466 ¡what Law it is , by which we not- jtrlifted. C ii A P. 4. what Evafions they can , to evite the force of the Apoflles a gueings & peremptour Conclufions ; and therefore fay , that Paul is to be underllood , asfpeaking only of fuch, or fuch a Law ; & excludeth only fuch 8e fuch works, in which they think they may yeeld unto, what the Apoflle faith , the fame being limited & reftricted , according to their own miede , and yet do no prejudice to their own Hypo/J.44: But yet what this Law in particular is, and what are the works thereof , our Adverfaries are not -at all agreed a moug themfelves; but force imagine one thing , and fotne another , as we shall heare. .Some by the Law , and the works thereof , which Paul excludeth from juflification , do mean the Ceremonial Law and the.Obfervomeer thereof,; or as others exprefs it, the 3ervish Lail, , including their judaical Law , tie fo underflanding hereby all that Law , which is called Mcfe3's Lair : this is owned by force Papif's, as ßellarmine,sheweth us. De jufief: Lib. i. Cap. 19. but he himfclr rejeéteth it , upon this ground , that the Apollle l{,orn. 4. Ephef.-2. Tit. 3, doth fimply exciudk works , making no mention of the Law of Mo is : The Socinians do chufe this way ofiuterpreting the Apale, as per - ticularly rnalr be Peen in the Author of a book, inti:uled Curfenful Pauli f facobi &c. printed. An. i 62o. But this opinion doth not correfpondwith truth , as may be manife1 from there particulars. I. If Paul difput only againfl juílification by Ceremonial Obferva-nces, he had a far shorter cut, to confute that conceite , than the way he took, to wit, to tell them : that shortly that Law , with all its obfervancel, was to be laid alide & no more to be obferved, by vertue of the Gofpel Adminiftrarion, & becaufethe end of all thefe obfervances, & He, who was typified thereby, was come , and had put an end to that difpenfation. But we finde not the Apoflle making any ufe of this One 8e Onely Argument, which had lured that purpofe ; but on the contrary he ufeth fuch Mediums & Arguments, as fuite no lets, if not more, other Lawes , befide the Ceremonial. z. Yea before the writting of there Epitales, wherein the Apoftledid put againit Jufaífication by the Law , at lealt , before he wrote that to the Galatians, he had by his preaching & practice, oppofed the obfervation of the Ceremonial Law, as himfelftelleth us Gal. z. And in that fame Epiflle Chap. 3. 82.4. he condemneth the obfervation of that Law , in mold perem- ptory termes, asbeing no lets, than a falling from grace And yet when he is treating of Jul'tification not bythe works of the Law Chap.3. he mentio- neth not this ground , which would have taken away the very fubje.t of the debate. Shall we think , that the Apoflle would have difproved Juftifica -- tion , only by the works of the Ceremonial Law by loch Arguments and Toptcks, out of Scripture, when he was within a little by forcible reafo ns to remove the very Law itfelf, and condemne all obfervation thereof ? 3. It is firange', that Paulin writting to the Gentils, should deny (ufli6ca- tion tobe by the works of the Law, meaning the Ceremonial Law only ; and games writting to the Jewes, should cry up the obfervation of tha r;Law , and plead for jollification thereby :This would fay, that jewes & Gentiles were
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTcyMjk=