the Diety cannot do, viz. a formal Impoſſibility. But I will grant it, as I ſaid only conditionally, viz. on condition that he will grant the contrary, follows from the ſame Suppoſition, viz. That if a man ſhould do what he hath no ability to do, it would have no Merit, or no ſhew of Merit, becauſe it would be ſo far from Merit, that it would be an abſurd, irrational, and fooliſh act; it would be ſo far from any ſhew of Merit, that it could no way be commendable. And becauſe ſome may think ſtrange of ſuch a conditional conceſſion, let it be conſidered, p. 240that from a naturally impoſſible Suppoſition (as this of his is) contradictory Conſequences may equally follow, as I could make appear, in almoſt any Inſtance: Take theſe, Si ſcirem me mortuum eſſe eſſem mortuus: And, Si ſcirem me mortuum eſſe non eſſem mortuus. If I truly knew I was not, I ſhould not be: And if I truly knew I was not, I ſhould be.

So, Si beſtia intelligeret eſſet homo: Si beſtia intelligeret non eſſet homo. Therefore, what Irreverence is it, at the leaſt, for this Author to faſten ſuch an Argument on the Apoſtle, as that either nothing can be concluded from it, or the contrary may equally be concluded from it? e. g. If Abraham had been Juſtified by Works, that is (according to this Author) by doing ſuch works as he had in no ſenſe any power to do, he might glory, or he had Merited; when it might as well at leaſt be concluded, he could not have gloried, he could not have Merited. But yet to prevent the Antinomian Extreme, who uſe to ſay, we muſt not ſo much as Suppoſe things, or Argue from p. 241Suppoſitions, though only Morally impoſſible; remember I put in the word [Naturally,] ſaying, [Suppoſitions Naturally impoſſible.] For it is apparent, there may be rational Arguing from a Hypothetical propoſition, which is not Naturally impoſſible, but only Morally. As for Example, in ſuch Speeches as theſe; If a man not Elected, or to whom God did not Decree to give converting Grace, ſhould Believe and Repent, he ſhould be Saved: If a man accuſtomed to do evil, ſhould do well, he ſhould be Saved: If a man had turned from ſin to God, before God converted him, it would have prevented many ſad Thoughts of Heart. Yea, this may ſo evidently be ſuppoſed, that men's Hearts may and do reproach them, that they did not turn to God before God did actually turn them; or did give them ſuch Grace as would actually prevail with them; becauſe, before God did thus turn them, or give them the Grace of Converſion, they had the Natural ability to Convert and turn to God, and only their Moral-Impotency, which is voluntary Wickedneſs, p. 242hindred them; elſe it would not have been their duty ſo to turn, or their ſin not to turn. So, Paul ſaith, If an Angel of He…ven ſhould Preach any other Goſpel, he ſhould be accurſed. And Chriſt ſaid, John 8. 55. If I ſhould ſay, I know him not, I ſhould be a lyar like to you: And theſe are rationally allowable Suppoſitions; becauſe an Angel in Heaven hath, and Chriſt on Earth had, the Natural power to Speak or Teach falſhood; though yet joyned with ſuch a Morally inſuperable holy rectitude of Will, that they could not obtain of themſelves ſo to Speak or Teach. And this is not like doing what they have not the Natural ability to do; And the contrary doth not here follow from theſe Suppoſitions: For you cannot ſay, If a confirmed Angel from Heaven ſhould Teach errour, he ſhould not be accurſed; or if Chriſt ſhould have denied he knew God, he would not have been a Lya…; which yet might have been ſaid, if this had been, To do, what they had not the Natural power to do; becauſe then, ſo to Teach or Speak, would neither have p. 243been Laudable nor Culpable, and ſo not formally a Lye, nor a cauſe of being accurſed. Neither can you ſay, if a non-Elect man had believed, he had not been ſaved. My diſcourſe of Natural and Moral-Impotency, will make what I here ſay, more plain to you.

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

p. 245Firſt, He holds, that if this Grace of the Holy Spirit, or this Grace of Converſion was denied men that enjoy the Goſpel, they would be excuſable, pag. 34. that is, They could not be guilty of ſinning againſt, or diſobedience to the Goſpel (for nothing that is truly ſin is excuſable.) Yea, he ſuppoſes ſtill conſonantly to this, that if it ſhould be denied any man in this life, enjoying the Goſpel, as he thinks it was to Pharaoh, ſuch a one would be as one naturally dead; even from under the command of Obedience to the Goſpel: For his non-obedience in this caſe, would be imputable to God, pag. 94. 95.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

p. 259Firſt, Becauſe, though it will be apparent to any Intelligent conſidering man that reads this Author's Book, that he hath the ſame common Notions with Doctor Hammond, about Grace; yet they lie more remote from vulgar Apprehenſions; he ſpeaking ſo little ex profeſſo, to declare what he means by it.

