a purchasing Price or meritorious of the Benefits promised on such Conditions This I deny for Christ alone paid the Price and it 's the Covenant-Promise gives an Interest in the Benefits to such as perform the Conditions Cap. 8. p. 53 54. When I had shewn how all Satisfaction c. were provided and adjusted in the Covenant of Redemption I declare that by the Covenant of Grace I mean the way that God hath ordained to apply to Sinners that Salvation which is prepared by Christ and which he will enable the Elect to comply with Same Pag. I affirm the Conditions do not merit the Blessings promised P. 55. I affirm it 's from God's Will in the Promise that they are made to be Conditions he connected the Benefit and the Duty though he chose Conditions that were fit yet their fitness would not have availed to our Interest in the Benefits unless he had promised they should so avail c. And the Covenant though conditional is a disposition of Grace There 's Grace in giving Ability to perform the Conditions as well as in bestowing the Benefits God's enjoyning one in order to the other makes not the Benefit to be less of Grace but it is a Display of God's Wisdom in conferring the Benefit suitably to the nature and state of Man in this Life c. P. 45. Our Pardon and Acceptance is firm and lasting and will no more fail us than the Righteousness of Christ will fail it being the meritorious Cause and Security thereof and the Benefits can abate to none who answers the Gospel-rule of its Application P. 57. These Conditions make us capable of no Happiness but what Christ hath bought and prepared for us c. P. 58. The Use and Interest of Gospel-Conditions is not from the conformity of them to the preceptive part of the Law though in a degree there be that but from their conformity to the Rule of the Grace of the Promise the promise of Pardon through Christ being to the penitent Believers and no other Repentance and Faith become necessary and useful Conditions of this Pardon by the order of God in that gracious Promise but by the Covenant of Works the meer Work gave an Interest in the Reward as it was obedience to the Precept by a Sanction that had Goodness but no such Grace in it See p. 61 225. I deny that Faith c. are in the same place as Works were under the Law How many more places could I cite but I shall refer thee to what follows as to the point of Merit See p. 225 247. VI. Mr. C. p. 30 31. He looks whether or no we have fully performed the Conditions and upon finding them he judicially gives the Promise i. e. in away of Reward to the Works performed Whether they be perfect or imperfect it 's no matter the Reward is of Debt and not of Grace c. And what can this be but a declared Iudgment that he is de congruo deserving Pardon and I think ex condigno too before he is pardoned c. Repl. The scope of these and the like Passages is to render me one that thinks that Faith or other Graces did merit the pardon of our Sins which is contrary to my declared Judgment as may be seen in what I have above cited and in these following Passages Cap. 12. p 102 103. Tho Faith be no way a meritorious Cause of a Sinner's Justification c. Note 1. There is a Righteousness for which a man is justified that is only Christ's Righteousness this is the Foundation of the Promise and the Merit of the Blessing promised Nothing can add to it or mingle with it it 's sufficient and alone sufficient to satisfie Justice atone for Guilt and merit Acceptance and Eternal Life 2. There is to be considered what the condition of the person is whom this Mercy is promised to he is one that hath this True Grace of Faith c. Christ's Righteousness shall not be imputed to this use unless we believe c. and this Faith being a conformity to the Rule of the Promise some call it a subordinate Righteousness not meaning any Righteousness for which a man is forgiven for it is Christ's Righteousness alone for which God justifies us But it 's our answering the Rule by which Christ applieth his Righteousness for our remission and a Right to Life and his Promise is the ground of our Title P. 104. I deny that Faith or any Grace be a jot of the meriting Righteousness for which we are justified I deny that Faith or any other Grace add anything to the value of Christ's Merits Yea I add That if Christ's Righteousness could be applied for Pardon to the vilest Sinner before he believes it would justifie him but God hath declared it shall not be applied to Unbelievers P. 120. Neither Holiness sincere Obedience or good Works are in the least the meritorious Righteousness whereby Salvation is caused or for which this or any Blessing becomes due to us as of Debt c. but He appoints these as the Way and Means of a Believer's obtaining Salvation c. P. 125. I deny that any Holiness internal or external any Obedience work or Duty do at all merit the Promise or is the meritorious Cause or Righteousness for which any promised Mercy is bestowed And I own that all is of Gift tho' given in an order suitable to our condition as Subjects in a state of Trial. P. 137. Nothing of these merit Heaven but he that merited Heaven hath peremptorily appointed these to bring us thither P. 155. We ought to renounce every Thought of purchasing from God any Benefit for what we do P. 210. We must teach the best man to renounce all the Grace he hath and Good he performs as if being the least atonement for Sin or least purchase of Life or any addition of Merit to a Christ or sharing in what is peculiar to him P. 225. I condemn it as Legal to preach that our Faith Holiness or Good Works stand in the same place now as perfect Obedience did under the Law viz. to render the Reward to be of Debt or be the meritorious Righteousness for which we are justified P. 244. I do renounce all that Saints have or do as any atonement for Sin or purchasing Price of the least Benefit much less Salvation Judge Reader if I can say more to exclude all Opinion of Merit VII Mr. C. p. 31. you do here not a little insinuate what I know lies in your Breast That there is no specifick difference between Grace and meer moral Endowments And it appears so upon all your Hypotheses for you declare there ought to be such and such Qualifications to entitle a man to the Promise of Grace or Grace in the Promise before he hath the Promise The same p. 32. Repl. Here I am charged 1. as if I thought there were no specifick difference between Saving Grace and meer Moral
of Christ. I have already instanced that I denied any Grace or Work to be any Cause at all 9th Head also that Christ's Righteousness is the sole meritorious Cause or Matter of our Justification which is imputed to us 4 5 6 Heads and that our Works follow Faith and Pardon and neither Faith nor Works are any Price Atonement or moving or procuring Cause 6 11 Heads and elsewhere yea and that we are to renounce a Thought of this Do I then oppose Christ or compare any Holiness with him I shall add Cap. 19. p. 198. I own we should esteem the sincere Holiness of a Believer's Heart and Actions to be Dung if compared with Christ as meritorious of Justification And p. 202. Who must not own that compared with Christ the best thing in us is vile yea compared with his Righteousness And p. 210. We must teach the best man to renounce all the Grace he hath and Good he doth as it being the least atonement for Sin or least purchase of Life or any addition of Merit to Christ or sharing in what is peculiar to him And Cap. 21. p. 225. I condemn any that preach that our best Obedience doth not deserve Wrath by the Law or that it doth not need Forgiveness or is any Supplement of Christ's Righteousness yea or to neglect to call men to renounce all in themselves as any atonement for Sin or cause of Pardon and that we must look to Christ as the only Propitiation Purchaser of all our Blessings and Cause of the acceptance of our Persons and Performances Reader I have given thee a few of those many places Having finish'd this first point propos'd I will appeal to thy Conscience whether I can with any shadow of Justice be charged with those Principles which this Brother fixeth upon me I hope he did not wilfully expose me in the face of such Evidence The words in my Preface lead not to the least suspicion yea are positive to the contrary and therefore how he saith this is my sence when I must not only equivocate but grosly contradict my self and that in places where I state the Question must encrease the Wonder Neither is there the least pretence except that I assert that though Pardon and Salvation are all Free Gifts and the Merits of Christ are imputed as the sole meritorious Cause of all yet God as our Ruler hath appointed a Method in the Gospel for the dispensing of them and doth confer them in that Method and ordains a Gospel-Ministry in a consistency therewith and in a subserviency thereto This Scheme any man may see in my very Preface and morethrough the whole Book 2. I shall attempt if possible to make my sence intelligible to the most vulgar Apprehension to this end I premise 1. God may be considered in his Dispensations towards fallen men as a meer Proprietor and Benefactor and not as Rector or Ruler and so men must be considered meerly as Creature-Objects of his Benefits and not at all as rational Subjects to be now governed and hereafter judged If you look at God thus absolutely conferring Benefits then the way is this He eternally elects to Glory a certain number of men whom he sore saw undone by Adam's Fall he appoints his Son to undertake their recovery as the sole covenanting Party with him in the Covenant of Redemption he was to satisfie Justice merit Glory and make them physically meet for it This is all true and sometimes prophetically declared