you say p. 43 44 and 45. As for what you speak about that Position of Mr. B. I leave the Learned to judge whether you have salved it I shall hardly set that and other things in a gâ—eater Lâ—ght unless you provoke me thereto as you insinuate by further Endeavours to set other Men in the Light or Dark to as great Reproach as you can cast upon them You say I mâ—ke Mr. R. B. to speak orthodoxly by saying p. 22. When once a Transgressor is sentenced by a Law he falls into the Hands of Perogative and the Prince may do with him what he pleaseth i. e. either execute him or pardon him God a so might have put Repentance into the Condition of the Law of Works and said If thou dost not eat or repent of thy eating thou shalt have thy Reward You should have added the Reason of my so saying it was upon your saying The Law of Works admitted no Repentance I tell you If God had intended Salvation by a Law of Works wherein Repentance should have been a Condition he might have put it in at first but God never intended to accept Repentance as a federal Condition of any Covenant nor our imperfect Condition And so I say again with a non obstante all that you have or can say against it And I must stand to that Rule which Mr. Norton takes from Cham. de descensu tom 2. l. 5. c. 12. This great Principle is all-a-long to be kept in Mind and occasionally to be applyed as in Answer to this Question Q. What is the supreme and first Cause why Justice requireth That Sin should be rewarded with Punishment due thereunto according to the Law A. The free Constitution of God the principal and whole Reason of this Mystery depends upon the good Pleasure of God for who can deny that God could have saved Man in another way But he would save him thus and no otherwise than thus This serves not only as a Sword to cut but as a leading Truth to loose the Knots of Carnal Reason The good Pleasure of God is the first Rule of Righteousness the Cause of all Causes the Reason of all Reasons And in one Word all Reasons in one Reason And how doth this make the following Saying orthodox viz. Being that Christ the Mediator and Faith in Christ are only means of the Restauration of Men to God by Holiness and Love therefore it must be said from the Nature of the thing Faith Holiness and the Love of God are more necessary to Salvation than either Faith in Christ or the Sacrifice of Christ himself Now if I had said that this Position were God's Constitution viz. that Holiness and Love to God wrought in us should be more necessary Means of Salvation than Faith in Christ or the Sacrifice of Christ you had said something Or that it were the Constitution of God That Christ in all things should not have the Preheminence whether in genere causarum mediorum vel finium Col. 1.18 19 20. Therefore to say Holiness in Grace or Glory is more necessary than Christ Mediator is to magnifie the Creature above Christ himself But because you say you would not have spoken the Words yourself but endeavour to explain them as charitably as you can I do not think it convenient to give you any further trouble about them but I must remark That it is not so fair in you to charge all upon me as my Sense which is spoken by an Interlocutor in a Dialogue AN ENQUIRY Whether the Gospel be a New Law SIR YOU begin thus Reader Though I did not once call the Gospel a Law in all my Book only in my Preface called it a Law of Faith yet because the whole of Mr. C 's Book runs on this I shall insist most on this Head R. Whether you called the Gospel a Law or no it matters not I know you kept your self here as in many other Points within your Trenches yet he that reads your Book is very blind if he sees not this to be the Corner-stone of your whole Scheme And by your now appearing in a Defence of that Principle as your professed Opinion You have not only dealt more candidly with your Reader than in your former Book but also justified me to the World in these things 1. That I endeavoured faithfully to represent your Opinions and did so in this Point 2. That I wronged you not in saying Your Art lay in concealing your Tenents from your less intelligent Reader under Ambiguous and Equivocal Expressions which I called by a plain English Name that you seem to be offended at 3. In that I treated you under the Appellation of a Neonomian which is an Antinomian in the truest Sense in that you have in this Reply professedly owned yourself as such and subscribed to the Truth thereof which for your own Reputation I would not have had you to have done In handling this Question I shall in the first Place remark upon your stating the Question and shew its true state 2. I shall answer your Arguments to prove the Gospel a new Law 3. I shall shew what Law and Gospel is 4. I shall give my Arguments to prove That the Gospel is no new Law 5. I shall shew the Beginning and Progress of this great Error viz. That the Gospel is a New Law 1. The