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
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
the Law is essentially distinct from both Put go on His Will revealed in a way of Governmâ—nt here 's the Precept that binds to Duty here 's a Promise made to them that comply and a Threatning denounced against such as rebel R. These look like Essentials of a Law of Works such was Adam's Law there was God's Will for Duty in a way of Government revealed a Promise to him if he complyed and a Threat denounced in case he did not Now then that Law which hath all the Essentials of a Covenant of Works is a Covenant of Works but your new Law by your Description hath all the Essentials of a Covenant of Works Therefore you say 2. This is a Law of Grace and it s made by our Redeemer for fallen Man R. Say you so 1. That which is made and executed in a way of Judicial Proceeding is not a Law of Grace for Grace and judicial Proceeding is diametrically opposite But you say it 's a Law in a way of Government by a Law therefore of Judicial Proceeding 2. You say it s made by our Redeemer Is it made with our Redeemer I suppose you must mean so because you say for fallen Man then Christ covenanted in our stead which you deny elsewhere and he is to perform the Conditions for us 3. You say All the Benefits of it are founded on Christ's Righteousness as the immediate Cause of them R. And where are the Duties founded in Man's Natural Power and Will No you l say in Election absolutely as to the first Grace Well then here 's the Benefits secured in Redemption absolutely I hope and the first Grace in Election Now if you can tell us where to get Security for after Graces and Perseverance we should have this whole Covenant absolutely secured Effectual Ability to perform the Duty i. e. the first Duty is provided for you say in Election But is after Duties provided for there if so election is the sole Covenant Condition for Duty and Redemption for Benefits Thus you may mangle the Grace of God Again you say God doth not fix on these Terms for any Worth in them or Profit to him R. It s true he did not fix on Adam's Terms for any Worth in them what proportion could the forbearing an Apple bear to eternal Life or what Profit would it have been to God if Adam had let the Apple hang on the Tree or persevered all his Days in Holiness Mr. W. The Gospel is the Instrument or Sign by which this Will of God is expressed this is not the Language of God in Adam's Law R. An Instrument in this Sense is a Law Deed or Conveyance engrossed or enrolled which is but a small adjunct to the Law The Scripture of the Old and New Testament are called Instruments because they are the enrollments of this Will of Christ and his Testament ratified by his Death and you say the Gospel is a Sign the Seals of the Covenant are Signs but the Covenant of Grace is not a Sign unless you mean it signifies God's Will and Pleasure in Government and so did Adam's Law and was the Language of it Mr. W. It sixeth that Rule of the Promise which Mr. C. p. 33. is at a loss to know R. And so are more than I for you say It s not the Promise nor the Precept where to find a Rule for the Promise in the Law I know not if it be not in Promise or Precept will you say its the connection of Precept and Promise if so it s the Rule rather of the Law forma perquam lex est is it God's Rule to dispense by or our Rule to claim by it may be you mean both Precepts and Promises are desparata at least therefore what your new Term is I suppose you do not know what it is yourself no more than your other new Rules of Sin which is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and misery 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Since in stead of clearing the Oustion you have confounded it I will take the true state of it from a Man that would speak his Mind more intelligeably in these Matters The Question stated Scrip. G. Justific Contr. 17. My true Sense is That the Covenant of Grace is such a Law as that the sincere Acts of Faith and Obedience and perseverance therein are the Conditions upon which eternal Life and Salvation is promised with a Penalty of eternal Death threatned upon the non-performance only I say that sincere Faith and Repentance are the moral qualifying Conditions of the Continuance of our justification and enjoyment of Heaven And this is a true Account of the Notion how yourself understands the Gospel to be a new Law as I could prove from your own Expressions even to every word here in this Account you might therefore have spared yourself and me the labour about your confused stating the Question R. Before I answer your Arguments I shall promise a few things 1. It being a great End of our Lord Jesus Christ in the Covenant of Grace to restore fallen Man and in so doing to magnifie the Law he makes full atonement for the breach of it brings in Everlasting Righteousness procures New Obedience to the perceptive part of it teacheth it by his Grace and works it by his Spirit and whereas in the Covenant of Works Obedience was the Way to and Condition of the Promise he makes the Promise the Way to and Condition of Obedience commanding no more than what he hath promised 2. When we say the Gospel is not a New Law with Sanction we deny it not to be a Testament that hath its ratification in the Death of Christ the Testator