thus and the event as to the Elect is as certain as if God dealt no otherwise with Man on this side Death But if this be the whole Method of GOD with Men as some account it how much of the Bible is unintelligible and vain how much is contradicted and a great part of God's manifold Wisdom obscured and denied which shines forth in his present Paternal Dominion as Redeemer 2. God may be considered as a Ruler Proprietor and Benefactor conjunctly We may look at him as communicating his Benefits in a way of Government and that in many things not exclusive of his absolute Propriety That this is his Method I have proved in my Book Cap. 8 13 20. and other Chapters and may hereafter more confirm it Herein God connects Benefits with Duties offers Pardon and Glory upon Terms deals with Men as Subjects whom he now governs and will hereafter judge without respect of Persons and to that end hath set down his Rules by which he now sentenceâ—…h by the Word and will at the great day do it by the Person of Christ all which suppose Christ's Merits and the Ability to obey and Benefits given for his sake alone It 's true he discovers his absolute Propriety in not giving the same Means or the same internal Grace to all which will no doubt fully appear to be equal He doth also discover himself peculiarly beneficent to his Elect for whom Christ merited all and infallibly brings about his purpose concerning them by making them obedient to the Conditions of whatever saving Benefits his Gospel promiseth upon Conditions But yet he dispenseth the promised Benefits as a just Rector or Ruler according to the Offers made to all Pursuant hereto our Ministry is appointed to propose Blessings to all in the same way and upon the same Terms and to assure all that upon those Terms and no other they shall obtain those Benefits for the sake of Christ. Can any think we dare make the same Offers to the Devils as to every man or to the Damned as we can to all men alive Dare we say to them after Death If you will now believe you shall yet be saved turn now and you shall yet live On the other hand dare we say to an Elect Unbeliever if we knew him Elect thou shalt be forgiven though thou dost not believe thy Unbelief is no Bar to thy Salvation by any Threatning of God declared against thee Is Sentence past on all men in Adam or on the Elect in Christ's Person that God deals with neither in a way of Government as in any state of Trial for Eternity There 's an end of that Preaching which God hath fitted and most blessed to the conversion of Souls if this be true Mr. Chancy's Father in Doct. of Iustific p. 117. Mind you your Duty God hath ordained the End with the Means and therefore though it were revealed to thee from Heaven that thou shalt certainly be saved yet I might truly say to thee except thou believe and repent thou shalt perish c. The Offer of Christ in the Gospel this shews what he would have us to do even to repent and believe Mr. Norton Orth. Evang. shews They might say to a Judas If thou believe thou shalt be saved and to a John If thou believe not thou shalt be damned p. 89 90. Having premised these things I shall familiarly deliver my real Thoughts as to what men ignorantly accuse me of and pitch upon Forgiveness of
Argument I shall in the strength of Christ evidence that the Law of Nature or Works is not a hindrance to the Gospels being a Law but that the Gospel is another Law distinct in its Precept and Sanction and other respects 1. The Gospel is distinct in its preceptive part from the Law of Innocency Faith in Christ was never commanded by that Law To say Faith in God was a Duty is a vain Objection for Faith in Christ as a Saviour is specified from its Object and is distinguished into temporary historical saving c. The Faith that Mr. C. saith Adam was wounded in was meerly a Faith of Assent which the Devils have or a natural Trust in God as Creator But what 's that to a receiving of Christ or consent to him as Redeemer and relyance on him Of which more by and by Is it not strange that Mr. C. saith The Law never brings us to God then Faith doth not for it's part of the Law c. But let 's hear what others speak Mr. Hooker of New E. p. 337. saith I flatly deny that Adam if the Lord Jesus had been revealed to him was able to believe in him and so to rest upon him c. the Reason to confirm this Point that Adam had not this Grace of Faith is this this believing in the Lord Jesus is that which doth directly cross the Estate of Adam in his Innocency c. He to p. 343. proves it and answers Objections P. 338. to one he thus says I answer that not believing in the Lord Christ is not a Sin against the Moral Law but it is a Sin against the Law of the Gospel 1 Ioh. 3. 23. Rom. 3. 