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

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

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

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

p. 265But now to attend the Author after this large Digreſſion, who ſtill goes on to give the meaning of Rom. 4.

The Apoſtle alſo in this his Argumentation, conſidereth the former ſtate and condition of the Perſon, viz. of Abraham, to whom this Faith was imputed for Righteouſneſs. He was ungodly, and guilty of grievous ſins, and therefore the Apoſtle ſaith Emphatically, that Abraham believed in him who juſtifieth one ungodly: By that, implying that Abraham before the Divine vocation, was ſo far from deſerving any thing from God by any good Works, that on the contrary, he was guilty of the greateſt ſins; So that the Mercy of God was wonderful, both that he had revealed himſelf in ſo ſingular a way to ſo great a ſinner, and had called him to his Service: And alſo, that he not only bleſſed with the Pardon of his great ſins, but alſo rewarded with the greateſt Rewards, Abraham believing him, revealing himſelf to him. But you will ſay, What was this Impiety of Abraham before he p. 266was called? I anſwer, Idolatry, the greateſt of Impieties, as the Scripture it ſelf plainly teſtifies, Joſhu. 24. 2, 3. &c. where God ſaith in the plural Number, That the Fathers of the Hebrews ſerved other Gods: And he expreſſes whom he means, [Thareh, the Father of Abraham, and the Father of Nachor,] ſo that he puts thoſe three, the Father with the Children, in the ſame Predicament. Alſo, after he had ſaid [they ſerved other gods,] he adds; [And he took your Father Abraham,] ver. 3. evidently denoting, that this is commemorated amongſt the kindneſſes to the Iſraelites; that when their Anceſtors, viz. the Grand-Father of Iſrael, both by his Father and Mother, Abraham and Nahor, living with their Father in Chaldea, worſhipped other gods; God of his meer Mercy, without any merit of his, took Abraham, and gave to him a Heir, and an Inheritance: Alſo the Apoſtle ſeems in theſe words [of juſtifying the ungodly,] by a tacit indeed, but yet by a ſtrong Argument, p. 267to check the Arrogancy of the Jews, who did abhor the Sinful and Idolatrous Gentiles, Gal. 2. 15. though Converted to the true God, by Faith in Chriſt, and Repentance, and new Obedience; And would by no means admit them to the favour of Juſtification, unleſs approved by a long and continued working, or at leaſt purg'd by Circumciſion and Sacrifices. For the Apoſtle ſhews in theſe words, that Abraham their Father (and ſo they in him) was called in the ſame manner from Idolatry, and the worſhip of falſe Gods: And was, immediately after his belief of the Promiſes, and Obedience given to the Divine vocation (yea before he was Circumciſed, as is a little-after ſhewed) accepted of God. Who would not here admire the divine wit of the Apoſtle! Furthermore, this belongs to all Juſtified, ſince there is none that is not guilty of hainous ſins before Grace received, & ſo who doth not need Pardon, and Divine Remiſſion. Which the Apoſtle well proves by a Teſtimony out of David, ver. p. 2686, 7, 8. And afterward the Apoſtle paſſes to the Controverſie concerning Circumciſion, ver. 9.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

p. 275Whether is a Proteſtant that holds he falls ſhort of his Duty in every thing; or a Papiſt, that holds that God's Law requires ſo little, that he can ſuper-erogate, and do more than God requires, likelier to hold Perfection?

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

p. 276This Author takes much pains (pag. 327. &c.) to prove, that the Church of England in the Eleventh Article of Religion, by theſe words, viz. [We are accounted Righteous before God, only for the Merit of our Lord and Saviour Jeſus Chriſt, by Faith, and not for our own works or deſervings. Wherefore, That we are Juſtified by Faith only, is a moſt wholſome Doctrine, and very full of Comfort.] I ſay, by theſe words, doth not attribute any Efficacy or Dignity to Faith, more than to other Virtues, in the buſineſs of Juſtification. Now, I diſlike not this attempt at all, and ſo ſhall ſay nothing here.

To conclude, The Reader may hence ſee how Improbable that is, which he tells us in his Epiſtle Dedicatory to the Reverend Lord Biſhop of Gloceſter; ſaying. He did nothing in putt…ng out this Book, but having f…t conſulted him, and that it was put out with his Aid or Aſſiſtance (auſp…ci…s) And that the Biſhop read delibera… ly p. 277every Chapter of either Diſſertation, and approved them with his Vote, and adorned them with his Praiſes.

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

FINIS.

End of the text · Joseph Truman, Rectifying Opinions Contrary to the Doctrine of the Church of England (1671)