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 insufficient Saviour and spoiling the Elect of Salvation 3. Denying â—he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ation of Christ's Obedience unto Justification contraâ—y to Rom. 5.19 Phil. 3.11 thereby â—aviâ—g aâ—l that are ungodly under an impossibility of being justified 2. Destroying the very being of a Sinnâ—r'â— Riâ—htâ—â—â—â—nâ—â—â— by taking away the Oâ—ediencâ— of Christ unto the Law and Imputation which are the Matter and Form i. e. the esse tial Caâ—ses of Justification 3. Placing a Sinner's Righteousnâ—ss 〈…〉 Atonement or Pardon of Siâ— such as in effect doth man fâ—stly not only dâ—ny itself to â—e the effect of it 〈◊〉 â—enieth yea defieth the very bâ—ing of the Mâ—dâ—ator by Obdience of Christ tâ— the Law for 〈◊〉 Thâ— firâ—t holdeth uâ— in aâ—l oâ—r Siâ—â— and câ—ntiâ—ueth the 〈◊〉 Wrath of God abiding upon â—s The 〈…〉 away your Saviour The â—hir â— takes away our R 〈◊〉 and Just ficatâ—on W at 〈◊〉 the â—nâ—â—y of Jâ—sus Grace and Souls 〈◊〉 morâ— And I am sure thi◠〈◊〉 spâ—akâ— as 〈◊〉 â—oly â—f these Doâ—tâ—inâ—â— which he oâ—poseth aâ— you 〈◊〉 yoâ— and more c. unto whom he did from all eternity give a People to be his Seed and to be by him in Time redeemed called Justified Sanctified Glorified In the same manner they speak in the Larg Catech. Q. 30 31 32. as above rehearsed And in the short Q. 18. man's sinfulness consists in the guilt of Adam's first Sin In the 39th Page of your Book you pretend to some Answers to what I affirm in some things As that I deny the Covenant of Redemption to be a distinct Covenant from the Covenant of Grace I own it and make good my denial elswhere therefore will not actum agere You blame me p. 40. for saying p. 29. That Pardon is not promised to Faith and Repentance as things distinct from the Promise but Pardon is promised together with Faith and Repentance to the Sinner And herein you say I confound a Promise of Grace and promises made to Grace and affirm the Gospel Covenant is but one Promise Repl. 1. I do affirm That the Promise of the Gospel in its Original Grant and Comprehensive Nature is but one as the Promise of the Covenant of Works was but one viz. Life So in the Covenant of Grace 't is Life the Spirit of God is express in it 1 Joh. 2.25 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This is the Promise which he hath promised us even eternal Life And 1 Joh. 5.11 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This is the Record or Testimony that he hath given us Eternal Life and this Life is in his Son Now Eternal Life contains all Justification Sanctification Adoption and Glory 2. I affirm that in this Promise is Justification Faith and Repentance promised 3. That in this Promise Justification Faith and Repentance are inseparably conjoyned 4. That in and under this Promise are multitudes of Gifts bestowed in a way of connexion one to another and have their particular Promises pointing distinctly to them but these Gifts are no federal Conditions one of another 5. I say If you speak of these Gifts of Righteousness and Life as in a way of conditionality 't is Christ's Righteousness is the proper federal condition of Life and Pardon is rather the Condition of Faith and Repentance than they of Pardon I say so again 1. If Giving be the Condition of Receiving 't is true but Giving is the Condition of Receiving for Faith is but the Sinner's receiving Pardon Is not the giving of Pardon then rather the Condition of Faith which is the receiving of it than Faith of Pardon Luke 1.77 Aâ—ts 10.43 So for Repentance The Cause is rather the Condition of the Effect than the Effect of the Cause but Forgiveness received by Faith is the Cause of all true Evangelical Repentance See this saving Repentance and Remission bâ—th given by one Hand of Promise Acts 5.31 preached together by Commission Luke 24 4â— How strange soever you make of this Divinity 't is built on the Rock Christ Jesus and you cannot shake it nor all the Devils in Hell You say I wretchedly mistake the Nature of the first Promise as if it excluded all Terms of our Interest in the Blessing of it Rep. I know not what the first Promise is if it be not a Blessing and if the first Promise be absolute to us as you say the first Grace is then it excludeth all Terms to be wrought by us to interest us in the Blessings of it unless you intend that a natural Man is to perform these Terms in his natural State and then the first Grace is not absolute And as for the first Promise concerning the Seed of the Woman it was absolute and saved our first Parents as such for it was all their Gospel as I know of and therefore they by it had Remission Faith and Repentance without bringing the two last into a federal Condition For if God had intended to bring them in as such 't is most likely he would then have mentioned them as such Adam just coming out of a Covenant with federal Conditions In answer to what I say of a Legal Grant you say 't is out of my Element Be it so others may not judge it so though you do Mr. Antinomian saith a Grant may be legal two ways either by free Gift from a Person 's good Will and Pleasure and so God's giving us both Grace and Glory is legal because it gives us an undoubted unexceptionable Right And a legal Grant is a Law Covenant Grant when the Gift is bestowed upon the performance of federal Conditions as Grace and Glory is bestowed in and for Christ and his Righteousness both these Grants we have first in Election chusing us in Christ and in the eternal Compact between the Father and the Son You say what I speak of Tit. 1.2 will appear not to be eternal but before many Ages and not to exclude Gospel Conditions If Christ be our great Gospel federal Condition I say it doth not for God's Purpose and Grace was given us in Christ and were to be bestowed in and through him But who told you that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was but before many Ages 't is sure before the Times or Ages of the Woâ—ld and what can be supposed to be so but Eternity when Christ rejoyced in the Sons of Men Prov. 4. And I think I have a good Interpreter on my side Beza saith on Tit. 1.2 In his Judgment the Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cannot be referred to the first Promise made to Adam Cen. 3. much less to that of Abraham But saith he Ante tempora seculorum before the Ages of the World doth denote all series of Time or Ages i. e. before this World was according to Johâ— 17.2 c. In this Sense runs the Assembly's Notes Poole's Anot. continued What I say of the Gospel's being no Law with Sanction I shall not trouble the Reader with here but handle it in its proper Place and therefore pass by all
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