mean by leaving himself at liberty This you say is these Mens free Grace while they deny the Gospel Rule or Law These Taunts and Falshoods are well enough it seems in your Mouth its suitable to the rest of the Prittle Prattle in this Preface 8. You say the Question is not Whether God hath not as to us absolutely promised and covenanted with Christ that the Elect shall believe and all Men believing be pardoned and so persevere in Faith and Holiness to eternal Life which I affirm Pref. p. 5. R. Here then you allow that there is an absolute Covenant of Grace for whatever distinction you would make between the Covenant of Redemption and the Covenant of Grace there 's no Man of sense can deny that the Covenant of Redemption is a Covenant of Grace and if God hath absolutely promised to and covenanted with Christ that the Elect shall believe and be pardoned this must stand absolute to the end of the World But by your favour tho' I am for the absoluteness of the Covenant of Grace yet it was not absolute but conditional to Christ that Faith and Pardon and Perseverance as promised to Christ for the Elect were conditional and the condition was that he should make himself an Offering for Sin bear it and make full satisfaction to the Law by his Righteousness Active and Passive and make Intercession for Transgressors and therefore tho' you affirm here yet I deny But the Question is you say whether there is a Covenant which requires our true believing consent to the Terms of it to the condition of Pardon and Glory and supposeth this true consent in the actual bestowing these Benefits This Mr. C denies and I affirm Res 1. I deny that there is any more Covenants of Grace than one and say That the Covenant between the Father and the Son was that original Contract which was displayed and made manifest in the Gospel of the old and new Testament and in whatever is required in this Display is absolutely promised For if there be two Covenants wherein the same things are promised and to the same Persons the first absolute and the second conditional the one must certainly be vacated by the other For if I promise to a Person or to another for him to give him a House freely and afterward make a covenant Bargain with him that he must pay me 20 l. or 20 s. per annum the first Covenant is vacated or if I am bound to stand to my first Promise the second Agreement falls to the Ground 2. Likewise observe what you affirm That God hath made Terms as a Condition i. e federal of Pardon and Glory So that here is brought in a Covenant of Works to intervene betwixt the absolute Covenant and bestowing the Benefits absolutely at first promised Now Men may see plainly what you mean when you talk so much of Pardon for and by Jesus Christ this Pardon is one of the Benefits bestowed in your new Law judicially by way of remuneration to the performance of the Terms of Duty required 9. It is not whether Faith be the only Grace by which we receive and rest on Christ for Justification and that it is Christ received by Faith doth justifie which is the sense of the Protestants when they say we are justified by Faith alone this I affirm R. Yes you do in your sense i. e. That Christ justifies here as much as is needful as to legal Righteousness but there is another Righteousness viz. Evangelical that puts in for a snack viz. that of the new Law And you do much misrepresent the Protestants for they say Christ's Righteousness is all our Righteousness of one kind and another that we are justified by a Righteousness without us and not by any within us any Act or qualification whatever But the Papists say with you the Council of Trent doth anathematize Those that say a Man is justified without the Merit of Christ by which Christ did merit for us or is formally just by that Anath 10. And they curse also any one that saith that he is justified only by the Imputation of the Righteousness of Christ or only by Remission of Sins without inherent Grace Anath 11. But let 's have the Query then It is you say Whether he that can truly believe to Justification must be in part a convinced penitent humbled Sinner and this you affirm and say I deny R. You should have told the Place and my Words It s possible I may deny it in your sense and I will prove how that you must deny it in my sense i. e. that legal Convictions and Humiliations are no federal conditions of Faith for you say That the first Grace is absolutely given and if so there 's no federal conditions of it Why do you not bring in hearing the Word as a federal condition of Faith for it comes by Hearing Why do you not bring in a Mans having his Senses and Understanding and many more things And now you talk of Humblings let me mind you what you say Page 15. You tell us of the Sum of the Popish Principles our Divines oppose 1. They think that by Attrition or a selfish legal fear of Punishment Men do ex congruo or meetness merit Charity and Faith which be the beginning of Sanctification and that this begun Sanctification is all our first Justification 1. What do you say less than they setting aside the word Merit and they say as to that de congruo its scarcely so Nay some are against Meritum de congruo as being any Merit but only a disposition and meetness of the Subject such as you would have and we may put their Attrition to your Humblings as a meetness for Faith See what the Council of Trent saith Can. 8. When Paul saith a Man is justified by Faith and gratis it is to be understood because Faith is the beginning and the things that precede Justification are not meritorious of Grace See now how you abuse the Papists Nay I 'l tell you more for I would give the Devil his due you abuse the Papists in charging them for making this begun Sanctification all their Justification The words of the 7th Canon of the Council of Trent are That Justification followeth Preparation which is not only remission of Sins but Sanctification And therefore they make not only Sanctification begun to be our first Justification And in the 10th Anathema they curse them that say A Man is justified without the Righteousness by which Christ did merit for us Now I think you ought to ask the Papists forgiveness for slandering of them Rhemists on Rom. 2.3 they grant That the beginning of our Justification which they call the first is meerly of Grace neither can we do acceptable Works before we be justified but in the second Justification which is the encrease of former Justice a Man may merit by good Works So again they say Works done of Nature before or without Faith can't merit