wherein also the Law of Works had its Sanction in respect of Penalty for all those that shall be saved by him as to satisfaction for their sins 3. That Rule and Government which Christ exerciseth over his Church as it comes to him by right of Redemption so that Obedience we give to him is part of that Eternal Life which he hath purchased and restored to us and both his government and our subjection thereto is of Promise and none of the least Blessings and Priviledges of the Covenant of Grace 4. As the Matter of all Precepts requiring Sanctity and Obedience of Heart and Life moral and instituted absolutely considered primarily belong to the first Law of Works and so are binding in a natural relation unto Unregenerate and Regenerate as they are the Commands of God the Creator and the least Transgression requires a Punishment due to the Breach of the whole Law So our Obedience becomes Gospel-Obedience 1. From our being restored to it in Christ the second Adam 2 In that it flows from a new Life given we must live before we can do 3. From the end of performance it 's not for Life as a Law-Reward of it but for the sake honour duty to and enjoyment of Christ and in the most grateful returns of his grace and love to us
is not this Meetness a material Cause in the Gospel Law of our receiving these Effects Why then hath it not â—he same Place in respect of the new Law as Christ's Righteousness hath in repect of the old Law so that there must be at least two Righteousnesses requisite to our compleat Justification one Righteousness to answer the Old Law and another to answer the New And indeed here Christ's Righteousness is made by you most properly the subordinate Righteousness because it is in ordine ad it 's only in order to anâ—ther Righteousness In the most favouraâ—le Sense you make the Righteousness of Christ to merit ex condigno and Evangâ—lical to merit ex congruo for all Law Meetness is meriting either in respect of the reâ—unerative or minatory part of the Law All that you say over and over helps not nor covers you from those that know your Dialect nor your saying That Christ is the foundation of your Plea I may found a Plea or Argument upon a thing that is not my Plea or at least my chief Plea and how do you found it Why for the sake of Christ accepted against excluding bars you say whereby you have Permission now to come in with your Evangelical Righteousness You speak here just as in your other Book to this Point and I understand you still as I did then and you know you mean as I have represented your Meaning but you would not have the People understand what you mean and therefore you throw in an abundance of Expressions thereby to hide your Opinion but instead thereof they lay it open What is more plain than this Repl. p. 3. The Terms of the Gospel by the Promise do make us capable of being justified and saved for the Merits of Christ Now here 's your true sense of being forgiven for the Merits of Christ i. e. when we are made capable by the righteous Meetness of another Law we shall be absolved in the old Law sense by the righteousness of Christ And mark that all along its forgiveness only comes from Christ's Merits there 's no positive righteousness of Christ in active Obedience is reckoned to us this positive righteousness whereby we stand just in the Eye of the Law in your sense lies wholy in Conformity to the Rule of that Promise which is the new Law righteousness And you use the word Merits still in the way of procuration not satisfaction You say we are justified only by Christ's Merits as the sole procuring cause or righteousness for which we are justified to which you should add that the Reader might take your full sense by the righteousness of the Gospel Law That which you call the fifth Misrepresentation and is your fourth I am not convinced of but that my Inferences are truly drawn according to your natural sense and meaning of what your Expressions and what your Principles must bear 1. That you make the great end and use of Christ's Righteousness to secure us from the old Law Mr. B. calls it our legal Righteousness and therefore our Justification is not an immediate effect of that Righteousness but of our evangelical Righteousness 2. That he merited only that we might Merit i. e. that he procured our Justification by evangelical Righteousness you will not call it Merit call it what you will it s a Law of Meetness and a Law meetness I think gives a claim and challenge of Pardon and if we should pray in your Dialect we should pray thus Lord I am meet to be pardoned for the Righteousness of Christ 3. That you make Faith and Repentance the meritorious cause of Pardon and Glory by the new Law and that 's true for all conformity to and complyance with the conditional Preceptive part of a Law gives right a legal right to Remuneration and the benefit becomes a reward of Debt and if so the meetness is a Merit ex Pacto All these tho you say you disown yet in what you declare you say but what you said before and from whence the same Consequences will follow viz. That God requires a meetness in a Sinner for Justification and that this meetness is a federal condition 1. You say Christ satisfied Justice and merited Pardon and Glory i. e. he satisfied Justice in respect of the old Law and merited Pardon and Glory to be bestowed as Rewards of Obedience