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
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
And that Faith justifies as Righteousness itself for saith the same Author Our Father Abraham was praised by reason of his Faith for it 's said Gen. 15. He believed God and it was accounted to him for Righteousness And that this Doctrin was that which Paul contendeth with the judaizing Christians about and the false Teachers among them I doubt not in the least and am very apt to believe that it was these Neonomians that laid that Charge upon Paul's Doctrin that it was a Doctrin of Licentiousness and made so great a Cry against it for Antinomianism or as being destructive to the Righteousness of the Law and Obedience thereunto Philip a Presbyter and Hearer of Hierom on Job 42. tells of a Heretick then living that held this Opinion That the Gospel was a Law Christop Pelarg. The next I find it charged upon is Pelagius as one of h s grand Heresies And from the Pelagians saith Dr. Leydecker the Papists have taken up this Principle The Council of Trent Anath 20. Cuâ—se all that say the Gospel is a Promise without condition of observing the Commands And Anath 21. They Curse those that say Christ is given for a Redeemer and not a Law-maker And Anath 26. They Curse them that say The just ought not to expect a Reward for their Works Peter a Soto tells us the Catholick Church doth hold That Christ gave a new Law The same saith S. De Clara. It is generally hâ—ld by all the Jesuits Bellarmin in his Controv. de Justif contends That the Gospel as such is a Law and that it contains proper â—aws with Threats and Promises and requires Obedience as the Condition of Life and of the accomplishments of Promises which are so conditionated and that Merits cannot be otherwise defended which the Papacy holds Gregory de Valâ—ntia tells us They reject the usual distinction of Law and Gospel viz. That the Law Promises are conditional the Gospel Promises free and absolute Tom. 2. Controv. Disput 7. Q 6. Le calls it a Fiction Mr. Fox in Act. Mon. Impr. 7. p. 34. vol. 1. gives this following Account of the Papist's Opinion in this Point They say Moses was a giver of the old Law Christ of the new Thus imagine they the Gospel to be nothing else but a new Law given by Christ binding to the Promises the Conditions of our doings and deservings no otherwise than to the old Law and so divide they the whole Law into three parts the Law of Nature the Law of Moses and the Law of Christ to the fulfilling whereof they attribute Justification And thus they lead the Consciences of Men in doubt and induce many Errors bringing the People into a false opinion of Christ as tho' he were not a Remedy against the Law but came as another Moses to give a new Law to the World Dr. Barns who suffered Martyrdom in Henry VIII.'s time An. Dom. 1541. vigourously opposed the Popish Bishops in this Point as appears by his excellent Treatise of Justification In defending Justification by Faith alone according to the true meaning of the Apostle Paul hath these Passages It were but lost labour for Paul to prove that Works did help to Justification for that the Jews did grant and required no mâ—re but that which they stood upon was that Works might not be clearly excluded But here peradventure it will be said that Paul condemns the Works of the old Law but not of the new Law Are you now satisfied in your Consciences Think you that you have now assoyled Paul's Argument Think you to be thus discharged before God Go boldly to the Judgment of God with this Evasion and doubt not but then you shall find St. Paul stiflly and strongly against you and your new Works as ever he was against the Jews and their old Works Briefly what Works can you excogitate to do which be not in the old Law and of the old Law Therefore he speaks of all manner of Works for the Law includeth all Works that ever God instituted the highest best and most of Perfection what Works in the new Law have you better than those of the old Law â— But grant that there be certain Works of the new Law which be not of the old yet have you not nor can prove that these shall justify for there can be no more goodness in Works than were in the Works of the old Law for they were to Gods Honour and the Profit of the Neighbour and yet you grant they cannot justify St. Paul disputâ—s against them that were Christned and had Works of the old Law and of the new yet concludes that Christ alone justified Mark his Argument If Righteousness cometh by the Law then is Christ dead in vain c. where he proceeds to enervate this Doctrin of Neomianism From the Papists the Socinians took up this Doctrin as Dr. Leidaker shews styling them Our new Pelagians They do indeed saith he exclude Ceremonial Works and Works of the Jews who oppose the Gospel but when they may seem to differ from the Roman Catholicks in the Doctrin of Merit they answer Socin saith Paul treats concerning perfect Works of that Law and seeing none can be justified by them the Law requiring perfect Obedience therefore the Apostle saith We are justified by faith and obedience so far as a man is able to perform them That Paul excludes Works of the Law not interrupted by Sin i. e. perfect persevering Works or merits not those that are performed according to the mild Law of the Gospel And he takes notice how Dr. P. Barrow a Divinity Professor in England was among the first of ours that deserted the true Doctrin and an assertor of this Doctrin That the Gospel is a new Law shewing that no Man was ever justified by a perfect observance of the Law but by that Observation which depends upon Mercy and includes pardon of Sin the regenerate do perform that Law in his Treatise de pâ—aestantia legis c. 13. This Dr. Barrow the Arminians when they began to spring up highly applauded saith Dr. Leidaker His Words are Similes habent labra lactucas He says they changed the very Decalogue into a Covenant of Grace confounding it with the Gospel asserting a Covenant of Works saying That notwithstanding the giving Christ God might have set up again a Covenant of Works but he would not because of the weakness of the Flesh Therefore in the room of the rigid Covenant of Works he substituted a milder Covenant mixed with goodness and grace in which Faith with imperfect Obedience to the Law might be accepted for perfect Righteousness unto Life These Doctrins Arminians began to vent but Episcopius taught them openly whom Curcellius also followed as his Master and more lately Dr. Limburgius who asserts That the Scripture no where teacheth Christ's Righteousness is imputed to us and saith This Error so he calls the Doctrin of the imputation of Christ's Righteousness ariseth from a false Opinion That