may be called a Brute or a Brute a Man 1. Law and Gospel-grace are opposed expresly by the Spirit Joh. 1.17 The law was given by Moses but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ Here is not a Law and a Law opposed Evangelium non esse legem sed ab ea plurimum distinctum tum ipsa arguit appellatio quam ponderat Theophyl in Praef. Matth. Euseb l. 1. in praeparatione Evang. c. 1. Tum manifesta Antithesis quae est Joh. 1.17 Rom. 10.5 6. Tum utriusque discrimen situm in patefactionis ordine natura promulgatione ministerio in forma seu differentia promissionum in effectis adjunctis efficacia officio utriusque in applicatione ad objecta tum constitutus Ecclesiae purioris consensus quae semper Evangelium a lege discrevit quemadmodum Cyril Alex. but a Law and Grace essentially differing for an old Law and a new do not differ essentially but secundum adjuncta only in the like manner and for the same end Christ and Moses are opposed Christ as a Son to Moses as a Servant one being a Minister of the Law the other of the free grace of the Gospel Heb. 3.5 6. As Mediators one of a legal administration that vailed the grace of the Gospel Christ such a Mediator of the New Testament who brought life and immortality to light through the Gospel 2 Tim. 1.10 Upon the account of this specifick difference of Law and Gospel it is that Mount Sinai and Mount Zion or Jerusalem that is above the heavenly are opposed to the earthly in that Spiritual Allegory of Hagar and Sarah applied Gal. 4.24 25. which opposition between these Mounts is fully and admirably managed by the Apostle Heb. 12.18 22. To this let me add the specifick difference that is made between those that are under one and under the other Rom. 6.14 There are some under the Law and some under grace he saith not some under an old Law some under a new but what 's the condition of them under the Law sin reigns unto death but as to those under Grace grace reigneth through righteousness i. e. of Christ not of works of our obedience to any Law unto eternal life Lastly The opposition made between the Works of the Law and the Grace of the Gospel is in the point of justification the Works of the Law or any Law are peremptorily rejected by the Apostle in the point of justification so that if Grace justified in a way of Works Grace and Works here could not be opposed See those two famous places that peremptorily reject all Works of what kind soever of what Law soever from Justification Rom. 3.20 Gal. 2.16 where it s said by the Works of a Law 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 no Flesh living shall be justified It is reasonable to think that if the Apostle had intended we should be justified by any Law Alexand. in c. 40. Isa Hieron l. 1. Contra Pelagianos plurimorum ubi opus adduci possunt testimonia Christop Pelargi Jesuitismu p. 71. Impres An. D. 16â—8 that he would not have told us by what Law-Works Would he have spoken so universally of all Law-Works Are not all good Works towards God and Man commanded in the Law But are some Works of one Law and some of another This Remark of mine obout leaving out the prepositive Article shewing that the Words of all Laws are indefinitely here meant you would blow away as a Cobweb Your words are Vpon such Cobwebs in the face of the plain scope of the Bible doth this Cause stand Cobwebs are fit enough to catch Flies in but I never fear an Adversary that spits at Arguments instead of answering them Where 's the Argument you say because in a few places the Article á½¼ is not put in You should have said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Therefore the Apostle excludes every sort when he plainly excludes only one sort as appears by the whole Context nay when at the same time another Species under that general Rom. 3.27 R. Therefore Ver. 20. We have the general of all Laws there 's no Justification by the Works of a Law and know you not that which is denyed to the Genus as such is denyed to the Species and tho' he mentions a Law of Faith v. 27. in the sense or senses which have been above mentioned yet it is manifest that he absolutely denies Justification to Faith as a Law-Work for else why had he not excepted Faith as a Law-Work when he excludes all Works And when he sheweth all Works are excluded he saith where is boasting then Saith he it is excluded by the Nature and Power of true Faith which will always lay the Creature low and exclude all matter of Boasting that may be in us he saith not we are justified by Faith as a Work of the new Law but saith that Faith stands up against all such Works and law-Law-Justification and this is witnessed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the Law and the Prophets i. e. by the Mosaical Ministry as well as the Prophets were the prepositive Points at Law in a peculiar sense but what is it that 's witnessed It 's that the Righteousness of God is manifested 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without a Law