to another Law And that 2. The Sinner thus partaking of them is as Fruits of his Death and this is all done for his sake 3. You say God in Christ hath declared a way and order how he will dispense his Benefits this way is by another Law in which he acts in a way of distribution of Justice upon performance of Law conditions p. 4. And therefore you say Gospel conditions have no other use to our Interest in these Benefits than a complyance with this stated Rule of the distribution of Pardon and Glory p. 4. Adam's obedience had no other use than a compliance with the stated Rule of Gods distribution of Life promised and Pardon and Glory is no other than Life promised So that you make your Law to be every whit the same in specie with a Covenant or Law of Works the condition works out the reward of Debt but this is all the difference that Man fell under the first Covenant of Works by Creation but under the second by Redemption he was redeemed from the Curse of the old Law that he might be justified by another Law Covenant and this is your plain meaning as you say And these things you do but say over and over again in this Book as in the former And what doth this conditional Grant of these Effects import but that we should have Justification Adoption c. upon the performance of obedience to another Law Which is as much as to say Christ purchased another Law and Obedience to it must let us into Pardon by Christ This purchasing conditional Grants and Propositions is a new sort of Divinity suiting the highest degree of Arminian Doctrin and will strike at the nature of absolute Election which gives ground of suspecting you also in that Point as well as what you say of the savability of the none Elect tho' I acknowledge you often assert absolute Election but how well that Principle will comport with indefinite Redemption upon a conditional Grant let the rational judge You go on again and say as from Chap. 10. Pag. 84. of your first Book When Sinners are pardoned the whole meritorious cause of that Pardon is that attonement and what is required of Sinners is only a meetness to receive the Effects You need quote no more to give us an account of what you mean in these things if the Reader desires to be further confirmed in the truth of my representation of your Principles let him read pag. 4 5. of your Reply You quote Passages in p. 30 31. of my Book for the first Head from whence you say I endeavour to
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-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
Pound to a Man that lies with broken Arms and Legs in the bottom of a deep Well provided he will come and fetch it especially when he knows no Body can set his Limbs and help him out And how oft do you say the first Grace is ablolute And to say the same thing is absolute in the power of another and make it a condition by Law with Sanction unto me is the greatest absurdity in the World And I tell you that if a rich Man offers a hundred Pound to a poor Man Lame and Blind and in Prison and the King makes a Law he should come and fetch it or else be hang'd it would cease to be a Free-gift Arg. 2. That which is a Law with Sanction curseth every one under that Law with an irretrievable Curse upon the first Transgression of the said Law but the Gospel doth not bind any one under a Curse irretrievable by the Gospel upon the first Sin or many Sins committed against the Grace of it therefore the Gospel is not a Law with Sanction The Major is very manifest That there 's no Law pardons a Transgression of itself It is a universal Maxim concerning not only the Law of Creation but of all Laws Gal. 3.10 â—rom Deut. 27.26 the Apostle saith He that is under Law is under a Curse provided he doth noâ— all things that are written in the Book of the said Law that he is under therefore first he saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the second place 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Suppose you speak of your New Law the Condition whereof you make Faith and sincere Obedience lowered Conditions and imperfect Obedience And these are the all things contained in the Book of this Law then immediately upon the Publishing and Promulgation thereof all Unbelievers are irretrievably condemned by that Law The Wages due by that Law to every Unbeliever upon his first unbelief is Death And the said Law cannot relieve him because he hath not done whatever was writ in the Book of this Law its true one Law may relieve us in respect of another in some sense at least as to the Curse of it but no Law relieves from its own Curse therefore if the new Law curseth Unbelief it curseth the Unbelievâ— irrâ—treivably upon the first Act of Sin in that kind The Minor is plain because the Gospel do 〈◊〉 relievâ— from thâ— Curse that lies upon Men for Unbelief being in its proper Natu â—a Transgâ—â—â—sion of and Disobedience to the first Law there 's no Sin or Curse but th â—ospâ—l gives â—â—eâ—â—f though aggravated by the rejection of a Remedy all Laws with Sâ—â—ctâ—on give the due Recompence constituted by that Law to the Transgressor of it in â—ny one Point therefore sin is always in respect of that Law against which it is unpardonâ—ble for therein the nature of that Sin is adjusted and the Punishment that is made due to it Hence therefore if the Gospel be a Law with Sanction