stating of the Question SIR you tell us 1. In what Sense you hold the Gospel not a Law and from thence it follows That in a Sense it is not a Law and therefore in mine it may not be a Law 1. You say You do not hold that the Gospel includes nothing besides this Law R. Here is your old Tricking again The Question is about the Gospel being a Law and you say it includes somâ—thing that is not a Law it includes the Covenant of Redemption and absolute Promises as if the Quâ—stion were Whether a Scabbard were a Sword And you say The Scabbard includes a Sword But by your Favour a Law as such canâ—ot include an absolute Promise for there 's no Promise but conditional in a Law but yet an absolute Promise may include a Law as that I will write my Laws in your Hearts There may be you say Prophecies Histories Doctrinals c. yet these may be called Adjuncts Of what You should have told us whether of Law or Gospel or of the Gospel as a Law The Histories of Christ are Gospel and the Prophecies of him and whatever in Doctrinals brings good News to Sinners belongs to the Promise and Exemplification thereof 2. You say p 19. Nor do I judge it a Law in that Sense our Divines six on Sâ—cinians and Arminians R. No you apprehend our Divines abuse them but yet it hinders not but that you may judge it a Law in the Sense of the Socinians and Arminians I have told what yours is let the Reader judge whether it be so or no for they hold Justification by Acts of Obedience
A REJOYNDER TO Mr. DANIEL WILLIAMS HIS REPLY To the First Part of Neomianism Vnmaskt WHEREIN His Defence is Examined and his Arguments Answered whereby he endeavours to prove the Gospel to be a New Law with Sanction And the contrary is proved By ISAAC CHAVNCY M. A. LONDON Printed for H. Barnard at the Bible in the Poultry MDCXCIII A REJOYNDER TO Mr. Daniel Williams his REPLY Reverend Sir YOU say you are misrepresented in my saying You hold the Vacating or Abrogating the Old Law A. This is no false Charge or Misrepresentation for if the Sanction be changed as you expressly say both in the former Book and in this the Law is vacated it ceaseth to be Norma Judicii and what Passage you refer to in p. 198. of your former Book relieves you not P. 198. where you say The holiest Action of the holiest Saint needs forgiveness For upon your Hypothesis there is general Pardon purchased conditionally which Faith and sincere Holiness entitleth us to The old Law itself is laid aside as that which will never trouble the Believer Christ hath satisfied that for him but it is the new Law which the Believer must be tryed by which is the Gospel Law and hath another Sanction to the preceptive part of the Law which the Covenant of Works had prescribed P. 6. This new Law you say fixeth new Terms viz. True Repentance and Faith unfeigned to be the Terms of Pardon which Terms you say the Covenant of Works admitteth not so that the Terms or Conditions being changed the Sanction is changed What remains then but a new Law the righteousness of which must be our justifying Righteousness for there 's no Justification by any Law without fulfilling it by performance of that very Righteousness by our selves or another which that Law requires And tho' you say we are bound to the Duties of the Moral Law yet you say the use of Faith and Holiness in respect of the Benefits is not from their conformity to the Precept so that Conformity to the Precept of the old Law hath nothing to do as Righteousness in the new Law but their Conformity to the Rule of the Promise which can be no other than the Rule of the new Law Hence it is manifest That with you this new Law is distinct both in Precept and Sanction therefore it 's out a doors Lastly none can deny But that how good soever the Precept of a Law is if the sanction be vacated or changed so that it ceaseth to be Norma Judicii it ceaseth to be a Law and where a Law ceaseth to be Norma Judicii there 's no tryal to be made thereby of Men's Actions no Judicial Proceedings thereby nor Justification or Condemnation by it whatever we are in respect of another Law our Righteousness must be judged of and tryed by the Law in Force and this is your plain Judgment See p. 131. you say If Men have nothing to do for Salvation then Christ hath no Rule to judge them who lived under the Gospel So that Men under the Gospel are judged by a Rule of doing which is your Rule of the Promise And again ibid. Consider the description of the last Day and you 'l find God Saves and Damns with respect to Mens Neglects and Compliance with the Gospel You say it 's true the Sanction of the Law of Works is removed p. 135. Your granting That we deserve Wrath in respect of the Covenant of Works and that the Law is a Rule of Duty c. is nothing for 't is not meer satisfying that Law will save us or the Righteousness thereof but a Compliance with and obedience to a new Law You say The Law cannot hinder our Relief by Christ from the Sentence Christ stands between us and that Law that we may be saved by another Forgiveness you say is not by sinless Obedience we say it is by Christ's which s sinless Obedience but it is by our imperfect Obedience that must follow You say also in this Reply p. 23. Were not the Gospel to be a Rule of Judgment norma Judicii I cannot see how that can be a Judgment Day it must be only an Execution Day for by the Law of Adam no Believer could be acquitted that Law must be altered by the Law-giver to admit Satisfaction which is a strange Expression as if Christ could not satisfy Adam's Law without altering it the Law must be vacated if Christ satisfied and fulfilled it cujus contrarium verum est and it is by the Gospel only he hath enacted the way how this Satisfaction shall be applyed And that way enacted is your new Law that comes in the room and stead of the old Law vacated Therefore I beseech you consider your own Reputation more than to say I misrepresent you in saying You hold that which your Words shew your Scheme must contain and you know in your Conscience is your Principle Again you charge me for misrepresenting you whenas you say Christ's Sufferings are the Foundation of our Pardon that our Sins are forgiven for Christ's Sufferings By my saying Your Fundamentally is only a remote causality Causa sine qua non by something else besides them R. You know whatever you say to palliate it that you mean Christ's Righteousness is our legal Righteousness but our Faith and Obedience our evangelical Righteousness which you own under the Name of a subordinate Righteousness and is not the Inference of causa sine qua non p. 20. Very natural when you say For the Sufferings of Christ our Sins are forgiven and explain it thus Without them Sin cannot be forgiven How can a Causa sine qua non be more plainly expressed as thus The going out of my Door is the Causa sine qua non of my going into Cheapside How so without going out of my House which is in another Street I cannot go into Cheapside You say It 's strange that any one should infer That you deny the Righteousness of Christ to be the sole meritorious or material Cause of our Pardon which in Judicial Acts are the same Rej. All this may be and your contrary Sense to us still the same 1. It 's one thing to be a meritorious cause of Pardon and another thing to be our very sole justifying Righteousness I can say Christ's Righteousness is the sole meritorious Cause of Sanctification for which we are sanctified as well as for which we are forgiven and yet we are sanctified by the Spirit and so for which we are adopted Hence you will say Christ's Righteousness is the meritorious Cause for which we are pardoned and justified by the gospel-Gospel-law the Condition whereof you make Meetness what is required of Sinners is only a meetness to receive the Effects this Meetness is the Evangelical Righteousness this is the Condition we shall be tryed by at the last Day and this is the Law Condition upon which we receive the effects of Christ's Righteousness not the righteousness itself neither And
is not this Meetness a material Cause in the Gospel Law of our receiving these Effects Why then hath it not â—he same Place in respect of the new Law as Christ's Righteousness hath in repect of the old Law so that there must be at least two Righteousnesses requisite to our compleat Justification one Righteousness to answer the Old Law and another to answer the New And indeed here Christ's Righteousness is made by you most properly the subordinate Righteousness because it is in ordine ad it 's only in order to anâ—ther Righteousness In the most favouraâ—le Sense you make the Righteousness of Christ to merit ex condigno and Evangâ—lical to merit ex congruo for all Law Meetness is meriting either in respect of the reâ—unerative or minatory part of the Law All that you say over and over helps not nor covers you from those that know your Dialect nor your saying That Christ is the foundation of your Plea I may found a Plea or Argument upon a thing that is not my Plea or at least my chief Plea and how do you found it Why for the sake of Christ accepted against excluding bars you say whereby you have Permission now to come in with your Evangelical Righteousness You speak here just as in your other Book to this Point and I understand you still as I did then and you know you mean as I have represented your Meaning but you would not have the People understand what you mean and therefore you throw in an abundance of Expressions thereby to hide your Opinion but instead thereof they lay it open What is more plain than this Repl. p. 3. The Terms of the Gospel by the Promise do make us capable of being justified and saved for the Merits of Christ Now here 's your true sense of being forgiven for the Merits of Christ i. e. when we are made capable by the righteous Meetness of another Law we shall