any Law for Justification by Gospel grace You mistake if you apprehend we make this our great Argument to prove that the Gospel in its nature is not a Law with Sanction it is the plain scope and design of the Apostle in all those places where he disputes against Justification by Works that we argue from and make use of this observation as a corroborating Argument that his plain intent is to exclude not only the Works of the moral Law but the Works of any Law for the Apostle deals with the Galatians which hankered after Circumcision and under pretence of observation of some of the Mosaical Ceremonies would have introduced the Works of the Law to share in the Matter of their Righteousness And therefore by using Law in the largest and most comprehensive sense he casts out all-Law Works as conditions of Justification and this is the sense Mr. Beza hath of the Apostle's Scope on Rom. 3.20 St. Paul having proved the World to be guilty before God and lyable to his Wrath he concludes that which he undertakes to prove viz. That no Man could be justified by the Works of any Law for having disproved one part of the disjunct Proposition he establisheth the other viz. Seeing we are not justified by a Law therefore only by Faith in Christ alone Christ apprehended by Faith as the Gospel teacheth that we are both justified and saved therefore that the Gospel is the power of God unto Salvation to every Believer which was the state of the Question as laid down in the beginning of the Epistle He tells us what doth further shew or demonstrate these things duly considered that in this Verse by the nameing the Law without an Article all Doctrin is understood whether
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
to this Law but as you do Nor do they hold that we are justified thereby as Adam should have been by perfect Obedience 3. You say Nor do I takâ— it in the Popish Sense which the Socinians and Arminians espouse R. The Popish Sense of Merit is renounced by the Socinians and Arminians as well as by you and as much for ought I can see The Popish Sense is very plain from the Council of Trent Anath 20. Cursed is he that saith the Gospel is a Promise without a Condition of observing the Command And this I am sure is your Sense You proceed 4. It is not a Law that supposeth a moral ability in Sinners to perform its Precepts c. R. It s an unreasonable Law that requires Duty of those that have no ability to perform and that Law that makes a Condition and promiseth Ability concludes not the Subject till the Power is given and when all comes to all 't is but a comprehensive Promise both of the Duty and Benefit to be received by it You say 5. It s not a Law that extinguisheth the Law of Nature which hath its special Precepts R. If the Law of Nature be the Law of Adam you say it vacates it for if it strip it of its Sanction it ceaseth to be a Law for Sanction is the Law 's Ratification as such Again 6. Neither doth this Law require any thing of us as a Condition of Christ's coming into the World nor of the first Grace to the Elect. This the Covenant of Redemption secures to the Catholick Church by Promise R. Whoever talked of our doing any thing as a Condition of Christ's coming into the World as our Redeemer but believe it as weak as you say Mr. C. is â— I le presume to tell you that you are bold to attempt to prove the Gospel to be a Law with Sanction If you allow that the first Grace is absolutely given and what is given by electing Grace is secured by Election to the Elect it s an inconsistent Principle that Redemption secures nothing but conditionally for where the absoluteness of any thing is secured it is secured so as to cease to be conditional 6. Nor is it a Law of Obedience whereto it renders any promised Blessing a Debt all is free though sure its free as to procurement or Price yet it is as sure by Promise as if it were by Debt The Price was Christ's Obedience and Sufferings all comes of Gift yet in that way which God appoints to give it R. This amounts to thus much That now you have dwindled your Law quite away for that Obedience that renders not the Promise a Debt can be no Law with Sanction for by the same Reason that the Punishment is due to me upon Disobedience the Promise is due upon Obedience You say It s sure by Promise so every promissory Covenant makes Blessings sure but that which is sure and free cannot be by Law Conditions P. 20. You give us a very long and confused account of your New Law the sum whereof is That upon Believing and Persevering in sincere Faith and Holiness Life and Salvation is promised and upon non-performance Death and Damnation threatned The Sense is Do and live the very same Essentials as to Matter and Form the Matter the Duties and Promises or Sins and Punishment the Form is the connection of these together by the Sovereign of Authority of a Law giver You say That you mean by saying The Gospel is a Law that God in Christ commands Sinners to receive Christ with a true operative Faith R. We grant the Gospel doth so command but is it a Condition required of the Creature to be performed in and by his present Abilities Must he have this first Grace given before he perform the Condition and by him that commands it Yet must this Command be a Law with Sanction No this Command carries with it to the Elect nothing but a gracious Offer and Invitation and effectual operative Means to bring a poor Sinner from under a Law with Sanction to Life and Salvation Rom. 5.1 The Wages of Sin is Death He lies under this Law-condemnation Joh. 3. He is condemned already The Gospel calls him not to come under another Condemnation but it calls him to the Gift of God What 's that Eternal Life through Jesus Christ besides God's Commands in the Gospel are gracious it s to such Duties which the same Grace promiseth and there 's no middle between being under the Law and under Grace under a gracious Command and a legal they are adversa sine medio You say vpon their believing they shall be united to Christ therefore they must first do something before Union to Christ that they may have the Benefit of Union make the Fruit good and then the Tree afterward contrary to one of the fundamental Maxims of our Lord Jesus Christ You proceed and say it threatens if any dye unbelieving impenitent c. they shall be barred from these Benefits R. The meaning is They shall die under the Condemnation of the Law they are in already as much as to say a Physician offers a Sick Patient a Remedy he refuseth it and dies of his Disease will you say the Physician brought him under a Law with Sanction Many such Instances might be given The King sends a Pardon to all the condemned Prisoners in Newgate suppose it be upon condition of Acceptance some one accept not will the Court now try him upon a new Law No there 's no further Tryal he is executed upon the Sentence before received And so are all those Places to be understood that say He that believes not shall be damned If you say by what Law I say not by a new one but by the Old Law I own as I believe there are degrees of Glory according to the degrees of the Vessels of Honour greater or lesser so there are degrees of Wrath which the Law will execute according to the degree of Sin and the Law will look upon rejection of Christ as the highest degree of Disobedience Therefore are those Expressions It shall be more tolerable for Sodom than for Corazin some shall be beaten with fewer some more Stripes some counted worthy of sorer Punishments than others but all this is by the Law not by the Gospel And Unbelief and Impenitency are Sins Judged and Condemned with all their Aggravations severely enough by that Law you need not doubt there needs no new Law to do it Your referring yourself to the Assembly will cast you for they never intended any such thing that the Gospel is a Law You say 1. Here 's the Essentials of a Law God is our Ruler and we his Subjects R. Are Ruler and Subjects the Essentials of a Law that 's strange Logick The Ruler in his legislative Power is the efficient and so in his executiâ—e in application of it to its Ends and the ruled are therefore called Subj cts because under Subjection to both
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-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
render you one that thinks Faith or other Graces did merit the pardon of our Sins which you say is contrary to your declared Judgment Rep. I grant you deny Merit and I profess Sir I would not willingly wrong you by any false Imputation but this I tell you it signifies not much to deny a Name to a thing whose Nature requires that Name if it be named aright a federal condition performed doth bring a Man into the claim of the benefits promised as Debt your own word gives the performance of the condition the meritum ex congruo merit of meetness and you making this meetness federal I know not how it can be avoided but it will be Merit You quote Proofs that you do not call this meetness Merit but you call Christ's Righteousness the Merit as this there is a Righteousness for which a Man is justified and that is only Christs But you 'l say there is a Righteousness of meetness upon which a Man is justified for Christ's Righteousness i. e. the qualifing condition of the Person whom this Mercy is promised to he must have a Conformity to the Rule of the Promise and it s by this we are justified for the righteousness of Christ To what purpose is it to deny Repentance and Faith to be meriting Righteousness when according to your Scheme it can be denied in no other sense than in respect of the Covenant of Works The satisfaction of the breach whereof you acknowledge to lie in the Righteousness of Christ conditionally i. e. for all that shall conform to the Rule of the Promise which Rule is the preceptive part of the new Law which Conformity you call with others subordinate Righteousness intituling us to another Righteousness it 's this Righteousness you say we shall be judged by at the last day Now Sir I say that Righteousness which Believers shall be acquitted by in the day of Judgment that is the Righteousness that they were justified by and the Righteousness of that Law which they shall be judged by Let us but a little consider how near this subordinate Righteousness comes to the Papist's Notion of Merit and if their Merit be not as small a thing as your meetness and new Law conditions of Justification by Christ's Righteousness Hear what S. de Clara our Countryman tells us Meritum est Actio libera acceptata ad aliquod premium Meritum de congruo est Actio libera ex congruitate quâdam acceptata ad premium Meritum de condigno est Actio libera ab Homine in gratiâ elicita qui ex Justitia acceptatur ad premium Merit is a free Action accepted to some Reward Merit of meetness is a free Action which by reason of some congruity or fitness is accepted to a Reward Merit of worthiness is a free Action of a Man performed in Grace which from Justice is accepted to a Reward Now the Question is 1. Whether that personal Qualification which you require of meetness for Justification by Christ's Righteousness be not exactly the Papists Merit of Congruity Upon which is their first Justification 2. And the sincere imperfect presevering Obedience be not their Meritum ex condigno or of Worthiness Which is their second Justification See the first Justific the Council of Trent Decr. 5. The beginning of Justification of the Adult proceedeth from preventing Grace which inviteth to dispose themselves consenting and co-operating