every one that appears upon Tryal to have transgressed it after its Promulgation less or mâ—re is under the Curse of it and that Person which any Law hath once cursed it can never bless therefore this Position puts thousands under a most certain hopeless and helpless Condition by the Gospel Arg. 3. That which is a Law with Sanction if it contain a Promise of Benefits upon Obedience is a Covenant of Works for upâ—n the same Grounds that the Punishment is the Wages due in case of disobedience Upon the same is the Benefit due in case of Obedience the same Law makeâ— one a Dâ—bt as well as the other for whatever is of Law is of Debt either upon the account of Sin or of Righteousness the Law was the same upon both accounts to Adam Life had been a Reward and Wages due as well as Death Therefore the Apostle argues so strenuously against all kind of Works Rom. 4.4 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to him that worketh there 's a Reward not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not of Grace buâ— of Dâ—bt and he excepteth not him that worketh according to the new but to him that worketh whether according to the Old or New Law the Reward to him that worketh by any Law is Debt by the said Law Arg. 4. If the Gospel be a Law it s either the same Law with tâ—e Law of Nature or a distinct Law from it But it s neither the same Law nor a distiâ—ct Law from it therefore no Law with Sanction The Necessity of the Consequence in the disjunction cannot be doubted by any Man of Reason The Minor is thus demonstrated 1. It s not the same Law with the Law of Nature this you will not say because you call it a New Law And if it be the same Law then you have no Pretence to evade all the Consequences that will be dâ—awn upon you from the Doctrine and Arguments of the Apostle Paul therefore I doubt not but I am secure of you as to this part of the Dilemma Therefore I come to the second That which must be essentially the same Law with the Old Law is not a distinct Law from it but your New Law must be essentially the same with the Old Law therefore is not distinct from it Your new Law can have no Essentials distinct from tâ—e Old Law for if it have the same Essentials its the same the same Matter and Form and the same integral Parts wherein they consist The parts of a Law are Condition and Promise in case of Obedience and Threat in case of Disobedience the connexion of these makes the Form all this you 'll allow Hence there 's the same Law-Nature in one as in the other and therefore it s a Law in the same way and manner and a Man under it must be dealt with in a Law way and manner Obedience to God was commanded there and so here Disobedience to God forbidden there and so here Life promised there upon Obedience and Death threatned there upon Disobedience and so here And what Obedience is there which is not commanded in the Old Law And what Disobedience that is not forbidden there But you will say the Old Law commanded perfect Obedience and the new imperfect A. The New Law would not certainly command what the Old Law forbad but the Old Law forbad all Imperfection in Obedience and cursed it 2. Whatever the degree of Obedience is that any Law requires its perfect in regard of that Law that requires it 3. It should be strange if God should make that which is imperfect sinful condemned Obedience by one Law to be perfect Obedience and justifying by a New and so set Law against Law Lastly as to the Promise it s the same for it was everlasting Life both in the old Covenant and the new the manner of having it by Works or by Grace alters not the nature of the thing itself A House in itself is the same whether I purchase it or it be given From all which I
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-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-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
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
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 〈…〉
and insufficient Saviour and spoiling the Elect of Salvation 3. Denying â—he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ation of Christ's Obedience unto Justification contraâ—y to Rom. 5.19 Phil. 3.11 thereby â—aviâ—g aâ—l that are ungodly under an impossibility of being justified 2. Destroying the very being of a Sinnâ—r'â— Riâ—htâ—â—â—â—nâ—â—â— by taking away the Oâ—ediencâ— of Christ unto the Law and Imputation which are the Matter and Form i. e. the esse tial Caâ—ses of Justification 3. Placing a Sinner's Righteousnâ—ss 〈…〉 Atonement or Pardon of Siâ— such as in effect doth man fâ—stly not only dâ—ny itself to â—e the effect of it 〈◊〉 â—enieth yea defieth the very bâ—ing of the Mâ—dâ—ator by Obdience of Christ tâ— the Law for 〈◊〉 Thâ— firâ—t holdeth uâ— in aâ—l oâ—r Siâ—â— and câ—ntiâ—ueth the 〈◊〉 Wrath of God abiding upon â—s The 〈…〉 away your Saviour The â—hir â— takes away our R 〈◊〉 and Just ficatâ—on W at 〈◊〉 the â—nâ—â—y of Jâ—sus Grace and Souls 〈◊〉 morâ— And I am sure thi◠〈◊〉 spâ—akâ— as 〈◊〉 â—oly â—f these Doâ—tâ—inâ—â— which he oâ—poseth aâ— you 〈◊〉 yoâ— and more c. unto whom he did from all eternity give a People to be his Seed and to be by him in Time redeemed called Justified Sanctified Glorified In the same manner they speak in the Larg Catech. Q. 30 31 32. as above rehearsed And in the short Q. 18. man's sinfulness consists