28. Mr. Bulkley p. 327. lays down this That Faith in Christ unto Justification and Salvation the Commandment enjoyning this Faith is no Commandment of the Law but of the Gospel which I prove by these ensuing Arguments This he doth by no less than nine Arguments and answers many Objections from p. 327. to 335. and thus concludes Thus far we are come that the putting of Faith as a Condition of Life in the Covenant of Grace doth no whit derogate from the freeness of Grace D. Goodwin affirms That Faith now is of another kind than the Faith of Adam As to the Principle Objects Light c. ours is supernatural his natural and as you may see at large proves by several Reasons that his was but natural as 1. All other things belonging to him were natural c. and therefore it would be strange that if the Principle of Faith in him which then was not of general use should be supernatural c. 2. For him to have a supernatural Principle of Faith as we have was in him superfluous and vain This he shews because Adam's Covenant would not have brought him to Heaven 3. It would not only have been of no use but it would have made him miserable 4. And therefore our way of Faith must needs be supernatural and altioris ordinis from his c. which he proves 1. in the respect of the Objects revealed to our Faith which his Mind should never have arrived at 2. in regard to the Light by which our Minds are acted and elevated 3. in respect of the way or manner of Knowledge or Assent raised up thereby I might add the Testimony of one whom Mr. C. honoured who gives this reason in the present Debate saying viz. If Consent to the Covenant was a Duty by the Law then the Law did bind to its own dissolution But I suppose this may serve to shew that Faith in Christ was no Duty by the Law of Nature and therefore either it is a Command of the Gospel-Law or it is no Duty at all The like I might shew of Repentance which Melancthon's Followers prove against Flaccius Illyricus Obj. If any one should object Did not the Law of Nature bind us to do whatever God should at any time require A. You must consider 1. the Law of Nature less properly as the Rule of Happiness in the Covenant of Innocency and so it was appropriated to that state and was a particular Law of Works If so considered the several Precepts of it were written on Man's Heart and God and the Creatures ministred Instruction to the innate Light which was inherent in our Minds and that in a natural way Some Ruins of both are still preserved to fallen Man Rom. 1. 19 20. Cap. 2. 14. In this sence Faith and Repentance could have no place at all in the Law for it was a Law to govern and save Innocent Man but not to recover Sinful Man To suppose our own Perfection to be the Condition of Life and yet to be obliged at the same time to repent of Sin or believe in an aâ—…oning Saviour to have our Abilities immediately from God as Creator and a Stock in our own Hands and yet be obliged to depend on Christ as Mediator for all Strength are utterly inconsistent 2. If you take the Law of Nature for the remaining Instincts and Notices of it in Man which ought to be perfect and assisted and directed by the Works of God sure the Gospel must be another Law or else Heathens are able to find out Christ by the Book of Nature and engaged to receive him and rely on him though he were never revealed to them The reason is this the Law of Nature in this sence binds all the Heathens and its Precepts are engraven naturally upon their Hearts and God and his Works consider'd naturally direct their Minds 3. The Law of Nature may be considered most generally viz. as it is an Obligation upon Man to believe and obey whatever God shall any way or time reveal and require and to suffer for Disobedience what God shall threaten In this sence indeed the Law commands all Duty in general but it doth not deny the Gospel to be a special Law for this indeed doth oblige us to obey all God's Laws when he makes them Laws but it doth not determine any one Law nor give a Being to one particular Precept It 's the Foundation of our Obligation to submit to God's Authority as Creatures but appoints not wherein we must instance that subjection It 's the same as an Obligation among men to Allegiance to the supreme Power which I hope prevents not the Ruler's Acts to be Laws This Law of Nature subjects us to God's Threatnings which he shall pronounce at any time for Sin but determineth neither the sort nor degree of the threatned Evils This Law is common to good Angels Devils innocent Man fallen Man yea damned and glorified Man for they are all engaged as Creatures to obey the Laws of God when he enacts them and suffer what he threatens if they obey not But is the Gospel therefore no Law or only this Law of Nature Then Angels Devils and the Damned are obliged to believe in Christ for Salvation Do not say
for which we are justified c. But yet I wonder 1. that any man dare say that God hath promised no beneficial Effects of Christ's Merits upon any Terms short of Perfection tho' not for them as the meriting Cause Ioh. 13. 17. If ye know these things happy are ye if ye do them Mat. 8. 13 15. If ye forgive c. Mar. 11. 25. If we confess our sins 1 Ioh. 1. 9. He is just to forgive Rom. 10. 9. If confess with thy mouth and believe with thy heart thou shalt be saved What 's Repentance unto Life c It seems the meaning of these words is If thou confess and art sinlesly perfect God will forgive Or else tho' I promise thus yet I mean that it 's all as one whether thou confess or not believe or not repent or not it shall make no difference in thy Interest in the promised Forgiveness 2. It 's as strange that the most sincere Action or Grace is Disobedience or Sin because it is imperfect Iniquity cleaves to them but are they therefore Iniquity Is there no Gospel mitigation so as to admit sincere Grace to be true Grace tho' it be not perfect Grace It seems the Saints have weaker Vices but no Graces their Duties are something less Sins but no obediential Acts their Love is an abated Hatred but not truly Love they are meer Dung only they do not smell so strong Is not this to spit in the Face of the most of the Bible It speaks oft of an inherent Righteousness true Graces real Godliness and good Fruits it praiseth Saints for these but it seems we perswade People only to Disobedience when we call them to believe and they try themselves by their Sins when they try themselves by marks of Sanctification and there 's no specifick difference between the best and worst action they do all is Disobedience and but Disobedience 3. And where 's the strength of what is so roundly affirmed viz. No Law of God with a Sanction admits of the least Imperfection in the said Obedience Then if the Gospel as including Adam's Precepts commands Perfection it cannot forgive any Imperfection if it do not abate the Rule of Duty it cannot confer any degree of its promised Mercy But Sir you confound the extent of the Precept with that degree of Obedience to it which is made the Condition of its promised Benefit May not a humane Law command many things and yet confine its Sanction to one part yea and vary its Threaâ—…s or Promises by many different circumstances in the Offenders or Obeyers Doth he indeed think that whereever God enjoyns Duties he denounceth his Threatning to all degrees of neglect of what he makes a Duty or that it ceaseth to be a Duty at all if the Sanction reach not every degree of omission Mar. 16. 16. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved Is not it a Duty here to be baptized Yes sure But shall none be saved if they are not baptized thô they do believe The Sanction then falls not on all the Precept or none of the Unbaptized can be saved The unsoundness of this Principle will appear to thee in most practical Books thou readest and the Orthodox are positive in the contrary What more common than the difference between legal and evangelical Obedience It 's stated by Sedgwick on the Cov. p. 652. Dr. Iacomb Rom. 8. p. 23. Rutherford Ant. p. 8. Davenant on Colos. p. 17. Ames spends a Chapter to prove against Bellarmin that our Good Works are not Sins quoad essentiam Mr. C's Father p. 130. Neither is that Obedience which is required of Believers a strict and exact conformity to the Law as it doth in it self require and demand a legal Obedience but evangelical Obedience which stands in the desire resolution and endeavour to obey God's revealed Will. And p. 222. saith The imperfect Good Works that are done by the Faithful are accounted Righteousness or as Mr. Calvin saith are accounted for Righteousness they being dipped in the Blood of Christ i. e. they are accounted righteous actions and so the Faithful shall be judged according to their Good Works thô not saved for them Dr. Owens p. 72. God hath abolished the Covenant of Works by substituting a new one in the room of it because it could not expiate Sin nor could approve of such an Obedience as poor sanctified Sinners were able to yield unto God for it requires Perfection when the best they can attain to in this Life is only Sincerity c. and in this Covenant God hath provided for the acceptance of sincere tho' imperfect Obedience which the Law had no respect to Mr. C. p. 23. Christ our Redeemer gives Commands and exerts a Kiâ—…gly Power in Government of his Church and hath Iudgment committed to him but these are not the Gospel-Conditions of Life unto Sinners propounded in the Gospel God doth not require Obedience to the Laws of Christ in his Church as foederal Conditions of Eternal Life Such Obedience is part of the Life promised c. Repl. Not to expose the Passages before this as if because the Gospel in a large sence includes all the moral Precepts therefore taken in a strict sence it makes all those Precepts and perfect Obedience to them the Condition of its peculiar Benefits and as if Christ's