I, (the other) of whom I was speaking: which glofs our adverfaries put upon this word, ftrengthening themselves from this, that he ufeth the pronoun I, verfes 8. 9. 10. where indeed, it is true, he speaketh of himself, but not in the present time, as here, but in the preterite.

5thly, Because these for the contrary opinion lay down that for a ground which cannot be granted, viz. That there is a threefold ftate of man, viz. a state of nature under the law, a fate of grace, and a diftinct ftate from both, viz. when a foul is under the legal work, and fo prepared for welcoming the gofpel, and laying hold on the promises, which they call an unconftant ftate, unto which all this that is here faid is by them applied. The fcripture fpeaketh only of two, viz. the state of nature, and the state of grace; and they, feeing that what the apoftle is here fpeaking of himself, cannot be meant of one in black nature, have therefore feigned this third state without fcripture, and to help the matter, call it only an unconftant state. 1 fay, the scripture knoweth no fuch third ftate, diftinct from the other two; for whatever legal terrors be upon the confcience of a finner, until the promise be griped, and Chrift in the gospel laid hold on, the man is ftill in nature; he may be indeed nearer the kingdom of heaven than when he was living in all profanity, but yet ftill out of it, and in the kingdom of darkness. It is true, there are different degrees, but to feign diftinct ftates upon that fcore, were to lay a foundation, not only for three ftates, but for three and three too: for as fome are moft profane, runing loofe to all riotoufnefs; fo fome are more civil in their carriage; fome not only civil, but externally religious, and painted hypocrites; fome not only deceiving others, but alfo deceiving themfelves; fome under light convictions, and fome drinking deeper of that cup; and yet all of them under fin, and the children of wrath: So of thefe under grace, fome babes, fome

young men, and fome old men. Nor has this fiction of a threefold diftinct state, any ground from Rev. iii. 15. 16. as is fuppofed; for these luke-warm people were still in the state of nature, though not fo grofs as might be called cold; and fure it is, that thefe luke-warm Laodiceans were no way legally exercised, and under the terrors of the law; but having renounced Heathenifm, and received a form of religion, they rested without the power and life thereof, and fo were plain hypocrites. Thus then we have a fourth distinct state, if there be three here. And though Chrift call upon the weary and the heavy ladened, yet it will not follow, that these are in a diftinct ftate from nature: gradual differences will not make specifical differences.

6thly, Because the contrary opinion will leave us in the mist, and at an uncertainty where to fift, or of what kind of folks in nature to take thefe here fpoken of. It is true, they mean one who is under the law, that is, as they expone it, under the terrors of the law; but can these things here be spoken of a Cain and Judas, and other reprobates, who were under strong terrors and legal fits, and died in them? I cannot think it; for, to fay no more, it. is fcarce probable, that fuch can really confent unto the law that it is good, verse 16. and not rather with from their hearts there were no fuch law above their heads. Can any imagine, that fuch do delight in the law of God, after the inward man? Sure I am of one thing, that that word, verfe 25. I thank God, through Jefus Chrift, fpeaks fmall comfort to them. Now, are not thefe in this third ftate? or is it peculiar unto fuch who fhall at length be delivered from it? If fo, what reafon can be brought for this? is not the one under the law (for fo they call this third ftate,) as well as the other? or if not, let them fhew better what it is to be under the law: Sure, if we take that expofition which they give, viz. that he is under the law, who has the knowledge of the law;

H h

is a diftinction altogether without ground; for, as we fhewed before, there can be no medium betwixt flesh and grace, fo as if any thing could be done that neither was from the flesh, nor from grace, as its principle. (2.) It must be from the flesh, because themselves fay, that such a man is not yet regenerated, and while a man is unregenerated, he is in his old ftate of nature; they say, the state of unregeneration containeth two other ftates, viz. without the law, and under the law; fo that whether what is done be done by them while under the law, or while without the law, it is ftill done by them in a

to be this, I as to be this, I as confenting to the law; and this is as unclear as the other. But it is not every diftinct refpect that can found fuch a propofition as this, I do this, yet. not I, but fin in me; or, I do this as fuch, but not as fuch; otherways in one even without the law the fame may be verified; for fuch a one may be faid to fin as carnal, but not as fuch or fuch a man, in fuch or fuch a place, &c.\therefore, they must be fuch diftinct respects as are principles of fuch actions: as, for example, (taking but what themselves fay) in the regenerate there is a principle of grace, and this is operative of good, active in producing it,

grace, and confequently the flesh muft be the principle thereof; for I know not of a third principle befide nature or flefh, and grace. 4. In explaining verfe 18. they fay, that in the unregenerated there is fomething beside flesh, viz. a mind taking up that which may be known of God, &c. Rom. i. and ii. and if fo, fure this agreeth to many more than are here meant by them, and fo their diftinction of fuch as are without the law, and fuch as are under the law, is needlefs, and to no purpose. 3. In explaining verfe 22. they fay, that the inner man is not the regenerate part of a man, but the immortal part, and invifible, and that is the foul; and fo the man meant here, must be every man who hath a foul, which thefe without the law, as well as thefe under the law have. 6. In like manner they explain the law of the mind, ver. 23. the knowledge of the law, thoughts accufing and excufing, and the knowledge of luft to be fin.