be absolved in the old Law sense by the righteousness of Christ And mark that all along its forgiveness only comes from Christ's Merits there 's no positive righteousness of Christ in active Obedience is reckoned to us this positive righteousness whereby we stand just in the Eye of the Law in your sense lies wholy in Conformity to the Rule of that Promise which is the new Law righteousness And you use the word Merits still in the way of procuration not satisfaction You say we are justified only by Christ's Merits as the sole procuring cause or righteousness for which we are justified to which you should add that the Reader might take your full sense by the righteousness of the Gospel Law That which you call the fifth Misrepresentation and is your fourth I am not convinced of but that my Inferences are truly drawn according to your natural sense and meaning of what your Expressions and what your Principles must bear 1. That you make the great end and use of Christ's Righteousness to secure us from the old Law Mr. B. calls it our legal Righteousness and therefore our Justification is not an immediate effect of that Righteousness but of our evangelical Righteousness 2. That he merited only that we might Merit i. e. that he procured our Justification by evangelical Righteousness you will not call it Merit call it what you will it s a Law of Meetness and a Law meetness I think gives a claim and challenge of Pardon and if we should pray in your Dialect we should pray thus Lord I am meet to be pardoned for the Righteousness of Christ 3. That you make Faith and Repentance the meritorious cause of Pardon and Glory by the new Law and that 's true for all conformity to and complyance with the conditional Preceptive part of a Law gives right a legal right to Remuneration and the benefit becomes a reward of Debt and if so the meetness is a Merit ex Pacto All these tho you say you disown yet in what you declare you say but what you said before and from whence the same Consequences will follow viz. That God requires a meetness in a Sinner for Justification and that this meetness is a federal condition 1. You say Christ satisfied Justice and merited Pardon and Glory i. e. he satisfied Justice in respect of the old Law and merited Pardon and Glory to be bestowed as Rewards of Obedience to another Law And that 2. The Sinner thus partaking of them is as Fruits of his Death and this is all done for his sake 3. You say God in Christ hath declared a way and order how he will dispense his Benefits this way is by another Law in which he acts in a way of distribution of Justice upon performance of Law conditions p. 4. And therefore you say Gospel conditions have no other use to our Interest in these Benefits than a complyance with this stated Rule of the distribution of Pardon and Glory p. 4. Adam's obedience had no other use than a compliance with the stated Rule of Gods distribution of Life promised and Pardon and Glory is no other than Life promised So that you make your Law to be every whit the same in specie with a Covenant or Law of Works the condition works out the reward of Debt but this is all the difference that Man fell under the first Covenant of Works by Creation but under the second by Redemption he was redeemed from the Curse of the old Law that he might be justified by another Law Covenant and this is your plain meaning as you say And these things you do but say over and over again in this Book as in the former And what doth this conditional Grant of these Effects import but that we should have Justification Adoption c. upon the performance of obedience to another Law Which is as much as to say Christ purchased another Law and Obedience to it must let us into Pardon by Christ This purchasing conditional Grants and Propositions is a new sort of Divinity suiting the highest degree of Arminian Doctrin and will strike at the nature of absolute Election which gives ground of suspecting you also in that Point as well as what you say of the savability of the none Elect tho' I acknowledge you often assert absolute Election but how well that Principle will comport with indefinite Redemption upon a conditional Grant let the rational judge You go on again and say as from Chap. 10. Pag. 84. of your first Book When Sinners are pardoned the whole meritorious cause of that Pardon is that attonement and what is required of Sinners is only a meetness to receive the Effects You need quote no more to give us an account of what you mean in these things if the Reader desires to be further confirmed in the truth of my representation of your Principles let him read pag. 4 5. of your Reply You quote Passages in p. 30 31. of my Book for the first Head from whence you say I endeavour to