Law did not bind a person morally impotent and that Men must be first pardoned before they are obliged to submit to Christ and that there is no difference between such a tast of Pardoning Mercy as assures us we shall have Pardon on Gospel-Terms and our actually having that Pardon before those Terms be yielded to At this rate he reasons throughout his Book but I mind greater things than the discovery of his Weakness therefore to his Principle I answer He gives Christ as Redeemer a poor Kingdom it 's a Kingly Power but it 's of a low sort 1. It s extent is small it 's bounded within his Church it seems then he hath no Authority over them that are without no not to command them to be Church-Members I thought tho' he be acknowledged King by his Church yet his Laws bind much farther I am sure he damns others for disobeying him But 2. by these words He is not such a King as can make Laws in his very Church He exerts a Kingly Power in governing of his Church This is distinguished by Mr. C. from giving Commands The sound of this Passage is He gives Commands as an Officer acting not in a proper Legislation 3. Allow what he prescribes to be His Laws in any sence yet there 's no Salvation depends upon obeying them Nothing He requires yea by his Revealed Gospel are any Conditions of Life He came to purchase Salvation but he hath no Authority to enjoyn the Terms of it Whereas I read that for this end he died that he might be Lord of the dead and of the living
we our selves as Elect did legally by Christ as our Proxy satisfie and merit all and without the interposal of the Gospel-Rule we have a legal Title to Glory by Adam's Covenant This I deny as what excludes Forgiveness makes Christ's Sufferings needless denies any proper Satisfaction and destroys Christianity 5. Nor whether we all sinned and died in Adam and in Christ are all made alive which I affirm owning Christ's Influence as both real yea and publick as before explained but whether we were in Christ before Faith as we were seminally in Adam before we were born which his foederal Headship did suppose The being thus in Christ before Faith I deny These express my Thoughts which I doubt not by Christ's help to maintain against all these Opposers while I expect nothing but a gross exposal of themselves when their Conceits are forced out of their cloudy Expressions Reader I had reason to instance some minute things though with men of Wisdom and Fairness a Cause depâ—…nds on Arguments and not personal Respects Ioyn with me in earnest Prayer that Truth and Love may flourish and that Christ's Cause may be managed with a Christian Spirit which I have endeavour'd and not exposed nor reviled my Adversary I am thy Servant in the Kingdom and Gospel of our Blessed Lord DANIEL WILLIAMS ERRATA P. 1. l. 8. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 P. 14. l. 18. dele for A DEFENCE OF Gospel-Truth THE Reverend Opposer of my Book having as yet offer'd so little of Argument against my Assertions my Reply must be short to what he hath said and shall therefore chuse another method than what his Book prescribes His unusual Reflections I dare not return being awed by Him who chargeth me not to render railing for railing 1 Pet. iii. 9. and hath declared that the Wrath of Man worketh not the Righteousness of God Happy they and likely to arrive at Truth that are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Eph. iv 15. truthing it in love The weight of the Points in debate will not allow me to be Pedantick nor can I bid at childish Jests without suspecting my Mind in a Case unfit for Serious Thoughts or the Aids of the Spirit in search for Truth neither is it allow'd Tit. ii 7. in Doctrine shewing Gravity c. I shall therefore proceed in this method 1. Shew how he mistakes and misrepresents my Principles against the plain Words of my Book even where I mention them as my positive Judgment 2. I shall endeavour to make the most material things more evident to the ordinary Reader 3. I shall instance some of Mr. Chancy's Principles which he asserts and labour to let thee see where we differ and what 's the Judgment of others in these things 4. I shall briefly reply to what else is material in his Book that falls not under the former Heads Some Instances wherein Mr. C. misrepresents my Principles against my plainest words in my Book I. Mr. C. saith of the Athenian Society I doubt not but they are of your Opinion in Doctrinals and then chargeth them as being against an election of a determinate number of men to Eternal Life and adds I doubt not you will be found to do so Repl. These Gentlemen were pleased in answer to a kind Letter of Mr. Crisp's to give their Thoughts of my Book and your Reply to what they have said of Election affecteth not their Assertion But by what words can I express my own Judgment more fully then P. 66. I affirm There is