with it freely c. The manner of this Preparation is to believe willingly the divine Revelations and Promises and knowing ones self to be a Sinner to turn from the fear of God's Justice to his Mercy to hope for Pardon and to begin to love him hate Sin purpose to be baptized c. Decr. 7. Justification followeth this Preparation Decr. 8. When a Man is justified by Faith and gratis it ought to be understood because Faith is the beginning and the things that preceed Justification are not meritorious of Grace And in another F. they condemn those that say A Man may be justified without Grace by the strength of Human Nature and the Doctrine of the Law What is it that you say of your Doctrine of Meetness which they will not say in behalf of your congruity And Scotus tells us That an act is not meritorious precisely because it comes from Grace but because it is accepted of God as worthy of eternal Life as you say it 's the Promise made to that meetness gives the right Concerning meritum de congruo merit of meetness Bellarmine disputes lib. 1. c. 21. and concerning that de condigno lib. 5. de justificatione the merit of Meetness he ascribes to the Works of him that is to be justified a partibus justificandi i. e. that meetness for Justification by Repentance and Faith previous to Justification and capacitating for it or disposing to it The other viz. Merit of Condignity is ascribed operibus justificati to the evangelical sincere Obedience of one justified by the first Justification whereby he merits the second Justification and though you will not own the Name Merit yet in your Scheme your first Justification by Meetness or upon Meetness and the second upon persevering imperfect Obedience is the same Justifications that Bellarmine means for the Jesuite saith thus The perfection of our Righteousness and Justification is not from Faith but from Works for Faith doth but begin Justification and after it hath assumed to itself Hope and Charity it doth perfect it Bellar. de Justif l. 1. c. 20. And again he saith de merit Good Works merit without all doubt yet not by any intrinsick Vertue and Worth in them but by vertue of God's Promise and is not this as much as you say again and again It is the Promise that gives Right to Benefits upon our Conformity to the Rule of the Promise p. 104. And Calvin inst l. 3. s 12. They are forced to deny the intrinsick worthiness of Works and grant the Righteousness of Works is always imperfect while we live here and wants forgiveness whereby our Failure in Works may be made up He makes it appear That a Promise made with a Condition of a Work brings this to pass that he who performs the Work is said to have merited the thing promised ex pacto and may challenge his Reward as Debt in Law It signifiâ—s not much whether you suppose the first Grace to be saving or meer moral Endowment the Council of Trent condemns them that say â— Man may be justified without Grace by the strength of Human Nature and the doctrine of the Law If you make the first Grace a qualifying meetness for Justification in order thereto it is the Papists Doctrine Thus you see your sheltering your self under the absoluteness of the first Grace will not do And 1. Doth God give the first Grace absolutely then all other Graces conditionally for the first Grace comes from the same foederal Condition that all doth 2. The giving the first Grace is the giving eternal Life
but Works done by God's Grace may and are joyned with it as Causes of Salvation and in these Points the Protestants oppose them I could fill a Volume with it if need were but it s enough to say you are mistaken in telling us what the Protestants oppose them in You say also that I say That Pardon is rather the condition of Faith nay Pardon is the cause of Faith R. I say rather for if a federal condition must lye between giving and receiving giving is the causal condition of receiving and not receiving of giving 2. The Object must be before the Act of the Organ Pardon is the Object applyed by Faith Application before there is an Object is contradictio in adjecto 3. The Promise of Pardon is the Ground and Reason of our believing therein is the Grace brought therein doth the Truth and faithfulness of God appear and the Apostle saith Faith comes by hearing this Word of Promise i. e. is wrought by it Rom. 10. And he opposeth the Works of the Law and the hearing of Faith in Justification Gal. 3.2 5. And what is that acceptation but of Faith which the Apostle speaks of 1 Tim. 1.15 And what doth it accept but that faithful Gospel saying there mentioned That Christ came into the World to save Sinners and the chiefest It s the Grace of God working in this Promise that hath wrought Faith in the hearts of thousands 4. We say with all soundest Protestants That Justification in Nature is before Sanctification and the Cause of it and therefore of Faith because Faith as a Grace wrought is a part of Sanctification It s enough for you to hold up that you call Error and give it Name and so let it go 10. It is not whether Sanctification taken strictly do follow Justification this I affirm R. If you affirm this you should not make so strange of my saying Pardon is the condition of believing What you hide under strictly I concern not my self Sanctification is Sanctification and if Justification goes before it you allow it to be conditio ordinis at least Therefore I conclude Pardon is rather a condition yea I say not meerly of Order but such a condition as is an influential Cause But go on stating your difference But whether effectual Vocation make a real habitual change in the Soul and that this Vocation is in order of Nature before Justification This Mr. C. and the Letter and I affirm with the Assembly R. As to the Letter I must tell