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
promised the very obedience it self Therefore no body denies obedience to the Gospel and subjection to it from the grace of Adoption as Children not as Slaves under the rigour of a Law Those places that speak of taking vengeance on them that obey not the Gospel 2 Thess 1.8 1 Pet. 4.17 they shew only that the curse of the Law will fall more heavily upon them for disobedience to God in the Gospel Impenitency and Infidelity being Sins the Law of God doth condemn and judge and Christ will come at the last day clothed with Law-Vengeance which is called flaming fire and will proceed against all sinners those that are ignorant of God and those that are disobedient to the Gospel and judge them by one and the same Law tho' some that have added to their other sins the rejection of Christ and so lye under aggravations of their sins and are become more inexcusable may be accounted worthy of sorer degrees of punishment and judged thereto by the same Law Mr. W.'s Arg. 3. Justification is a Judicial Act therefore it must be by a Law R. You should have formed your Argument and then it would have run thus It Justification be a Judicial Act then the Gospel must be Law but Justification is a Judicial Act Therefore 1. I deny the Consequence of the Major for it may be a Judicial Act in respect of the first violated Law first a gracious Act of imputing Christ's righteousness to us that may answer the demands of that Law and then a Judicial Act of acquitting us from the condemnation of it accounting us in this manner righteous by this Law and therefore there 's no need of another Law for our justification tho' it be a Judicial Act. You say in Justification is a right to Impunity and can any thing but a Law give this but I tell you it must be the Law that 's offended must discharge in a way of justice from punishment and not another Law unless the Pardon be by prerogative or repeal Mr. W.'s Arg. 4. The Gospel gives a right to its Benefits upon believing R. The Gospel gives nothing but benefits to sinners Faith is one of the great benefits and there 's a connexion of benefits of different nature in the Gospel-gifts but our right to all as a federal condition is in Christ and it 's safe enough to speak of Gospel-Worthiness and Rewards but they are founded in Christ not in any Law-Righteousness of ours Mr. W.'s Arg. 5. If God have no Gospel-rule besides Election and distinguishing Mercy to confer glory by thâ—n God will not nay cannot save the non-elect tho' th y should believe in Christ Say not they will not believe hath not God declared he will save them iâ— they believe R. First Here you change the terms putting Rule for Law and God's Rule for Man's therefore you conclude not the Question 2. You make a Pro syllogism Your Argument should regularly run thus If God hath Gospel-rule besides Election and distinguishing Mercy to confer glory by thâ—n the Gospel is a Law but God hath other Gospel-rules to confer glory by besides c. Therefore 1. Your Consequence is denied for if you will have God's way of conferring grace or glory to be a rule to him the particular application thereof depends wholly upon his good will and pleasure and the manner it self and that 's the rule of all rules and so the rule of conferring grace and glory is all one But suppose God's manner of conferring glory be the rule you mean God never propounded but two ways of doing it one in a way of free grace and absolute promise and the other in a way of debt to us by a rule of justice now your Consequence will sink for God's rule in bestowing grace and glory upon sinners is to do it in a way of free grace by promise and gift and not in a way or by the rule of a Law or distributive Justice 2. For your Minor it 's this That God hath a Gospel-rule besides Election and distinguishing Mercy to confer glory by which you prove thus If God hath not c. then he cannot nor will not save the non-elect if they believe But he will save the non-elect if they believe therefore this Argument necessarily supposeth that God hath a Rule of Salvation altogether independent on Election and distinguishing Mercy whereby others may be saved if they will and you take it for granted that the non-elect will believe for you say say not they will not believe Your Minor is flatly denied for that general Proposition He that believes shall be saved concludes not that a non-elect person shall believe or be saved it 's false Logick so to do there 's no more in it than in this Proposition Every Man is a rational Creature therefore if a Horse be a rational Creature he is a Man This connex Proposition hath a verity in the connexion but determins not any truth in the antecedent or consequent that a Horse will ever be a Man or a rational Creature So here he that believes shall be saved therefore then if the non-elect believe they shall be saved if Judas believed he should be saved but this says not that Judas will believe or be saved Yet you say hath not God declared he will save them if they believe I say no where he hath not said I will save a non-elect person if he believe more than he hath said a Horse shall be a Man if he can use reason or speak or a Man shall be a Horse if he have four feet There 's hundreds of such Instances The fire consumes all combustible matter if I throw my Coat or Cap inâ—o the fire it will be burnt but this doth not determin that I will throw it into the fire or that it will be burnt but rather the contrary that there will be neither one nor the other Therefore how bold and illogical is it for you to conclude that God will save the non-elect upon an imperformable condition for whatever hath no other foundation than an impossible condition can never be but the salvation of the non-elect can be founded upon nothing but an impossible condition for it can have no other condition according to you but believing and this is impossible because according to you also Faith is from Election and therefore it 's a contradiction to talk of saving non-elect or God's making a Rule to save them upon supposition of their having that which he never intended to give them The general Proposition runs thus All Men that shall believe shall be saved a general contradiction here will not divide truth from falshood Viz. No Man shall believe therefore no Man shall be saved but to divide truth from falshood and fix it on a subject the contradiction must be special or proper and then that general Axiom and Application specially or properly makes this Syllogism All Men that believe shall be saved some Men shall shall not