a â—…romise of the first Grace made to Christ for the Elect and by vertue of that Promise they consent P. 3. ch 1. I affirm That certain Persons freely-elected by him shall certainly be justified and adopted and that these persons are the Objects of God's Love of Good-will even while they are Siâ—…hers 〈◊〉 that God continues his Purpose of doing them good notwithstanding their Provocations and Christ hath made full aâ—…onement for Sin and merited Eternal Life for the Elect which shall be in God's time and way applied There is a great difference between an Elect Sinner and others As to what they shall be in time chap. 20. p. 210. God hath elected a certain number c. and so the Gospel shall not be in vain to all See the same oft repeated p. 66 16 210 105. II. Mr. C. represents â—…e 〈◊〉 p. 3. The 〈◊〉 of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is abrogated transiit in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. 〈◊〉 aside â—…he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and of no use to us at all So p. 21. We have nothing to do with it it 's out of doors Repl. He would insinuate that I say That the preceptive part of the Law is not a Rule of Manners nor that the transgression of it makes us guilty nor that men whilst they reject the Gospel are not at all under the Curse of the Law All which I abhor And though this Point fell not in my way to handle yet there wants not Passages to this purpose P. 198. The holiest Action of the holiest Saint needs Forgiveness Chap. 21. p. 225. It 's legal Preaching to be always pressing the Duties of the Law of Nature but neglect preaching Christ c. where I allow it sometimes Again in the same Page I condemn saying That our best Obedience doth not deserve Wrath by the Law as a Rule of Misery and Happiness or that it doth not need forgiveness P. 125. I affirm the Law to be a Rule of Duty Cap. 12. p. 107. the Gospel declareth all condemned till they do believe it declares they are so and denounceth they shall be so c. And again They that believe their Condemnation is reversed See p. 57. Reader thou mayest read me still affirming the Misery even of the Elect by the Law till they are justified by Christ. It 's true I do think that 1. The Sentence of the Law cannot hinder the relief of any Soul by Christ who complieth with the Gospel 2. Nor that it is possible for any man to be saved by the Law of Innocency By Forgiveness is our Blessedness and not by our sinless Obedience And so far I 'll own it but not in the three former senses III. Mr. C. tells me p. 20. That when I said Christ's Sufferings were the Foundation of our Pardon that our Sins are forgiven for Christ's Sufferings and without them Sin cannot be forgiven Your Fundamentally is only a remote Causality c. all that we have of your meaning is a poor causa sine qua non And within a few lines you mean By something else besides them not by the immediate application of them but mediate and remote à causa sine qua non Repl. The plain meaning of what he thus exposeth is that the Elect were not discharged and actually justified at the time when Christ suffered Which is proved p. 17. c. But it 's strange that any one that read this or the following Passages should infer either 1. That Christ
and so deny the Deity of Christ even by Mr. C's Argument 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Article is wanting to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 therefore it 's to be thus render'd The word was a God not the God a God by Office for that is a God but not by Essence which would be the God 5. The Context doth manifestly specifie this Law and not exclude every Law It 's true the Gospel argues à fortiori against Justification by the Law of Innocency yet he directly speaks of Moses's Law as any may see in reading the places Mr. C's Proof is taken from Gal. 3. 11. And doth not the Apostle v. 17. say The Law which was four hundred and thirty years after cannot disannul the Covenant c. Was it every Law that was given 430 years after Abram So from Rom. 3. 28. cap. 4. And is not the Apostle in the three Chapters express That that Law was the Jewish Law or at most the Law of Nature together with it But more of this last hereafter Reader Mr. C. seems fond of this Argument from the Article and thence oft repeats it but do thou but read one Book in the Greek Testament by his Rule viz. that where the Article is omitted from a word in negative Propositions there every Species is excluded yea bring it down to Names and where the Article is omitted then it is any Peter any Iohn who is there spoken of Obj. II. Mr. C. oft objects as p. 5. Works performed under a Law-Sanction are legal Works and do make the Covenant enjoyning them a Covenant of Works And a few lines before saith he The performance of Duty as Terms enforced by a Law-Sanction is a Covenant of Works so