Confessions of Faith that we own as Orthodox R. How your Principles agree with the said Articles and Confessions upon Impartial Examination let others judg 't is not your saying your profess the contrary will satisfy the World when res ipsa loquitur especially when you have the Confidence to suggesâ— such a false thing of me in the same Breath That you are sure I am against all the Confessions of Faith that are orthodox but indeed you say which we call orthodox that we I suppose are you and your Schematists and then what they account orthodox I shall not trouble my self You go on and say In the Strength of Christ you 'l sustain the utmost Persecution at the Hands of these angry Men and while God enableth me they shall not overturn the Gospel by their unscriptural Abuse of the blessed Names of the Righteousness of Christ and free Grace and the Gospel way of Application R. Enduring Persecution is no Infallible Argument that a Man's Principles are good if it were Papists and Quakers then have more to say for the justification of their Principles than ever you had or are like to have and let the wise judge how near akin yours is to theirs And whereas you insinuate as if you had suffered Persecution from the angry Men as you call them who have conscientiously contended earnestly for the Faith Impartial Men will if they do weigh and consider duly what you have done and said in these Matters determine which side hath been the Persecutors if Reproaches and false Imputations be Persecution and God will judge one Day whether you be a Champion as you would be accounted for Christ or against him the Day will reveal it it s not enough to brave it out before the World a Judgment at Man's Day will not serve our Turns he that judgeth you and I is the Lord and therefore consider what you do while you call so much upon the Name of God and Christ to countenance your confident undertakings in this Affair You say there 's a Mystery in it that one Explication of a Text should be pretended for a Reason against my whole Book and so countenance all Dr. Cr. Errors which they profess they dislike Rep. There 's no Mystery in it that any faithful Minister or People should not only be highly jealous of but exceedingly blame such a Book and the Author which shall rob them of so high an Article of their Religion as the true Nature of the Doctrin of Imputation of Christ's Righteousness and for the maintaining himself therein must wrest so eminent a Portion of Scripture out of their Hands as to its genuine and plain meaning upon which thousands of the most eminent Saints in all Ages have lived and do live no be you confident they will not lose that sense of that Portion of Scripture Phil. 3. which you oppose they 'll tug hard for it first and it will stand in the Hearts and Prayers of God's Children maugre all Opposition And whereas you say you hear Augustine is of your Mind He tell you what an Author of none of the least Name tells me concerning Austin's Opinion Thus Augustinus breviter ostendit ab Apostolo c. Austin briefly shews from the Apostle Phil. 3.9 that whatsoever is of his own Righteousness is excluded there and that Paul speaks not of the Law of Circumcision or Vncircumcision but of the Precepts in which 't is said Thou shalt not covet Lydeker de discr legis Evangel You proceed to vindicate yourself against the Charge of not being against the Articles and Confession and pitch upon the Doctrin of Imputation for an instance wherein you know you differ from them and your stating your Judgment in that Point sufficiently evinceth though you do it after that perverse manner which is usual with you to make your Principles look sound You say You will state that Case viz. of Imputation 1. It is not whether Christ was a publick Person as a Mediator in his Undertakings and so transacted all for Sinners that they might be pardoned and saved by his undertaken Satisfaction and Merit This I affirm but whether we are so represented in Christ as that we are in Law Sense they that undertook to atone and merit this I deny R. What do you mean by a publick Person as a Mediator Did he stand in such a Capacity as to represent undertake for and stand in stead of the Elect were they federally in him as his Seed for so the Assembly say they were See Confess c. 8. sect 1. He was made the Head and Saviour of his Church the Heir of all things Unto whom God did from all eternity give a People to be his Seed So Larg Cat. The Covenant of Grace was made with Christ the second Adam and in him with all the elect as his Seed But you say he only transacted for Sinners as a Mediator but do you mean such a Mediator as is a Surety if so the Persons for whom he is a Surety are federally in him for he takes the Debts upon him stands in their room and stead and they federally in him accounted and to all Intents and Purposes he is entertained as comprehending all their Debts in him A Man may be a Mediator and treat with both Parties at Variance but not take the whole cause upon so as to treat and engage and make Payment in the Room of the