C H A P. 3 r. Gofpel-obedience no Condition of 3tuftification. 3139 9' Salvation to be by the Law , is to be under flood in the very fame fenfe , in Which the incredulous ,jewel , againff wham he difputed, did hold thefe so be attainable thereby: forgetting with all ,.that what Paul wrote, was dilated by the Spi- rit & fo that for the ufe of the Church unto the end of the world. But fu- re , if no other works were here underftood , than this Author will have he- re underflood , it could be of little ufe to the Gofpel churches, after the fub- jeEtóf the queftion , the Ceremonial Law , it Pelf is taken away : And had it not been a shorter & molt effectual way to have confuted the jewes errour here, fimply to have proven ( as he doth elfewhere) the abolishing of that Law ? Betide, we finde many things fpoken of this Law , againit Juflifica- tion by obedience to which the Apoftle difputeth, that cannot agree to the Ceremonial Law, as bath been feveral times touched. But letusbear what the true queftion was. We muff under_ him ( faith he) to deny a freedom from the eternal pumishrnent to be attainable by legal Sacrifices : & alto to deny that the pro-nip ofeternal life was mad eupon Condition of literal Circum. ci faon , d r a li- teral obférvation of the Mo(aical Law. 13ní. If this had been all to what pur- pole , -1 pray , did the Apotlle laboure fo much to prove , that not only the !ewes, bur that the Gentiles alfo were under fin , Isom. i. & 2. The Genti- les were not , nor yet were to be under the Law of Ceremonies. (2) How could the Apotlle inferre, that by the deeds of the Law , there shouldmo flesh be juftified, from his proving, that both jewes & Gentiles were guil- ty of the breach of the Moral Law , whereby every mouth was flopped , & all the world become guilty before God IZ,om. 3: io -2o ? (3) did only the Law of Ceremonies give the knowledge of fin.? Hitnfelf proveth the con- trary pag. 57. (4) did the curfé only belong unto the Ceremonial Law ? or did Chritt only become a Curfe , in reference to the breaches of that Gal. ;: Io. He will not fo much as yeeld p. i 19. that Paul doth , on thebye, deny Ju- fli;fication by other works And that meerly becaufe it would dearoy his fa- brick of a ¡udµical Socinian juflification : though he pretend, that thereby the Apoftles doctrine would be made inconfiftent, not only with theFaith of the holy men of old , but alfo with his own dotrine But neither did the holy men of old exprefs the Condition of Jufti.fication ( which he confoun- deth with the Condition of the Covenant of mercy) by loving God & 'kee- pinghis commandements ; nor doth Paul (peak any fuch thing, as we have feen , what ever he with Socinians & Arminians fay; Hegiveth us another charader ( which alfo we heard from others before ) of the works,by whichPaul denied men were jutlified,calling them fuchworkr, which were apt to occafion boafling Ephef. 2: 9. Rpm. 4: 2. But thus he quite per - verteth both the fenfe of the words , fcope & argueing of the Apoflle;for the Apotlle cleareth that it is by grace we are Paved & not by works , upon this very account, that if we were faved or juflified upon the account of any of our works , man should boaft Ephef. 2: 9. Not of works; why ? le ferny man should boa ff , manifeftly declaring that all works were laid afide , in this matter &that for this end , that no man should have any occafion of boafting : , thisis not fpoken , as every one may fee , to qualifie , or fpecifie the works Bbb 2 that
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTcyMjk=