is a truth somthing more considerable as I take it than that alone which our Divines contend for against the Sooinian in this matter In the next place when Divines make a difference between the Law and Gospel as to the power of doing that the Law commands to do but the Gospel gives power to do The Law commands the tale of Brick but gives not Straw and the like expressions I doubt not but they have some verity at the bottom which should have nakedly been laid down if he could by this Bright person For the delivery of things after others by roat without disgestion is the great fault which he finds so often in other mens Books The Law and Gospel we know are liable to a diverse acception By the Law most properly I think we are to understand that Law which is written in the heart of man by Nature in Adams and ours the copy whereof is the ten Commandements called the Moral Law and by the Gospel the Law of Christ That which he delivered and his Apostles The matter whereof in both may be considered qua faedus or qua regula to use the terms of others Qua regula the things required in the Law moral and the Gospel or Law of Christ are the same but qua faedus the Law of Nature originally requires these things in perfection to be accepted unto life and the Law of Christ requires them in sincerity only accepting them though imperfect unto life through his Mediation and Redemption This is the only difference that concerns us here between the Law and the Gospel The Law then and Gospel both being considered as the Doctrin of life how does this Author speak that the one gives power and not the other The rule shews what we are to do the power to do is not given by our being shown That which therefore is to be understood by such terms may come to this that that which the Law thus taken that is the Law of our Creation and qua faedus does require of man is not in our power to do and consequently none can attain Salvation by it but that which the Gospel requires we have power to perform and if we be not wanting to God's Grace upon the performance we shall be saved In the third place when he says the Gospel enables us to do with a more willing and chearful mind then the Law if we understand this kind of speech as those Divines do I think ordinarlly that use it in such a sence that Christ having done all our works for us that Righteousness of his which was a most perfect conformity to the Law being imputed or accepted in our behalf for life there are no good works now required of us to do but only as the testification of our thankfulness and belief of this and therefore we perform all we do with gladness joy and love altogether without bondage fear or doubt it being not in order to our Justification though we miscarry in the doing I do apprehend this Learned Man would be one of the first to dislike such Teaching Yet is there thus much here of truth also That when the Law so taken as before does give us no heart at all to do that which through the flesh as the Apostle speaks is indeed impossible to any the Gospel does give us encouragement to do upon the account that what it requires may be performed and by that performance through the assistance of God's Spirit as the condition Man is both justified and saved I know well that St. Augustine does use the like expressions and I think often but he does explain his meaning which comes to this that when the Law of works commands us what is our duty and threatens us if we do it not the Law of Faith he counts directs us to God for his assistance grace or spirit to do what he commands I do not forget neither that God hath promised his spirit and so his grace for the performance of the New Covenant and though it does not follow that if Adam had stood he should not therefore have given man his grace and spirit for performing the perfect obedience of the Old as well as to us for the performing imperfect under the New seeing that Father does speak of grace to Adam as to us and if we should ascribe the obedience he performed during his Innocency to his own strength and not to the adjutory of God's spirit altogether he would not endure it Yet if the Authour or those Divines of ours that speak as he does will chose rather to make good what they say upon the contrary assertion then can I tell how to understand with them When God made Man at first we know he endued him with original righteousness Let us suppose this righteousness alone sufficient to him for the performing the Law unto which he was made so that before the fall there was no need of that we call grace which is properly such help of the spirit as consists in the healing and relief of our falne estate to enable man to do that which he had strength to perform by nature until he did voluntarily deflect from it But when he was fallen and lost that righteousness which was his strength then are we to conceive a need streight both of a new Law to be lowerd brought down or fitted to his weakness that he may be able and also of grace that he may be made willing to perform it And thus shall there be grace the spirit and the promise of it belonging to the Covenant of our Redeemer when there was none nor need of it to belong to the covenant of our Creation However there is this I count most certain and I would have it to be noted that the spirit which is promised or given to man for his obedience to God is promised and given only in respect to this Covenant not for the performance of the Covenant of Nature for then should Adam never have falne nor we have had any need of a Redeemer It is true that there are some Divines are so much with Austin to have Adams standing supposing he had stood to be of grace that they will have mans original righteousness to be a work or habit supernatural from which when Adam fell he returned as they would teach us to his pure naturals and so his Posterity are born But this is a kind of Pelagianisme no ways to be received For what indeed should be a Creatures Nature if that be not which it receives from its Creation Besides if mans original righteousness be not lookt on as natural how shall original sin which consists in the loss of it be defined by the depravation of our nature according to the doctrin of the Church of England as well as the Catechisme of the Assembly Neither is Dr. Taylor here to be heard who cannot abide that that whatsoever he will call it which we contract from Adam without any will of our own
THE Middle-Way In One paper of THE COVENANTS LAW and GOSPEL With Indifferency between the LEGALIST ANTINOMIAN By J. H. Doing nothing by Partiality LONDON Printed for I Parkhurst at the Bible and Three Crowns in Cheap-side 1674. OF The Covenants IT is one reason of my sending out these sheets thus in single Papers that I may have the opportunity my self of Reflexion If any thing be wanting I may supply it where I am in the dark I may explain it or call for Light If I erre I may correct it and put my self at ease still when I need as to the whole It is verily a foolish thing I count for any man to think that he can speak or write so as what he hath once spoken or written cannot be mended When we change our thoughts every day and week in our private Studies what a vain resolution is it that because we have Preached or Printed thus the shutters must be drawen up presently and no more Light be let to come in upon us For my part I declare I will never Preach or Print upon such termes but upon these That I may be mistaken That I may acknowledg it if I be convinced That I may therefore be controuled and have leave to be indifferent to my own opinion as to anothers Two Papers I have sent out already The first or that which in order should be first is of Election and Redemption wherein I observe some things to be misplaced at the Press but so long as the things be put in and my notion proposed I am sollicitous about nothing else That God would have all to be saved and therefore prepares that grace for all that is sufficient which is his antccedent will and that then he foresees who they be that will comply with that grace and and who not and by his consequent will decrees the one to salvation and the other to damnation is that Doctrin in the maine that is the Rachel of the Schools For the latter part whereof I have given my thoughts in that paper the former part requires a little further consideration That the goodness of God is advanced towards all I like well and that they lay the blame on man only that he perishes and that they are so careful against Pelagius for therefore do they bring in a sufficient grace for all because man shall be allowed him to do nothing that disposes him to conversion or justification by his own strength without grace nevertheless whether this sufficient grace of theirs is to pass or not is the question There is the universal convourse of God with man in all his acts as the first cause in whom we live and move and have our being and there is that influx or assistance of his we call Grace It would be known in the first place what is the difference between these That assistance of God which goes to the acts of Nature and the prefervation thereof is the common concourse of his Providence that assistance of his which goes to the production of acts above Nature is called Grace By Nature we mean corrupt Nature and by acts above Nature we mean such acts as we should not do according to our natural inclination if it were not for supernatural help that is some further operation or influence on us from God then that which goes only to our natural preservation Grace then in short is that Divine assistance which Elevates Nature and heales it This Grace is twofold the Divine motion or habitual disposition habitualis gratia or divina motio the infused habit or Divine operation It is said now in the Schools that there is this difference between infused habits and acquired that when the one do introduce only a facility to the action but presupposes the power the other do bring the power it self as without which we can do nothing This is spoken I count very agreeably to the Scripture which sets forth man in his natural state as dead in sin and the work of Grace by regeneration and new life with many the like expressions nevertheless as there must be some limits fixt for the right interpretation of such places which in effect must come to that which I have given in my first paper that there is indeed such an indisposition on all men through original corruption as that there is no man ever does did or will repent do his duty and live but it is was and must be through Gods especial Grace and yet are we to account for all that that they have power that they may if they will that the covenant of grace requires not any thing which is impossible for both these are to be held So must I crave liberty to enter my different opinion It was Pelagius his conceit I have noted in one of my other papers that grace served only to help the power when St. Augustine proves that it inclines the will and works in us the deed my thoughts now lye partly between both that the Posse or Power indeed is of Nature and Grace or the operation of God is that which drawes that power into the Will or Act that is makes us willing This act of the Will laies an impression on the soul inclining it to the like acts These acts iterated turns that inclination to an habit that is Habitual grace infused if you please per modum acquisitorum The agere the act must presuppose the posse the power That 's certain If the habit then brought the power the Divine motion or preventing grace which goes before the habit did nothing You will say There is a double power a remote or next power The remote power is of nature but the next power is of grace and sufficient grace gives to all a next power Let me ask you then whether there be any further grace after we have the next power to make us willing or to give us also the will and deed If you grant it you may make the most of your sufficient grace I will not quarrel with you for it But when the posse the power is of nature and the Will and Deed is of that grace which is more than sufficient I would faine know why nature and effectual grace alone should not serve the turn and whether sufficient grace over and above these is not indeed more than needs Here I stick where I left The second paper is of justification and of this I count there are two parts The one is a reconciliation of St. James and Paul and so of faith and works in that point which I must needs say having lain in my thoughts the main notion in Paper by me this 16 or 18 Years or upwards I cannot but be very throughly satisfied with and much the rather when I see the same growing up in late Books as particularly in those most judicious temperate Theses of Le Blanc and Mr. Trumans Great Propittation The other is concerning the imputation of Christs Righteousness wherein