offending Parties But let us hear what your Question is Whether we are so represented in Christ that we were in Law Sense those that undertook to atone or merit this I deny R. I will appeal to all Men of Sense in the World whether they can tell by your stating this Question whether you own or deny Christ to be a publick Person representing the Elect. He is a publick Person as Mediator and represents so as no body ever said any person did represent another viz. That we are in Law Sense they that undertook to atone and merit A person comes to be bound as surety to a Creditor for an hundred Debtors in Ludgate he becomes Debtor and is accepted in the room of all and every one they all pay and are discharged in him Doth the Law reckon that all these Men were Sureties or that they atoned or merited but that in the Surety's Atonement and Merit they being all represented by him their persons are accepted and their Debts paid Doth any Body look upon the Debtor to be the Surety because the Surety stands bound Or because the Surety pays or undertook to atone and merit I would fain know whether this be not perverse perplexing a Question instead of stating of it 3. You go on stating thus Nor whether Christ was a Surety for us in a Bond of his own to pay our Debt to the full or more that we might in a due Time and way be released This I affirm Reply If Christ came under Obligation to pay our Debt absolutely he represented not as if
most express in it That there was no Law given to his time that could be a Gospel i. e. that could give Life to Sinners Gal. 3.21 If there had a Law been given which could have given life verily Righteousness had been by a Law And now I pray except not at my reading 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Law indefinitely understanding any Law for our Translators render it so and I must tell you they should by the same reason have rendred 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the same manner and then the Text had been uniform in the Translation as in the Original if there had been a Law any Law given which could have given Life verily Righteousness had been by a Law Therefore your new Law was not gâ—ven before Paul's Time but the Gospel was therefore the Gospel is no Law with Sanction Luther on this place saith thus Though those Words of Paul be never so pâ—ain yet the Papists have this wicked Gloss always ready That he speaketh only of the Ceremonial Law But Paul speaketh plainly and excepteth no Law whether Moral or Ceremonial or any other Wherefore their Gloss is not worth a Rush And contrariwise we affirm That there is no Law whether Man's Law or God's Law that giveth Life therefore we put as great a difference between the Law and Righteousness as between Life and Death between Heaven and Hell and the Cause that moveth us so to affirm is That the Apostle saith The Law is not given to justifie to give Life and to save but only to kill and to destroy contrary to the Opinion of all Men naturally c. This Difference of the Offices of the Law and the Gospel keepeth all Christian Doctrin in its true and proper use This Witness of Luther I can set against all the Testimonies you bring from any whatever who hold or have held the Gospel a Law with Sanction as you do divers may speak of it under the term of a Law of Faith or understanding by Law the Precepts of the Gospel but if they plead that the true and proper nature of the Gospel is a Law with Sanction as you do I do renounce their Opinion and do oppose them therein as I do you it being as such fundamentally destructive to the Gospel and the whole nature of the Grace of it And on Gal. 4.4 Christ being made under the Law is not a Law-giver or a Judge after the Law but in that he made himself subject to the Law he delivered us from the Curse thereof Now whereas Christ under the Gospel giveth Commandments and teacheth the Law or expoundeth it rather this pertaineth not to the Doctrin of Justification but of good Works Moreover It is not the proper Office of Christ for which he came into the World to teach the Law but accidental as it was to heal the weak c. Wherefore the true proper Office of Christ is to wrestle with the Law to conquer and abolish Sin and Death to deliver the faithful from the Law and all Evils Let us learn to put a difference between Christ and a Law-giver that when the Devil goes about to trouble us under his Name we may know him to be a very Fiend Christ is no Moses he is nothing else but Infinite Mercy freely giving On Gal. 2.20 Now as it is the greatest knowledge and cunning that Christians have thus to define Christ so of all things it is hardest I my self in this great light of the Gospel wherein I have been so long exercised to hold the distinction of Christ which Paul giveth so deeply hath the Doctrin and pestilent Opinion that Christ is a Law-giver entred into my Bones You young Men therefore are in a