your Answer to it is short and ungenteel and as he did Bellarmine who said Bellarmine thou lyest when you say it was rather to serve a turn than to argue it spake Truth weakly and other things erroneously and ignorantly c. It justifies a necessity of dealing a little more roughly with Men of your Country and Kidney But to our Point in hand it need not be enquired whether you take effectual Vocation in the active or passive Sense seeing you say its such as makes a real habitual change in the Soul And seeing it makes such a change it must be a change of Sanctification and this you say is before Justification how can that be when you had said before that Justification is before Sanctification strictly taken What kind of Sanctification I pray is effectual Calling Is it not so in a strict sense when you say its a real habitual change in the Soul Is this not turning from Darkness to Light raising us together with Christ or being born again But all this must be done before the Relative change a Man must be free from the reigning Power of Sin and alive from the Dead without Jesus Christ our Lord. See what the Assembly saith in the larger Catech. Q. 67. That effectual calling is the Work of Gods Almighty Power and Grace whereby out of his free and especial Love to his Elect and from nothing in them moving him thereto he doth in his accepted time invite and draw them to Jesus Christ c. and they are hereby made able and willing freely to answer his Call and to accept and embrace the Grace offered and conveyed therein i. e. then they are effectually called when they have embraced the pardoning Grace of God offered and conveyed which shews the previousness of that Grace working the effectual Calling consummated in believing and embracing the Gospel offered the Gospel Grace in the Promise is always that which works first upon the Sinner moves his Heart and draws it forth in believing 11. It is not whether our sincere Faith and Love c. are imperfect and so can be no meriting Righteousness which I affirm R. You affirm they are imperfect and so do I but not therefore that they can be no meriting Righteousness for the Merit of Righteousness doth not depend upon the perfection of the Duty or Service in it self but its perfection in relation to the Law that requireth it if the Duty required be never so weak little and lame if I have such a degree as the Law requires its perfect as to that Law The Law requires a poor Man to pay a Shilling to a Tax it s as good obedience as another Mans that's required to pay twenty Many Instances might be given the Papists say Merit lies not in the value of the Action but in Gods Acceptation The Council of Trent saith Our Works are meritorious of eternal Life Quia a patre acceptantur per Christum yea saith S. de Clara Actus meus dicitur meritorium quia elicitus seu Imperatus a gratia ex pactione divina acceptatur ad premium Deus ab aeterno ordinavit hujusmodi actus esse dignos vita eterna quando eliciuntur a gratia habituali non igitur tota ratio meriti a gratia ipsa So Scotus Actus non est meritorius praecise quia perveniens ex gratia sed quia acceptatur a Deo tanque dignus vita aeterna But where 's the Question then Whether Faith and Love c. are disobedient even in a Gospel account and so uncapable of being Conditions of any of its promised saving Benefits R. In the sense of the Papists they be not but be accepted of God for this end to be federal conditions of a Law Covenant they are perfect in that kind and relation and merit the Benefit but we say tho' any of our Gifts of Grace or Duties are accepted in Christ yet they are not accepted to any Merit or Worthiness of any other Grace federal conditions and worthiness of all Grace and Blessings bestowed on us are only in Christ and hence Faith and Charity and other Gifts of Grace tho' they have a conditional connexion one to another yet they are all of Promise and can't be federal conditions of any promised saving Benefits Mr. C. saith I am against the Articles of the Church of England and the Assembly I am sure he'el never prove it and I profess the contrary but I am sure he 's against all the
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
4. It 's performed from higher Motives and Obligations viz. that great Love wherewith God hath loved us constraining us to the highest love and expressions thereof to him 5. As for all Sin and Disobedience even Impenitence and Unbelief to any Commands of the Gospel it 's condemned by the Law and every one under the condemnations of Impenitence Unbelief rejection of Christ or disobedience in a Natural Estate are therein under the Law but there is no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus I◠mean to their Persons tho' all their Sins also are condemned by the Law 2dly I proceed now to your Arguments Mr. W.'s Arg 1. The Gospel is called a Law by the Spirit of God Isa 42.4 Mic. 4.2 Rom. 3.27 Ch. 10.31 Jam. 1.25 and 2.12 Psal 19.7 Gal. 6.2 Rom. 8.2 R. As to the places quoted out of the Old Testament as Isa 42.4 Mic. 4.2 Ps 19 7. I have shewn that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies Doctrin and Instruction and sometimes is taken for the whole revealed Mind and Will of God in the Word and it 's called by the Name of Law as a part for the whole both Law and Gospel in that place Isa 42.4 a Prophecy of Christ it 's a Promise that the Isles shall wait for Christ's Doctrin and receive all Commands from Christ whose Precepts may be called Laws tho' of another nature than a Law with Sanction the preceptive parts of the Gospel are often called Laws especially in the Old Testament but this makes not the Gospel itself a Law tho' it contain many Precepts That of Mic. 4.2 Psal 19.7 hath the same answer those places explicate themselves