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
begun 3. Either the first Grace is through Christ or not but 't is strange to say That Christ gives inherent Grace to one that 's not united to him but as his designed Head as you phrase it and to one in a State of Condemnation And should make a change in his Nature before a change of State 4. Then Sanctification if Faith be any part of it must be before Justification contrary to the best Protestants and what you have said Your 8th Exception is That I say 't is the Doctrine of Imputation that you banter and you tell us what you say of it in your Book where when I come to the Places you quote here you will see my Remarks on your Sayings And so as to the ninth and tenth it will be spoken to in its proper place And as to the elâ—vâ—nth and twelfth I am of the same Mind I was I shall not spend Time in Vindication and I leave the considerate Reader who understands himself whether I do not give a very fair account of your Opinion whereof by the Quotations of yours out of your former Book you give sufficient Confirmation As to the stating Questions in difference between us you do it not fair The first you say is Preface 2. l. 1. Whether the elect are required to believe that they may be justified This you say I deny R. You should have quoted the Place I say there are Commands in the Ministry of the Gospel unto Sinners to believe and obey the Gospel that they may partake of Justification by Christ's Righteousness but not to perform it as a moral condition that therâ—by they may be qualified for Justification or made meet for it as you say 2. You say it is not whether the Gospel be such a Law that the Acts of Obedience to it stand in the place of Works so as for them we are saved but whether the Gospel assure Salvation for Christ's Merits to such as obey it and their active exclusion of Salvation to such as disobey it This you say you affirm and I deny I 'll tell you what I say The Gospel can't be a Law commanding Obedience as a federal condition of the Promise but upon performance of it the Promise must be a reward of Debt and if the Promise be Justification for the Merits of Christ then its due as Debt upon the said Obedience and tho' you say Justification for the Righteousness of Christ yet that Justification must be the reward of Obedience required in that Law 3. It is not whether we are justified by our Faith as an Act of ours as if they you mean Repentance too as Works or Qualifications were a Jot of that Righousness for which or by which we are justified This I deny Rep. Who says you say its that Righteousness of Christ to which you annex your for or by but for and by this Righteousness we come to be justified by our Faith and Repentance the Duties required in another Law which you tells us is the Gospel Rule i. e. your Law That a Man must be a penitent Believer whom God will justify for the righteousness of Christ This you say you affirm and I deny and that with good reason that our Faith and Repentance must be previous qualifying Duties to our Justification So that a Sinner must repent and believe in a state of Condemnation before he is justified and it s no more than this that for Christ's Righteousness which is our legal Righteousness we shall be justified by or according to our Evangelical 4. Your next Particular is the same and I say as before God doth not justifie us as a judicial Act for any Duty or Act tho' wrought by the Spirit 5. You say It 's not whether we are justified upon believing before any Works which follow the first Act of saving Faith R. No for the Papists own their first Justification to be so but you say If Faith should be ineffectual to Acts of sincere Holiness and to prevent Apostacy and utter Ungodliness would we not be subject to condemnation by Gospel Rule This you say you affirm and I deny R. Let us examin this then and see what you affirm 1. That there 's a possibility true justifying Faith may be ineffectual and so there may be a falling away 2. That till Faith hath brought forth sincere persevering Obedience we are not fully and certainly justified we must be justified by the second Justification before we be secure 3. That Apostacy and utter Ungodliness is prevented by a Gospel Rule of Condemnation that we are made subject to it s a fine way to prevent Apostacy to lay us under a Rule of Condemnation you mean a Sentence For my part I can t see these things hang together nor know what you mean by a Rule of Condemnation but in the sense of the Law working Wrath which is quite contrary to the nature of a Gospel 6. You say and we say That Holiness and good Works are necessary to Salvation but that I deny they are indispensable means of obtaining the Possession of Salvation through Christ R. If I say they are necessary it is enough tho' I may not own them to be indispensible means in your sense as a Law condition is an indispensible means of the Reward and if they be indispensible means the Thief upon the Cross could not have been saved and hundreds more that I doubt not but God saves in the like manner 7. It is not whether Justification Adoption and Glorification be Acts of Gods free Grace which I affirm R. But you said otherwise That forgiving adopting and glorifying and the conveyance of every promised Benefit given on Gods Terms are judicial Acts of God as a Rector i. e. As you after say That Grace is so dispensed by way of judicial rectoral Distribution of Rewards c. Pref. of the 1st Book But the Question is you say Whether it pleased God to leave himself at liberty to justifie the Unbeliever while such and glorifie the Unbeliever and Wicked and alâ—o to damn the penitent godly Believer this Mr. C. affirms and I deny R. You should have shewed the place where I said it that your Charge might have fastned by a Demonstration I marvel you blush not at such things as these 1. Where have I that Expression of Gods leaving himself at liberty It s one of your Terms of Art not mine 2. That he justifies the Ungodly is what the Spirit of God saith and therefore I may 3. But I say in justifiing him he sanctifieth him and whatever a Sinner is he is justified as such not as made holy and sanctified unless you 'l confound Justification and Sanctification as the Papists and Quakers do 4. But when did I say That God doth glorifie an Unbeliever and a wicked Man or damn the penitent and godly Believer Or that in the Covenant of Grace he hath made any such Exception that he may or will do so I suppose that you must
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
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
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
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
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
most express in it That there was no Law given to his time that could be a Gospel i. e. that could give Life to Sinners Gal. 3.21 If there had a Law been given which could have given life verily Righteousness had been by a Law And now I pray except not at my reading 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Law indefinitely understanding any Law for our Translators render it so and I must tell you they should by the same reason have rendred 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the same manner and then the Text had been uniform in the Translation as in the Original if there had been a Law any Law given which could have given Life verily Righteousness had been by a Law Therefore your new Law was not gâ—ven before Paul's Time but the Gospel was therefore the Gospel is no Law with Sanction Luther on this place saith thus Though those Words of Paul be never so pâ—ain yet the Papists have this wicked Gloss always ready That he speaketh only of the Ceremonial Law But Paul speaketh plainly and excepteth no Law whether Moral or Ceremonial or any other Wherefore their Gloss is not worth a Rush And contrariwise we affirm That there is no Law whether Man's Law or God's Law that giveth Life therefore we put as great a difference between the Law and Righteousness as between Life and Death between Heaven and Hell and the Cause that moveth us so to affirm is That the Apostle saith The Law is not given to justifie to give Life and to save but only to kill and to destroy contrary to the Opinion of all Men naturally c. This Difference of the Offices of the Law and the Gospel keepeth all Christian Doctrin in its true and proper use This Witness of Luther I can set against all the Testimonies you bring from any whatever who hold or have held the Gospel a Law with Sanction as you do divers may speak of it under the term of a Law of Faith or understanding by Law the Precepts of the Gospel but if they plead that the true and proper nature of the Gospel is a Law with Sanction as you do I do renounce their Opinion and do oppose them therein as I do you it being as such fundamentally destructive to the Gospel and the whole nature of the Grace of it And on Gal. 4.4 Christ being made under the Law is not a Law-giver or a Judge after the Law but in that he made himself subject to the Law he delivered us from the Curse thereof Now whereas Christ under the Gospel giveth Commandments and teacheth the Law or expoundeth it rather this pertaineth not to the Doctrin of Justification but of good Works Moreover It is not the proper Office of Christ for which he came into the World to teach the Law but accidental as it was to heal the weak c. Wherefore the true proper Office of Christ is to wrestle with the Law to conquer and abolish Sin and Death to deliver the faithful from the Law and all Evils Let us learn to put a difference between Christ and a Law-giver that when the Devil goes about to trouble us under his Name we may know him to be a very Fiend Christ is no Moses he is nothing else but Infinite Mercy freely giving On Gal. 2.20 Now as it is the greatest knowledge and cunning that Christians have thus to define Christ so of all things it is hardest I my self in this great light of the Gospel wherein I have been so long exercised to hold the distinction of Christ which Paul giveth so deeply hath the Doctrin and pestilent Opinion that Christ is a Law-giver entred into my Bones You young Men therefore are in a far happier condition for you are not insected with those pernicious Errours wherein I have been so muzled and drowned from my youth that at my hearing the Name of Christ my Heart hath trembled and quaked for fear for I was perswaded that he was a severe Judge wherefore it is to me a double trouble to correct and reform this Evil 1. To forget condâ—mn and resist this old-grounded Errour That Christ is a Law-giver and a Judge 2. To plant in my Heart a new and true perswasion of Christ that he is a Justifier and a Saviour Ye that are young may learn with much less difficulty to know Christ purely and sincerely if you will Arg. 8. If the Gospel be a new Law then we must have a double Righteousness for our justification but we have not a double Righteousness for our justification therefore the consequence is good 1. From most of your Concessions that