far happier condition for you are not insected with those pernicious Errours wherein I have been so muzled and drowned from my youth that at my hearing the Name of Christ my Heart hath trembled and quaked for fear for I was perswaded that he was a severe Judge wherefore it is to me a double trouble to correct and reform this Evil 1. To forget condâ—mn and resist this old-grounded Errour That Christ is a Law-giver and a Judge 2. To plant in my Heart a new and true perswasion of Christ that he is a Justifier and a Saviour Ye that are young may learn with much less difficulty to know Christ purely and sincerely if you will Arg. 8. If the Gospel be a new Law then we must have a double Righteousness for our justification but we have not a double Righteousness for our justification therefore the consequence is good 1. From most of your Concessions that we have the righteousness of Christ and that which you call subordinate You should rather have said as Dr. Owen argues that Christ's righteousness is the subordinate it being in ordine ad in order to our justification by a new Law Mr. B. and others speak more distinctly and say a legal and evangelical righteousness but in truth it must be two legal righteousnesses For 2. There 's no Law but must have a pâ—culiar distinct righteousness from that of any other Law whereby a Man under it must be justified and all the righteousness that serves for justification by another Law hath nothing to do in our justification by the said Law and therefore there must be two distinct Righteousnesses and two distinct Justifications as there are two distinct Laws Unless you say the old Law is vacated which is a contradiction if you do but own that Christ is the end of that Law for righteousness to every one that beâ—ieved and then it cannot be vacated for a Law vacated and a Law in force is a contradiction and a Law fulfilled to every jot and tittle to every believer remains in force Therefore it remains that we have two righteousnesses for justification and both legal because all Law-righteousness is legal Christ's single righteousness is indeed legal in respect of the Law and â—vangelical in respect of sinners it being to them the gift of righteousness so with us the same thing differs only respectively 3. There must be as distinct righteousness for justification as there is unrighteousness for condemnation but each Law hath its distinct unrighteousness for condemnation The Minor is easily proved that we have not two righteousnesses for justification for if we have 1. Christ's righteousness is not enough for our justification unto life contrary to the Scripture 2. All the Popish Doctrin will unavoidably come in at this gate which is wide enough for it 3. Our own Works call them what you will let them be Faith and sincere Obedience imperfect Holiness c. must come in for a share in our justification contrary to Tit. 3.4 5. and an hundred places of Scripture besides nay for the whole of our justification by the new Law for the righteousness that answers that must be distinct from the righteousness that answers the old Law to enervate this Doctrin many have wrote to very good purpose in
particular that most worthy Divine Mr. Traughton in his Lutherus redivivus a Book worth every Christian 's having You say p. 25. Hath the Gospel-Covenant no Sanction what think you of Heb. 8.6 R. You might have said Heb. 9.15 16. I said not that the Gospel-Covenant hath no Sanction it hath a Sanction as a Testament in the Death of Christ in which the Law is satisfied for us and upon which the better absolute and clear Promises are founded and herein was that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 placed the establishment of the Promises of Life and Salvation on the sure Conditions of Christ's Righteousness and not of our Performances You say What will become of Dr. Owen 's Law of Justification p. 167. R. His Law of Justification is the Law that Christ came under in doing and suffering the fulfilling God's Will for the justification of a sinner this was the Law that was in his heart for the Doctor 's words are Not that he did as a King constitute the the Law of Justification as you say for it was given and established in the first Promise and he came to put it in execution You say It 's one thing to be justified for Faith and another to be justified by it R. I say so too if it be in the Apostle's sense by Faith be in opposition to by Works but if you make Faith a Law-condition then this by becomes for and it signifies just as much as being justified by Works And thus Mr. Bulkly in your own Quotation is against you for he saith If we make the Commandment of Believing to be legal then the Promise of Life upon the Condition of Believing must be legal also And so it must needs be upon your Hypothesis that the Gospel is a Law You often say the Gospel-Law is not a Law of Works and that Paul saith so p. 