by the Word of the Lord The law shall go forth of Zion and the word of God from Jerusalem So that Law signifies no more than the Word preached both Law and Gospel it were easie to shew how it 's used at large in the Proverbs and Psalms and elsewhere not under any distinct consideration of Law or Gospel We have shewed the Covenant of Grace is exhibited only in a way of promise and free-gift unto sinners as such takes them into Covenant with God not upon any terms of their doing perfect or imperfect performed in their own or another's strength tho' it takes them into the Kingdom where Christ rules and governs them and from which Kingdom goes forth all the Word of the Lord both Law and Gospel Lastly The Old Testament speaks often prophetically of the Gospel in its own Terms and Dialect as by Priests Sacrifices c. Isa 66.21 c. 56.7 c. 6.7 Ezek. 40. c. 41 42. That of Rom. 3.27 where the Apostle saith that boasting is excluded by what Law By the Law of Faith it may be taken for an ordinary rhetorical figura dictionis called Anadiplosis and Beza saith the Apostle doth here de industria 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 say the Law of Faith instead of Faith because the adversaries of Grace were always wont to have the Name of the Law in their mouths for which reason our Lord calls Faith a Work Joh. 6.29 and on which place he saith they are plainly ridiculous who from hence will argue that Faith is a Wo k and that therefore we are justified by Works But if any that contend for a further account of the meaning of this Expression 1. It is the Doctrin of Justification by Faith in Christ's Righteousness which he opposeth to all Law-Righteousness as Rom. 4. or other Doctrin that teacheth contrary 2. It may be taken for the nature of Faith the power and efficacy of it the nature of it and its power in the Soul is to make a Man renounce all inherent righteousness in the same sense is Law taken Rom. 8.2 the Law of the Spirit of Life that is in Christ Jesus viz. i. e. the nature power and efficacy of it So Rom. 7. The Law of Sin is no more than the power and prevalency of it whereby it captivates us Jam. 1.25 The Law of Liberty is no other than the Gospel-Doctrin of Freedom by Jesus Christ Joh. 8.36 from the Law Moral and Ceremonial for justificaion yea he speaks to them as such saith Beza on whom no Yoak of Ceremonial Bondage was laid as Peter Acts 15.10 yea such as the Moral Law could not retain as Servants under fear but the Spirit of God forms them into free and voluntary Obedience Hence it 's plain enough that the Apostle opposeth the Gospel to a Law with Sanction which enforceth obedience from the threats thereof So Beza carries c. 2.12 This Epithite of Liberty saith he is very fitly added Having shewed he spake of the Moral Law before which he called the Royal Law in its full Sanction as appears from v. 8 9 10. for seeing we are made free by the Son by a much better right the Lord requires of us the Fruits of Righteousness rather than of those who remain under the Tyranny of the Law of Sin c. So that from these Expressions of James here is so little pretence for a Plea to make the Gospel a Law with Sanction that the Apostle seems strenuously to argue against it I wonder that place is mentioned Rom. 9.31 the Law of Righteousness is plainly the Law of Works for it was Righteousness by this Law they sought after but lost their labour not seeking after a Righteousness to satisfie the Law by Faith in Christ You argue also from Gal. 6.2 This is spoken of a particular Precept which are frequently termed Laws or Instructions Bear one anothers burdens and so fulfil the law of Christ or his Command yea from an Obligation so to do an Obligation to Obedience and Thankfulness is sometimes called a Law of Love And what was the obligation Christ bore our burdens Isa 53. Therefore we should bear one anothers burdens as he carried our griefs and sorrows Be followers of Christ as dear children Beza and others refer it to John 13.34 35. A new commandment give I unto you that you love one another as I have loved you i. e. I give you a new Motive and Principle to act Obedience from and this is contrary to a Principle and Spirit of Bondage and Fear from a Law with Sanction and this New Commandment is called the Old as to the Matter of it Mr. W.'s Arg. 2. Mens behaviour towards the Gospel is expressed by words that denote it to be a Law Rom. 10.16 2 Cor. 9.13 2 Thess 1.8 1 Pet. 4.17 R. You said tho' the Gospel be a Law with Sanction yet it contains in it absolute Promises This I deny as a contradiction But I affirm that an absolute Promise may contain in it Law-Precepts as that Promise I will w ite my laws in your hearts the Gospel sets up the Law-Precepts as Rules of Sanctity and Obedience and calls for a conformity to them from better Motives and Principles yet upon bette◠Promises not such as provoked to obedience by rewarding the work performed in our own strength but such as