8thly, They who maintain the contrary opinion, are forced to interpretations that can hardly be understood, if not worse: as, for example, they explain thefe words, It is no more I that do it, but fin that dwelleth in me, thus, It is not I as under the law, but I as carnal, and a fervant to fin. Now, what can the meaning of that be, I as under the law? They explain it

contributeth any affiftance thereto: Alfo, there is the reliques of the old man, and that is a principle of evil; this is bufy in bringing forth fin, and never is affiftant to what is good; fo that here when the man fineth he may be faid to fin, not as having a principle of grace, or as regenerated, but as having the reliques of corruption within him; fo when he doth well, he may be faid to do it, not as carnal, but as regenerated. But now, to fpeak of a man. unregenerate, and fay, he fineth not as under the law, but as carnal, is, in my judgment, to fpeak contradictions; for, (1.) even as under the law he is unregenerated, feeing they themselves divide the ftate of unregeneracy into a leffer ftate without the law, and under the law; and fo it were to fay, he fineth not as unregenerate, but as unregenerate. 2. Doth their being under the law give them a new principle of action, not only diftinct, but contrary unto the principle of nature? how fhall this be got proven ? 3. Where is it faid, that a man under the law doth not fin as fuch? 4. If as confenting unto the law, or as being under the law, (for thefe are one with them) they did not fin, then as fuch they had fomething in them oppofite to fin, entering a proteftation against it, refifting it, &c. for how elfe could they be faid not to fin as fuch, un

Hh 2

Jefs

lefs as fuch they had fome impediment ly ing in their way, fomething ftanding in oppofition to fin, and if fo, then they should have grace; for what can refift, oppofe, hinder, and counter-work fin but grace? and if they have grace, then are they regenerated, for grace is peculiar to fuch;

and fo we are where we would be, and to be under the law, (though there be a great mistake in the word,) is to be under grace.

II. We come now to fpeak unto their grounds, and to anfwer their objections: And,

First, They object this, That the connection will make against us, thus, The apoftle must mean the fame man here by the pronoun I, that he meaneth by it in the former verfes, because the connection for, fheweth that the fame purpose is handled here, which was handled before; but in the former verfes he spoke of a man under the law, and there can no connection be imagined if we understand this of a rege

nerate man.

ft, I answer, It is true the particle for will knit this with the preceding verfes; but it will not follow, that therefore he muft understand the fame man he fpoke of before, because the connection will ftand. tho' that be not, as we fhall fhow.

2 dly, If this must be knit unto the former purpose, and if the former purpose was concerning a man under the law, then we cannot look upon it as the rendering of a cause of that which is fet down, verfe 5. where the apoftle is fpeaking of one in the flesh, and if fuch an one be the man that is faid to be under the law, then I am fure their diftinction of fuch as are without the law, and fuch as are under the law, is but a fiction; for thefe without the law are in the flesh, no less than thefe under the law, if not more and thus their analyfis fhall fall to the ground.

3dly, Tho' we understand here a regenerate man, yet we think there may be a clear connection thus; The apoftle having

afferted two things, verfe 13. in anfwering of that objection propofed, viz. 1. That the law is the caufe of death; and 2. that it is corruption which is always ftrong, even fo ftrong as to take occafion to fin even at the very law itfelf, he cleareth and confirmeth both here. The law is fpiritual, fays that it is not the cause of death. And the other he proveth thus; Corruption is fo ftrong even in me while regenerated, that in part I may be called carnal, fold under fin; therefore it cannot but be strong in others. So that this is an affirmative argument from the greater to the leffer. Now I would gladly know what inconvenience is in this connection,

Secondly, They object, That our opini on is injurious to God's free grace, because it afcribes lefs to it than ought to be afcribed; fcripture afcribes to grace not only that it worketh the will, but also the deed, Phil. ii. 13. it crucifieth the old man, &c. Rom. vi. 6. mortifieth the deeds of the body, Rom. viii. 13. and maketh believers victorious, Eph. vi. 1o. James iv. 6. 1 John iv. 4. and v. 4. but we (fay they) make the Spirit of God to be weaker than corruption, because the event of this battle is to corruption's advantage.

ift, I answer, It is granted, that the Spirit of God makes both to will and to do; but will it follow, that every action which the believer doth is wrought by the Spirit? Was David's adultery, and Peter's denying of his Mafter, wrought by grace, not only as to the willing of it, but alfo as to the effectuating of it? I fuppofe this will not be faid: The meaning then of thefe words is, That we must afcribe to God's grace allenarly any good which we do, both as to the begining and perfecting of any good work; fo that notwithftanding of this, believers may often fiu against God, as fad experience daily evinceth; and to say that they fin fo with full confent of the will, without any protestation to the contrary, is cafily faid, but not fo eafily proven.