26. What is so said either by the Apostle or you the Gospel is denied thereby to be a Law with Sanction or Law-Covenant for if there be no Works as Condition of it there 's nothing but Promise but where is your sincere conditional imperfect Obedience if there be no Works It 's absurd to say the first Grace is a Condition required of us because you grant it absolute You tell us what Dr. O. saith on Ps 130 p. 230. This is the inviolable Law of the Gospel i. e. believing and forgiveness are inseparably conjoyned which hath nothing of your sense in it Concerning Faith's being the Condition of a Law with Sanction he saith nothing he means no more but that they are connexed by God's constitution So there are many things connexed in the Promise as Faith and Forgiveness Faith and Repentance Faith and Love Justification and Sanctification and Glorification I could quote you a hundred places out of Dr. O. where he militates against this very Principle of yours See Dr. O. of Justifie p. 407. The Apostle speaks not one word of the Exclusion of the Merit of Works only he excludes all Works whatsoever Some think they are injuriously dealt withal when they are charged with maintaining Merit Yet those that best understand themselves and the Controversie are not so averse to any kind of merits knowing that it 's inseparable from Works Those among us who plead for Works in our Justification as they use many distinctions to explain their minds and free themselves from a co-incidence with that of the Papists they deny the name of Merit in the sense of the Church of Rome and so do the Socinians See more p. 408 409. where he shews all Works before and after Grace are excluded What you quote out of my honoured Father's Book I see nothing contradicts me if rightly understood had not your Doctrin been contrary to his tho' I hope I should defend the truth according to my light and conscience tho' against my own Father I should never have given you the least opposition but it 's not Human Authority must turn the Scales in these Matters You quote Mens transient Expressions that speak of a Gospel-law and Conditions in a sense that may be born with when they approve themselves clear in all main Points others speaking in such a Dialect in Sermons and Practical Discourses To shew that such things as God hath conjoyned Man is not to sever As for the two great Divines besides D. O. I mean Dr. Goodwin and Mr. Clarkson I know them to be expresly against your Notion of the conditionality of the Covenant and by what you quote out of them it appears to be so See Dr. Goodwin's Judgment about Condition Whether Faith be a Condition Sermon XXII p. 301. I would have this word laid aside I see both Parties speak faintly on 't Perkins on the Galatians and another There is danger in the use of it a Condition may be pleaded 2. In those Expressions if a Man believeth he shall be saved import that he that doth so shall be saved in the event which the Elect only are to whom he giveth Faith My Beloved the nature of Faith is modest it never maketh plea for it self if it were a Condition a Man might plead it before God and the making it a Condition seems to me to import as if there were an universal Grace and that it is the Condition terminateh it to this Man and not to that What Mr. Clerkson saith is nothing to your purpose for he saith The first Blessings of the Covenant are promised absolutely and subsequent Blessings are in some sense Conditional Not that God makes a conditional Bargain with us but because divine Wisdom hath made a connexion between these Blessings that they shall never be separated c. Lastly I shall give an Account of the beginning and progress of this Neonomian Error This Doctrin was first forged by the Pharisees of old who did not believe themselves justified by perfect Obedience to the moral Law their owning the Sacrifices and other Types their Gospel being a sufficient evidence that they acknowledged themselves great Sinners and far enough from perfect Obedience they only thought that Obedience that they did perform was through the merciful Nature of God accepted to Justification of Life and their Sins expiated by Sacrifices For not only the Scriptures give us full assurance of this to be truth but it were easy to shew what the Opinion of the ancient and latter Jews were in this Matter 1. They placed their Righteousness not in perfect Obedience but in sincere So Paul before his Conversion Act. 26.5.9 Chap. 23. 1. Rom. 10.9 The Jews went to establish their own Righteousness and their imperfect Obedience as such in conjunction with the attoning Sacrifices for their Justification And R. Menahem saith Scito vitam Hominis in praeceptis Know that the Life of Man in the Precepts is according to the intention that he hath in doing them But they say Faith is the cause of Blessedness and therefore the cause of eternal Life Thus the Author of Sepher Ikkarim