Written or not which doth command or forbid any thing as the series of his Arguments and thâ—t effect which he ascribes to the Law in discovering Sin doth prove you may see much more in him to this purpose The Works of the Law are called the doing of those things Haec autem diligenter considerata manifesta indicant in hoc ver siculo appellatione legis sine Articulo intelligi omnem doctrinam scriptam aut non scriptam quae aliquid aut jubeat aut interdicat c. which the Law commands as they are done by us or not done by us not as simply commanded by the Law Now I suppose you will not call this learned Man's arguing here a Cobweb It were easie to shew upon what probable Reasons the Prepositive is added or omitted in other places of the Epistles where Law is mentioned which to avoid prolixity I must now omit It 's enough at present that it is left out in these eminent places where Justification by any Works of any Law is utterly denyed and condemned It 's frivolously objected by you that the omission of the Article here argues not because the Socinians would improve the leaving out of ὸ Joh. 1.1 against the Deity of Christ and say the word was a God not the God a God by office as one preached at P. H. whereas it s in that Text an Argument against them and there is doubtless a great force in it for as Mr. B. saith by the first words the word was in the beginning the eternal Essence of the Son is asserted 2. By the next The Word was with God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 where the Article is exprest and the Person of the Son is distinguished from the Person of the Father God without separation And in the third Enunciation he affirms That the Word was i. e. ver 1. Et essentialiter Deus Patri 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 essâ—ntially God the same in Essence with the Father and if the Article had been added and it had been 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it had affirmed the Son to be the same Person with the Father It 's no small matter therefore in the declaring this divine Mystery that the Article is first added and then afterwards omitted to shew Christ is God tho' not God the Father See what an Argument yours is because the Socinians will make a false Inference from the leaving out ὸ Joh. 1.1 Therefore it must be Socianism to argue from Rom. 3.20 because the Prepositive is left out and Law used indefinitely that all Laws are understood and Justification by all Law-Works are excluded And whereas you say the Text speaks directly of the Law of Moses if you mean thereby the moral Law it was essentially the same with the Law of Innocency and the denial of Justification by one is also a denial of Justification by the other and so by all Doctrins requiring duty as Mr. Beza saith What you say of Gal. 3.11 militates against your self whereas you say Was every Law given 430 years after Abraham Is not the Apostle express in the 3 first Chapters that that Law was the Jewish Law Do you not mean Moral and Ceremonial and Judicial For of these parts were the Jewish Law or at most the Law of Nature together with it R. Were not these all Laws of Duty that God made and all comprehended in the Law of Nature requiring universal obedience to God in all things that he should ever Command But observe that Justification by Christ which is the same always in the Apostle's sense as Justification by Faith is opposed to Justification by the Law of Moses which was the way the Jews looked after partly by Sacrifice partly by their Obedience to that Law in the preceptive part and thus they followed after that Law of Righteousness Rom. 9.31 and attained it not because they sought it not by Faith sed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quasi operibus legis as it were by the Works of the Law v. 32. Mr. Beza refuting Erasmus on that place saith Erasmus wrongs the Jews in that he thinks that they lookt upon the Salvation they had to have been by Works only the Grace of God excluded for the contrary to this Assertion appears by the Prayer of the Pharisee that the Jews had no other Opinion of Merits and Grace than now our Sophists have which conjoyn Free-will with Grace and Faith with Works And indeed this was the Stumbling-block I might go through Paul's Epistles to evince this That all sorts of Works are opposed to Grace in Justification quasi e regione perpetuo adversantur And this is the Point he deals so roundly with the Galatians about viz. Their Judaizing in joyning Works with Faith in Justification not so much the Ceremony of Circumcision which at another time he admitted of but because of the reason why now the Galatians thought Circumcision so necessary viz. as a Work of the Law therefore he testified That if they were circumcised Christ would profit them nothing and thereby they were obliged to keep the whole Law for Justification because obeying it in one point would not serve they could not be justified partly by Christ and partly by some partial obedience to the Law and there was as much reason to plead for a Mosaical imperfect obedience to joyn with the Sacrifices in Justification before Christ as there is now for an Evangelical imperfect obedience to conjoyn with Christ's Righteousness now and more Lastly Grace and Free-gifts is by all Men opposed to all conditional claim upon performance of a Duty required by any Law and the Apostle always makes this Debt Rom. 4.4 Let the conditional part be never so small it 's a Debt ex pacto Hence the Apostle placeth both eternal Life and the Righteousness by which we are justified all in free Gift to us Rom. 5.15 16 22. Yea he directly opposeth the Gospel gift of eternal life which comprehends Grace and Glory to any Law with Sanction v. last i. e. any Law that pays Death as the Wages of Sin The Wages of Sin is Death but the gift of God is eternal â—ife through Jesus Christ c. Now if your new Law makes Death the Wages of any Sin then the Gospel gift of eternal Life is opposed to it You say p. 25. The Benefits are not given us for our Faith but upon believing R. For and Upon in a Covenant sense are the the same to convey an Estate upon the payment of 5 Shillings is a Bargain and good ex pacto tho' the Estate be worth hundreds You say If a Man says I will give you a thousand Pound provided you will come and fetch it is it not free Gift I suppose it s reckoned so by him that is able and willing to fetch it But the Case may be so that if some Men offer me a thousand Pound I will not fetch it to have it and then I may not be able One may offer a thousand