we have the righteousness of Christ and that which you call subordinate You should rather have said as Dr. Owen argues that Christ's righteousness is the subordinate it being in ordine ad in order to our justification by a new Law Mr. B. and others speak more distinctly and say a legal and evangelical righteousness but in truth it must be two legal righteousnesses For 2. There 's no Law but must have a pâ—culiar distinct righteousness from that of any other Law whereby a Man under it must be justified and all the righteousness that serves for justification by another Law hath nothing to do in our justification by the said Law and therefore there must be two distinct Righteousnesses and two distinct Justifications as there are two distinct Laws Unless you say the old Law is vacated which is a contradiction if you do but own that Christ is the end of that Law for righteousness to every one that beâ—ieved and then it cannot be vacated for a Law vacated and a Law in force is a contradiction and a Law fulfilled to every jot and tittle to every believer remains in force Therefore it remains that we have two righteousnesses for justification and both legal because all Law-righteousness is legal Christ's single righteousness is indeed legal in respect of the Law and â—vangelical in respect of sinners it being to them the gift of righteousness so with us the same thing differs only respectively 3. There must be as distinct righteousness for justification as there is unrighteousness for condemnation but each Law hath its distinct unrighteousness for condemnation The Minor is easily proved that we have not two righteousnesses for justification for if we have 1. Christ's righteousness is not enough for our justification unto life contrary to the Scripture 2. All the Popish Doctrin will unavoidably come in at this gate which is wide enough for it 3. Our own Works call them what you will let them be Faith and sincere Obedience imperfect Holiness c. must come in for a share in our justification contrary to Tit. 3.4 5. and an hundred places of Scripture besides nay for the whole of our justification by the new Law for the righteousness that answers that must be distinct from the righteousness that answers the old Law to enervate this Doctrin many have wrote to very good purpose in
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
Christ can't satisfie and merit for us without the Interposal of a Gospel Rule the meaning whereof is That Christ hath not legally satisfied for us till we have done something in conformity to the said Rule that may give validity to the satisfaction of Christ and make it pleadable as such so that Christ hath neither satisfied nor merited till we make up the Complement whereby it becomes legal 4. What mean you by a legal Right to Glory by Adam's Covenant If you mean by Christs satisfaction and obedience to Adam's Covenant we have our legal Right to Glory we say it for Christ is the end of the Law for Righteousness to every one that believes and through his Righteousness we have a Right to Glory by Adam's Covenant Christ's Righteousness is our legal Righteousness as it respects the Perfection and Justice of God in that Covenant and it s our Evangelical Righteousness as it s in the behalf of and bestowed upon undone Sinners But you say this Doctrin excludes Forgiveness Why Because it brings in Forgivness meerly upon Christ's Righteousness alone But how makes it Christ's Sufferings needless when it lays all upon the Righteousness of Christ imputed as the Matter and Form of our Justification Or how doth it deny proper satisfaction when it makes Christ's Righteousness all the satisfaction And your Doctrin makes it but an improper and remote satisfaction yea and imperfect And lastly you say it destroys Christianity This is so gross a Charge as that it is to be exploded with Detestation if the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness as our legal and evangelical Right and Title to Life and Salvation destroys Christianity we may burn our Bibles But you go on 5 You affirm That all sinned and dyed in Adam and in Christ are all made alive owning Christ's influence both real and publick as before explained R. All this is nihil ad Rhombum you own not hereby the Imputation of Adams Sin to his Posterity but that Sin and Death are only Effects of Adam's first Sin i. e. influential you own not that all Men were legally condemned in Adam as a publick federal Person standing in their stead In the same manner you always speak of the Righteousness of Christ as influential to our Forgiveness and that the imputation of it is only bestowing the Effects But whether we were in Christ before Faith as we were seminally in Adam before we were born which his federal Headship did suppose the being thus in Christ before Faith I deny R. You here grant our seminal being in Adam and that Adam's federal Headship supposed it and therefore we were seminally and federally in Adam before we were born Why speak you it not positively whether it was so or no That we were federally and seminally in Adam and that our Sin and Death was in him there we lost original Righteousness and thence the Imputation of his very first Sin to all his Posterity by vertue of our federal standing in him and by reason of our being seminally in him the corruption of the whole Nature was in him and naturally descended to us If it be so why are not the Elect as to Righteousness and Life in the same manner in the second Adam federally and seminally before they believe i. e. before