that such men are Preachers of a Law no matter what Law P. 21. The preceptive Will of God with the Sanction of Rewards promised upon the things required and Threats of Punishment upon the non-performance is alwaies a Law or Covenant of Works This runs through his Book and he oft saith The Gospel hath no Sanction and if we say so we make iâ—… a Covenant of Works P. 10. Christ is of no effect to him that is justified by a Law Repl. 1 He oft seems not to understand what a Sanction is for p. 24. he takes it to be meer Life and Death considered abstractedly but not as determining the way of giving of the one or inflicting of the other Whereas a Sanction consummates a Law and determineth what the Benefit or Penalty shall be and the certain Connexion between the Benefit and the Condition and between the Penalty and the want of that Condition c. Now will any except Mr. C. say That God hath not by the Gospel given Assurance that upon believing we shall be saved Have not we God's Word Oath and Seals for this 2. A Law-Sanction doth not exclude the greatest Mercy and Grace in conferring the Benefit It 's true that if the Condition be in it self meritorious then in that respect the Benefit is of Debt and was made a Condition in the Covenant because of its condignity if exactly proportionable or congruity if less valuable But God chuseth a Condition that hath â—…o merit either of Congruity or Condignity nay the Benefits are purchased by Christ qua good things in themselves and they be freely given tho' in this way Is it not a gracious Law though a Law that If fallen wretches will duly accept of my Son they shall have Life by him and this I command them to do 3. His Mistake seems to be in his Notion of Reward and in his upon and not upon performance of the Condition Gospel-Benefits are no Reward of Debt and yet they are given in a way of reward The Benefits are given not for our Faith yet upon believing not upon it as a meriting consideration yet upon it as that the presence whereof is made necessary by the Gospel this having required Faith and confined the Benefit to him that believes If a man says I 'll give you a thousand pounds if you will come to my House and fetch it is it not a free Gift though the poor man must come if he will have it And the Giver is yet bound by his Promise to give it if he come and not bound to give it if he refuse to come Do not say receiving Pardon is only naturally necessary and not as a Condition enjoyned for God might have applied Christ's Merits for Pardon though the Sinner consented not A Lunatick may be pardoned by a King and the Rich man might have sent the thousand pound to the Poor man's House whether he came for it or no but Christ resolved to shew his governing Authority in the displays of Grace and excite to Duty by Motives from Benefits though the Benefits shall be so given as that what we do shall be no cause or Merit of them 4. Hath the Gospel Covenant no Sanction What think you of Heb. 8. 6 He is the Mediator of a better Covenant which was established upon better Promises I hope he 'l grant this Covenant is the Covenant of Grace in a greater opposition to the first Covenant with Adam though more immediately opposed to the Jewish Covenant yet this second Covenant hath a Law-Sanction 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sancitum est saith Beza It 's a greatest part of the new Name Mr. C. hath reproached the Gospel with here 's a Law a Law-Sanction which the new Covenant is consummated by Men skilled in the Socinian Controversies lay the stress of the Cause of Truth upon Arguments from Condemnation and Justification being God's Rectoral Acts but what a loss will they be at if God do not 〈◊〉 by a or any Law as Mr. C. saith p. 18. Where 's Dr. Owen's Law of Iustification Yea We must part with the Force of Rom. 5. 19. 5. But why must it needs become a Law or Covenant of Works meerly by a Sanction The great difference between the Covenant of Works and the Covenant of Grace lies in this What is the Righteousness for which we are saved Is it the Righteousness of Works or the Righteousness of Christ But it is not how we come to obtain Salvation by Christ's Righteousness Doth God make our Faith or Sincerity to be our Justifying Righteousness If he saith If thou truly believe I will justifie thee by Christ's Righteousness but if thou believe not thou shalt remain condemned something might be said tho' not enough if we were to believe by our own Strength but that is not so More might be said yea enough if our Faith and Sincerity were to be the Righteousness for which we are pardoned or entituled to Life but neither is it any thing like that nor doth the Gospel design it nor its Law-Sanction at all infer it It 's one thing to be justified for Faith as a Work or inherent Qualification though it be such a Qualification it 's another thing to