in the guilt of Adam's first Sin In the 39th Page of your Book you pretend to some Answers to what I affirm in some things As that I deny the Covenant of Redemption to be a distinct Covenant from the Covenant of Grace I own it and make good my denial elswhere therefore will not actum agere You blame me p. 40. for saying p. 29. That Pardon is not promised to Faith and Repentance as things distinct from the Promise but Pardon is promised together with Faith and Repentance to the Sinner And herein you say I confound a Promise of Grace and promises made to Grace and affirm the Gospel Covenant is but one Promise Repl. 1. I do affirm That the Promise of the Gospel in its Original Grant and Comprehensive Nature is but one as the Promise of the Covenant of Works was but one viz. Life So in the Covenant of Grace 't is Life the Spirit of God is express in it 1 Joh. 2.25 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This is the Promise which he hath promised us even eternal Life And 1 Joh. 5.11 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This is the Record or Testimony that he hath given us Eternal Life and this Life is in his Son Now Eternal Life contains all Justification Sanctification Adoption and Glory 2. I affirm that in this Promise is Justification Faith and Repentance promised 3. That in this Promise Justification Faith and Repentance are inseparably conjoyned 4. That in and under this Promise are multitudes of Gifts bestowed in a way of connexion one to another and have their particular Promises pointing distinctly to them but these Gifts are no federal Conditions one of another 5. I say If you speak of these Gifts of Righteousness and Life as in a way of conditionality 't is Christ's Righteousness is the proper federal condition of Life and Pardon is rather the Condition of Faith and Repentance than they of Pardon I say so again 1. If Giving be the Condition of Receiving 't is true but Giving is the Condition of Receiving for Faith is but the Sinner's receiving Pardon Is not the giving of Pardon then rather the Condition of Faith which is the receiving of it than Faith of Pardon Luke 1.77 Aâ—ts 10.43 So for Repentance The Cause is rather the Condition of the Effect than the Effect of the Cause but Forgiveness received by Faith is the Cause of all true Evangelical Repentance See this saving Repentance and Remission bâ—th given by one Hand of Promise Acts 5.31 preached together by Commission Luke 24 4â— How strange soever you make of this Divinity 't is built on the Rock Christ Jesus and you cannot shake it nor all the Devils in Hell You say I wretchedly mistake the Nature of the first Promise as if it excluded all Terms of our Interest in the Blessing of it Rep. I know not what the first Promise is if it be not a Blessing and if the first Promise be absolute to us as you say the first Grace is then it excludeth all Terms to be wrought by us to interest us in the Blessings of it unless you intend that a natural Man is to perform these Terms in his natural State and then the first Grace is not absolute And as for the first Promise concerning the Seed of the Woman it was absolute and saved our first Parents as such for it was all their Gospel as I know of and therefore they by it had Remission Faith and Repentance without bringing the two last into a federal Condition For if God had intended to bring them in as such 't is most likely he would then have mentioned them as such Adam just coming out of a Covenant with federal Conditions In answer to what I say of a Legal Grant you say 't is out of my Element Be it so others may not judge it so though you do Mr. Antinomian saith a Grant may be legal two ways either by free Gift from a Person 's good Will and Pleasure and so God's giving us both Grace and Glory is legal because it gives us an undoubted unexceptionable Right And a legal Grant is a Law Covenant Grant when the Gift is bestowed upon the performance of federal Conditions as Grace and Glory is bestowed in and for Christ and his Righteousness both these Grants we have first in Election chusing us in Christ and in the eternal Compact between the Father and the Son You say what I speak of Tit. 1.2 will appear not to be eternal but before many Ages and not to exclude Gospel Conditions If Christ be our great Gospel federal Condition I say it doth not for God's Purpose and Grace was given us in Christ and were to be bestowed in and through him But who told you that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was but before many Ages 't is sure before the Times or Ages of the Woâ—ld and what can be supposed to be so but Eternity when Christ rejoyced in the Sons of Men Prov. 4. And I think I have a good Interpreter on my side Beza saith on Tit. 1.2 In his Judgment the Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cannot be referred to the first Promise made to Adam Cen. 3. much less to that of Abraham But saith he Ante tempora seculorum before the Ages of the World doth denote all series of Time or Ages i. e. before this World was according to Johâ— 17.2 c. In this Sense runs the Assembly's Notes Poole's Anot. continued What I say of the Gospel's being no Law with Sanction I shall not trouble the Reader with here but handle it in its proper Place and therefore pass by all
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