they are born again in him federally as to Righteousness and seminally as to the new Nature Christ being their Righteousness and Sanctification whereas the Apostle runs the Parallel so fully and plainly as he doth Rom. 5 But all this is but shuffling the Cards to make People believe your Principles are what they are not most of whom cannot tell what you hold when you have darkened and confounded the Question by your manner of stating it You say I object against you the denying of the Doctrin of Imputation why do you not deny the Charge but only distinguish so upon it as to confirm it If your Principles are Truth why do you not speak them out but fill us with your cloudy Expressions and Distinctions which you charge us for why speak you not plainly That you deny the Suretiship of Christ as you know you do That you deny Christ to be a publick Person in the Sense as the soundest Protestants have always held him to be which last you do here in effect positively do That we were neither federally nor seminally in Christ before Believing Which if so I am sure you must deny the whole Doctrine of Imputation and what you pretend to can be no more than what the Socinians do And how can you say you are not against the Confession and I am when the Assembly saith Confess c. 8. sect 1. That Christ is ordained of God the Head and Saviour of his Church See Pinchin the Sâ—cinian and Mr. Norton's answer p. 353. Dialo I grant that all Mâ—nkind are one with Adam by a natural Union as proceeding from the same Root but I fear Mr. Forbes doth stretch out our natural Union with Adâ—m to a personal to the end that he might make Adam's personal Action to be ours by imputation Norton The scope of Mr. Forbes is to prove the Imputation of Christ's Passive Obedience and that only in his Dea h to bâ— the Matter of our Justification c. We consent to Mr. Forbs as to the Argument taken from the Comparison but dissent from him as concerning the Restrictions the Reason of the Comparison being founded upon the Conditions of the Persons and Divine Institution it holds betwixt such Acts aâ— thâ— first and second Adam acted as publick Persons Adom therefore being in that Act of Disobedience only a publ ck Person hence that Act only is imputed unto his Seed But Christ bâ—ing in all his Acts of Obedienâ—â— a publick Person hence therefore all the Acts of Christ's Obedience are imputed to his Seed As upon supposition Adam's continuing in Obedience because he had then continued a publick Person all the Acts of his Obedience even to the finishing of perfect Righteousness had been imputed to his Seed according to the nature of the Covenant of Works unto their attaining of Jusâ—ification by the Law The Uniâ—n between Adam and his Posterity was not personal nor only natural but mystical It was a Conjunction of the Person of Adam and all contained iâ— his Loyns in one Spiritual Body by the Insti ution of God whereby he was as their Head they as his Members to stand or fall with him standing or falling Mr. Norton sums up Pinchin's Errors under three Heads 1. In his denying the Imputation of the Sin of the Elect unto Christ and his suffering the Punâ—shment due thereunto contrary to 2 Cor. 5.21 Gal. 3.13 Isa 53 5 6. thereby leaving the Elect to perish in theâ—r Sin 2. Denying that Christ as Goâ—-Man Mediator obeyâ—d the Law and therewith that he obeyed it for us as our Surety contrary to Gal. 4.4 5. Matt. â— 17 18. Heb. 10.7 compared with Psal 40.8.7.8 Rom. 3.31 thereby rendring 〈…〉
believe as non-elect or Judas therefore some Men shall not be saved Now see how well you agree with the Assembly in this Point ch 10. § iv they say non-elect ones tho' they may be called by the Ministry of the Word and may have some common Operations of the Spirit yet they never truly come unto Christ and therefore cannot be saved You say Forgiveness is an act of Soveraignty and how you will reconcile that to what you say before and after I know not 1. That it 's a judicial Act by a rule of Judgment if so it 's not in that respect a soveraign Act wherein God is free to give faith and forgiveness to whom he will And 2. You say he hath not left himself free to give forgiveness to whom he will of the adult without faith and therefore God must come under a Law to give forgiveness in the way of a Law whereas the same soveraign grace that enclines him to one doth also to the other and both faith and forgiveness are the free gift in the Promise in a way of shewing forth his righteousness Mr. W.'s Arg. 6. The Apostles with all the Saints may be arraigned as fallen from Grace and turned from the Gospel if it be no Rule according to which God applies Christ's Righteousness How should Peter say Repent and be baptized R. I see no Consequence here at all the Argument to me seems to run thus Either the Gospel is a new Law with Sanction or else the Apostles are fallen from Grace And what 's the reason of this forced Argument The Apostles preached That Men should repent and be baptized I hope you will make Baptism too to belong indispensably to the new Law as a Condition but I pray doth the Gospel requiring and calling for Gospel Duties make the Gospel a new Law with Sanction Are not Gospel Duties from Gospel quickning and enlivning a poor dead Sinner to obey the Gospel Commands of Christ to an Unbeliever He doth not deal with him as a Person under a moral Power to answer them and therefore putting him under tryal by his natural strength as all Laws do but Gospel Commands are as Christ's Voice to Lazarus in the Grave Joh. 5.25 I pray