I will confess though in my judgment I am perswaded that what I have writ is the truth and it is nothing but truth that made me write it yet does my heart a little misgive me that it were better to let pious men alone to such apprehensions as they have imbibed though mingled with much darkness and some errour in such a point as this where so much of their peace and life is bound up then to offer them any unsettlement by cleerer light though I were able indeed to bring it to them I may be allowed to be sorry if I offend any body but I ought to have a care I stumble none who are good men and live godly Neither would I streighten my own soul If there be any thing more therefore in the imputation of Christs righteousness then I have expressed in that paper which I know not I doe not part with my portion in it I protest thus much but will rather renounce all upon the conviction to cleave to it That Christs righteousness does justify us from the Law and so from sin and from condemnation I do hold no less then others but that Christs righteousness does justify us by the Law is an overgrown conception It is certain that no works of man be we never so holy are able to stand before God in his disstrict judgment that is if he should deal with us according to the exact justice of the Law without shewing us any mercy which will be acknowledged by Protestants and Papists who are ready to pray both with David Enter not into judgment with thy servants O Lord for in thy sight shall no flesh living be justified If any Papist then shall think that mans righteousness is made so perfect by Christs merits or any Protestant that Christs righteousness it self is so made ours as that we are justified by the Law upon that account they are both mistaken This is the only true extreamity on both sides for it is not by the Law but by Faith by the Evangelical covenant or by Grace that we are justified We are not under the Law sayes the the Apostle but under grace It is enough for a poor sinner to have a righteousness imputed to him without works and that he is pardoned but to have a righteonsness imputed to him with works is more then we can sind to be allowed him Christs righteousness is such and to have that made ours in it self or so as that in Gods reckoning we must be as righteous as he I must needs say it is not harder perhaps to believe that the bread is turned into Christs body where we have a text for it in the Sacrament then to believe such a conceit for which we have no Scripture at all in the matter of Justification What then Do I deny Imputation No but I explain it It is by the righteousness of Christ not inherent in us our Divines will say Ordinarily but imputed to us that we are justified And what if I thus interpret this for them that is not as if we had done in his person what Christ did but by his righteousness made ours in the effects only So the very Learned Bishop Forbs expresly Hoc est Quoad effectum fructum See Considerationes modestae De justificatione l. 2. c. 2. I will use the same words as they use but I am not bound to the same construction Even as I will speak of mans insufficiency I mentioned before as other Divines do and as the Scriptures do that we can do nothing but I will keep the due interpretation I will say we can and that we cannot without loss of my liberty for I must understand it with its right measures I will say I can in confession of my sin and acknowledging God just I will say I cannot in the sense of my corruption and the imploring his grace Indeed a man can hardly consider the Doctrin of St. James never so little with that of Paul which is one part of my paper but it will lead him to the other which is to see that what our Protestants say ordinarily on this matter does need a favourable exposition It is a jejune thing I count to bring the great dispute that Paul hath with the Jewes about justification to this result only whether we are justified by Faith or the proper Work or Fruits of it It is but a little more satisfactory to bring it only to this whether it be by the observation of Moses Law For though this was the occasion of the dispute and the Apostle therefore does shew them how it was by the Promise and so by Faith that Abraham and the Jewes themselves had life and not by the Law which was but a Schoolmaster to lead them thereunto or unto Christ yet it is manifest that he advances the point higher while he tells them that by Works neither Jew nor Gemile could be justified so that by works he must mean the observation of that Law of works which was common to both and not Moses Law only and the resolution of the dispute in both Apostles comes to this as I have said that it is by the performance of the covenant of Grace and not of the ovenant of works or Law of Moses that a man is to look for life everlasting I must add Nor are they to be heard in a third place who say that the dispute between Paul and the Jewes is neither of these but whether we are justified by our own righteousness or by the righteousness of Christ and so resolve that it is not by any works which we do even Faith it self as a work but by the works Christ hath done for us that is by the obedience of his life and death only For though this be taught ordinarily by our Protestants and is coincident with the first result there is one thing I must say these Divines have not considered which I have offered them in my paper that must bring them to another understanding It is this that the Apostle does indeed stand much upon the Righteousness of God in opposition to works in the business of justification but never opposes our works to the Righteousness of Christ the Righteousness of Christ in their sense being truly a very contrary thing to the Righteousness of God in the sense of the Apostle The righteousness of God according to the A ostle if I may then describe it but as well as I can and as the thing is and a little more fully then I have in my former paper is on Gods part his taking our human frailey or falne nature into that meet consideration as not to deale with us in his district judgment which we cannot beare but according to his Covenant of Mercy the righteousness sacrifice attonement or satisfaction of Christ being supposed as the foundation upon which his Justice does stand good notwithstanding this condescention And consequently on Mans part this righteousness is our imperfect duty performed in sincerity