by what Law are dead Men capable of coming to Life The Gospel is the power of God to Salvation not the power of Man You alledge the Gaoler's words Act. 16.36 What shall I do to be saved I wonder you should insist upon the words of a Man that knew not Christ and knew no other way of Salvation than by doing Paul indulged him not in this Opinion but taught contrary exhorting him to believe in the Lord Jesus Christ which the Apostle always opposed to doing Faith being a Grace that excludes works of any Law yea it self as a work it will ascribe all to Christ and free Grace It 's new Doctrin that a Command to believe should be a Command to work for Life as the obedience to a Law when it calls Men from under the Law and it saith That a Believer is not under the Law but under Grace It should have said you are not under the old Law but you are under the new Law You instance in Gal. 2.16 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there doth not denote a priority in time of Faith to Justification but of the end of Faith we should believe for this end that the Grace of Justification by Christ's Righteousness alone may shine into our Hearts by the light of Faith that we may have Peace with God in our Consciences through the Lord Jesus Christ and so we do not only in our first believing but in all other Acts. And this hinders not but that God's gracious Acts prevent ours and causeth them God's love let forth to us constrains us and is the reason of our loving him Justification may be considered as terminating on our Persons and terminating on our Consciences in this last sense the Apostle speaks but note what is the Antithesis And not the Works of a Law If he had not meant the Works of every Law he should have distinguished and said Not by the Works of the old Law but by the Works of the new Law It 's strange he should keep the Galatians in the dark about the Works of the new Law it was but Works that they looked for to joyn with Christ in Justification I am confident this very distinction would have satisfied all the Neonomians of his time Mr. W.'s 7th Arg. The Gospel is at least part of the Rule by which Christ will judge the World this must be a Law if it be a Rule of Judgment R. Your Argument is That Rule by which God will judge the World is a Law but the Gospel is a Rule by which God will judg the World therefore I deny the Minor 1. You say Part of that Rule I pray what 's the other part Will the Rule of Judgment have two parts Do you mean the old Law will be another part Or will God judge some by the old Law some by the new 2. It 's not likely that God will judge the World by any more than one Law and that the Law of Creation and that by which he governed the World that Law which hath been the Standard of Righteousness from the beginning of the World to the end 3. It 's likely to be that Law that all the World are become guilty by they shall not be guilty by one Law and judged by another 4. It 's likely to be that Law that Men's Consciences accuse or excuse by 5. It 's likely to be that Law that will reach Jews Christians Infidels and all that never had the written Law or Gospel 6. If the Gospel be a Law then to try by it must cease to be a Gospel for it will bring execution of Indignation and Wrath no good Tidings I suppose you will not say the Sentence Go ye cursed is Gospel Well you say The Work of that day is not to try Christ No sure I believe not but Christ must sit upon his Throne judging the World Nor whether Christ's Righteousness was imputed to all that Believe but will be to decide the cause of all Men to silence all Apologies c. 1. I suppose you mean to decide Believer's state which hath been undecided till then 2. To prove that the rest of the World had not Faith As for the first sort I would know whether their Tryal will be before the Resurrection or after Before it can't be they must be raised first and those that die in Christ shall rise first And it s said Bâ—essed and happy are they that have part in the first Resurrection and how shall they be raised Incorruptible in Glory like to Christ at his Appearance immediately carryed up into the â—ir to meet the Lord. Is it likely that now they are Clothed with all this Glory at the Resurrection they shall come to stand a Tryal for Justification Surely their state
conclude This pretended New Law is no other than the Old Law furbished up again that in itself it must be essentially tâ—â—â—ame the Works and Justification by them that if there be some little difference iâ—â—odalities it makes no essential Change than is in a Man that wears one coloured Suit of Cloaths one day and another on another Day I argue That Covenant that bestows the Grace of the Promise without a previous Condition is not a new Law but the Covenant of Grace bestows the Grace of it without previous Conditions performed by us Therefore it bestows eternal Life unconditionally ergo for it bestows the first Grace according to yours unconditionally which is Eternal Life Joh. 17.3 Arg. 5. If there be no need of a New Law God is so wise he will not make a New Law if there be no need of it or use for it then the Gospel is no New Law But there 's no need or use of a New Law Minor There 's no need or use for it neither in respect of Law or Gospel Dispensation of Justice or of Grace 1. There is no need or use in respect of Law or Justice because the old Law is a sufficient Rule for distributive and commutative Justice it condemns every Transgression and Disobedience eternally it hath provided Curse and Condemnation enough for the greatest and most aggravated Sin for unbelief in the least and highest degree and so for Impenitency All the World is guilty by this Law God rules the World by it and will judge it by it there 's not the least or greatest Duty but is here commanded which is or shall be the Will of God not only in way of moral Duty but in all Matters of instituted Worship under the Old and New Testament Lastly in respect of Justification and Reward if God had intended to have given Life as a Reward of the Works of any Law he could as easily have done it by the Old Law and sure would never have made a new one to have done it by 2. There is no need of a new Law in regard of the Dispensation of the Grace of the Gospel Because what the Gospel doth its in way of delivery of Man from the Curse of the Law that they lye already under and here there is no need of Law because it s done all in a way of free Grace Pardon of a condemned Prisoner must come meerly from the good will of the Prince its inconsistent with his Prerogative to be bound to it by a Law therefore God reserves this Prerogative he will have Mercy on whom he will have Mercy And its needless in respect of the condemned pâ—rson because there 's need of nothing but a free Offâ—r of Grace and Mercy to a condemned Prisoner if he refuses it its at his own peril it s his choosing but to remain in statu quo under the Law that he was condemned by and to be executed according to it You 'll say there 's need of a new Law in respect of new Obedience A. I say no for God's Law is still perfect in respect of the Rule of Obedience 2. The Gospel requires no other Obedience materially than what the Law required 3. The Gospel makes provision in the dispensation of free Grace for all Obedience the Law requires for the perfection of it in Christ for our Conformity to it through its Promise teaching and new creating and writing that Law anew in our Hearts which the Fall had blotted out Well to conclude this Argument the Apostle expressly saith Rom. 3.21 Now without Law 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Righteousness of God is made manifest being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets i. e. by the whole Old Testament as the Jews were wont to divide it and therefore saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. for Distinction from Law in the Sense that he took it in when he saith without Law new Obedience is obedience to the Law from a new Life Pâ—inciples Strength and for new Ends. Arg. 6. That which is inconsistent with the Grace of God in the Gospel is not to be admitted but that the Gospel should be a Law with Sanction is inconsistent with the Grace of God in the Gospel Ergo The Minor is easily made manifest 1. From the Nature of a Law that 's to enforce's Obedience where a thing is freely given it s expected it should be freely received and not enforced 2. It s inconsistent with shewing Mercy to poor lame blind Cripples to offer them Relief upon unperformable Conditions Yea it s also an abuse of Justice to make a Law That lame Men should walk before their Limbs be restored I pray did Christ heal the Diseased restore the Lunaticks raise the Dead cast out Devils by a Law 3. If it be consistent with the Grace of the Gospel to act by a Law in saving Sinners it must be before Regeneration or after not before for then they will come under no Law they are out in Rebellion against all Law nay they are already in the Custody of the Law and therefore not capable of coming under the Terms of another 2. Their Salvation must lye in Delivery of them from the Custody and Curse of that they are under which cannot be by making Terms with them but with the Law offended that detains them therefore it must be mere Grace without a Law that must open the Prison Doors to them 3. You say the first Grace is absolutely and freely given therefore the Sinner can come under no terms of Law in order to the bringing him into a state of Grace for terms of a Law laid upon any supposeth a Power and Ability in them to perform the said terms if they will and that they can both will and do if they will It is not a new Law after Regeneracy for then Grace begun would cease to be free Grace afterward Christ is not only the Author but the Finisher of our Faith and Obedience our perseverance and standing in Grace would not be so secure as its beginning the Grace of the Covenant would not be homogeneous one part would be free and absolute the oâ—her conditional and upon Terms but the Operation of the Spirit and Promises of after-grace they are all of the same nature from first to last as God begins so he perfects and compleats the new Man he works all our Works in us all-a-long in the same way and manner as they are begun Arg. 7. If the Gospel be a new Law it was made as soon as the old Law was broken And as new as it is it must be that Law by which the Patriarchs antidiluvian and postdiluvians were saved This consequence I suppose cannot be denied because we are saved even as they and the Gospel was preached unto them But there was no such new Law from Adam to Paul's time 1. The Gospel was not delivered to our first Parents in the terms of a Law but absolutely so to Abraham The Apostle is
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
And that Faith justifies as Righteousness itself for saith the same Author Our Father Abraham was praised by reason of his Faith for it 's said Gen. 15. He believed God and it was accounted to him for Righteousness And that this Doctrin was that which Paul contendeth with the judaizing Christians about and the false Teachers among them I doubt not in the least and am very apt to believe that it was these Neonomians that laid that Charge upon Paul's Doctrin that it was a Doctrin of Licentiousness and made so great a Cry against it for Antinomianism or as being destructive to the Righteousness of the Law and Obedience thereunto Philip a Presbyter and Hearer of Hierom on Job 42. tells of a Heretick then living that held this Opinion That the Gospel was a Law Christop Pelarg. The next I find it charged upon is Pelagius as one of h s grand Heresies And from the Pelagians saith Dr. Leydecker the Papists have taken up this Principle The Council of Trent Anath 20. Cuâ—se all that say the Gospel is a Promise without condition of observing the Commands And Anath 21. They Curse those that say Christ is given for a Redeemer and not a Law-maker And Anath 26. They Curse them that say The just ought not to expect a Reward for their Works Peter a Soto tells us the Catholick Church doth hold That Christ gave a new Law The same saith S. De Clara. It is generally hâ—ld by all the Jesuits Bellarmin in his Controv. de Justif contends That the Gospel as such is a Law and that it contains proper â—aws with Threats and Promises and requires Obedience as the Condition of Life and of the accomplishments of Promises which are so conditionated and that Merits cannot be otherwise defended which the Papacy holds Gregory de Valâ—ntia tells us They reject the usual distinction of Law and Gospel viz. That the Law Promises are conditional the Gospel Promises free and absolute Tom. 2. Controv. Disput 7. Q 6. Le calls it a Fiction Mr. Fox in Act. Mon. Impr. 7. p. 34. vol. 1. gives this following Account of the Papist's Opinion in this Point They say Moses was a giver of the old Law Christ of the new Thus imagine they the Gospel to be nothing else but a new Law given by Christ binding to the Promises the Conditions of our doings and deservings no otherwise than to the old Law and so divide they the whole Law into three parts the Law of Nature the Law of Moses and the Law of Christ to the fulfilling whereof they attribute Justification And thus they lead the Consciences of Men in doubt and induce many Errors bringing the People into a false opinion of Christ as tho' he were not a Remedy against the Law but came as another Moses to give a new Law to the World Dr. Barns who suffered Martyrdom in Henry VIII.'s time An. Dom. 1541. vigourously opposed the Popish Bishops in this Point as appears by his excellent Treatise of Justification In defending Justification by Faith alone according to the true meaning of the Apostle Paul hath these Passages It were but lost labour for Paul to prove that Works did help to Justification for that the Jews did grant and required no mâ—re but that which they stood upon was that Works might not be clearly excluded But here peradventure it will be said that Paul condemns the Works of the old Law but not of the new Law Are you now satisfied in your Consciences Think you that you have now assoyled Paul's Argument Think you to be thus discharged before God Go boldly to the Judgment of God with this Evasion and doubt not but then you shall find St. Paul stiflly and strongly against you and your new Works as ever he was against the Jews and their old Works Briefly what Works can you excogitate to do which be not in the old Law and of the old Law Therefore he speaks of all manner of Works for the Law includeth all Works that ever God instituted the highest best and most of Perfection what Works in the new Law have you better than those of the old Law â— But grant that there be certain Works of the new Law which be not of the old yet have you not nor can prove that these shall justify for there can be no more goodness in Works than were in the Works of the old Law for they were to Gods Honour and the Profit of the Neighbour and yet you grant they cannot justify St. Paul disputâ—s against them that were Christned and had Works of the old Law and of the new yet concludes that Christ alone justified Mark his Argument If Righteousness cometh by the Law then is Christ dead in vain c. where he proceeds to enervate this Doctrin of Neomianism From the Papists the Socinians took up this Doctrin as Dr. Leidaker shews styling them Our new Pelagians They do indeed saith he exclude Ceremonial Works and Works of the Jews who oppose the Gospel but when they may seem to differ from the Roman Catholicks in the Doctrin of Merit they answer Socin saith Paul treats concerning perfect Works of that Law and seeing none can be justified by them the Law requiring perfect Obedience therefore the Apostle saith We are justified by faith and obedience so far as a man is able to perform them That Paul excludes Works of the Law not interrupted by Sin i. e. perfect persevering Works or merits not those that are performed according to the mild Law of the Gospel And he takes notice how Dr. P. Barrow a Divinity Professor in England was among the first of ours that deserted the true Doctrin and an assertor of this Doctrin That the Gospel is a new Law shewing that no Man was ever justified by a perfect observance of the Law but by that Observation which depends upon Mercy and includes pardon of Sin the regenerate do perform that Law in his Treatise de pâ—aestantia legis c. 13. This Dr. Barrow the Arminians when they began to spring up highly applauded saith Dr. Leidaker His Words are Similes habent labra lactucas He says they changed the very Decalogue into a Covenant of Grace confounding it with the Gospel asserting a Covenant of Works saying That notwithstanding the giving Christ God might have set up again a Covenant of Works but he would not because of the weakness of the Flesh Therefore in the room of the rigid Covenant of Works he substituted a milder Covenant mixed with goodness and grace in which Faith with imperfect Obedience to the Law might be accepted for perfect Righteousness unto Life These Doctrins Arminians began to vent but Episcopius taught them openly whom Curcellius also followed as his Master and more lately Dr. Limburgius who asserts That the Scripture no where teacheth Christ's Righteousness is imputed to us and saith This Error so he calls the Doctrin of the imputation of Christ's Righteousness ariseth from a false Opinion That
Christ gave full Satisfaction to vindicative Justice for all the Sins of the Elect and bore their Punishment in their stead and fulfilled the Law for them That the Gospel contains no Precepts but in respect of the Elect are meer Promises c. Which Doctrin of Limbergius are saith the said learned Author tantum non Sociniana He sheweth how this Man excludes all Works from Justification but only the Works of the new Law He shews how the Remonstrants the Dutch Arminians took up with this Doctrin how it prevailed in France which after the endeavours of Meliterius and Corducus Camero's triplex foedus gave the greatest occasion to which Cocceius and his followers opposed And lastly shews how it hath prevailed in England in opposition to which the Labours of Dr. Owen in his Treatise of Justification and of Mr. Troughton in his Lutherus redivivus is highly commended by him From all which it doth appear That this is no new Error but an old ones ever since Christ's and the Apostles times and hath been a leading Principle to all Doctrins contrary to the free Justification of a Sinner by the Righteousness of Christ alone apprehended by Faith And the foundation of the Doctrin of Free-will and the natural Power and Ability of fallen Man to do good Works that are pleasing unto God and in some way or other in part or in whole rewardable He that will see a full account of this Doctrin from tho Positions of the Jesuites and a câ—ear Refutation thereof and all their Arguments they bring for it even more than you do let him read the learned Dr. Christopher Pelargus loco xii de Evangelio in his Jesuitismus printed Ann. Dâ—m 1608. Divers Passages in your Reply and its Preface wherein you lie open I have omitted remarking upon 1. For brevity sake 2. Such as concern others I leave to them 3. As to all material Points in difference you 'l see my mind elsewhere I shall only note how weak and absurd the Reason is you give for your desiring the Testimony of so many to your Book viz. Because the People do often value Names more than Arguments Q. D. The People must be lead by an Implicit Faith as in days past Populus vult decipi ergo decipiatur Can Protestants think this Reason is for their Honour and Safety But I spare you and do assure you my Design hath not been for Contention in contending for what I have thought to be the Truth but my cordial Desire is that all may issue in the Unity of the Spirit of Truth and Peace and what collateral Expressions have fallen from my Pen from first to last that are justly disrelished by you or any other that feareth the Lord ascribe it to human Frailty which I am lyable to and usually may be seen in Contests of this Nature how just soever they be Excuse my plainness of Speech throughout and allow something to every Man 's natural Temper and Disposition Sir I am willing to be notwithstanding all that hath passed Your faithful Friend and Brother in the Lord J. C. BOOKS Printed for Henry Barnard at the Sign of the Bible in the Poultry EXamen Confectionis Pacificae Or a friendly Examination of the Pacifick Paper chiefly concerning the consistency of Absolute Election of particular Persons with the Universality of Redemption and the Conditionality of the Covenant of Grace Wherein also the New Scheme is clearly declared By Isaac Chancy M. A. The old Man's Legacy to his Daughters Wherein the hidden Mysteries of Faith and Experience are briefly discussed and laid down in a plain and familiar Dialogue in six several Conferences betwix the Author's two Daughters Elizabeth and Margaret To which is added Some Choice Discoveries of the Author 's most excellent Experiences in two Parts Written by N. T. deceased when near Ninety Years of Age for the private Use of his Daughters aforesaid and now made publick at the request of many by an Admirer of Grace and Truth The Banquetting-house or a Feast of Fat Things A Divine Poem opening many Sacred Scripture Mysteries profitable for all who would attain to the Saving Knowledg of God and of Jesus Christ Written by Benjamin Keach Author of War with the Devil Chirurgus Marinus Or the Sea-Chirurgion being Instructions to Junior Chirurgick Practitioners who design to serve at Sea in this Employ In two general Parts The first Part contains necessary Directions how the Chirurgion should furnish himself with Medicines Instruments and Necessaries fit for that Office together with a Medicinal Catalogue and an exemplary Invoyce The second Part contains the Chirurgions Practice at Sea both Chirurgical and Physical which practical Part serves as well at Land as at Sea By John Moyle Sen. The third and last part of Neonomianism Unmask'd in answer to Mr. Dan. VVilliams's first Book Is now in the Press and in a few Days will be published