Reprover should know it is in regard of such that this difference is to be holden It is true then the Penitent Jew had the Promise to trust to as well as we but yet he was still under the Law and not we and the Law it self did engender to bondage as in the Scripture before quoted He had the Promise as well as we but he could not look unto it as well as we he had a vail over him as we have not that he could not stedfastly look unto the end of that which was abolished This is most apparent that the Jews were in the dark as to their understanding of the covenant and Christ that End after another manner than we are and the more they were in the dark the more must they be in doubts and fears and upon this foundation is this difference built ordinarily I suppose by the Understanding Nevertheless there is yet this one thing or two farther that under the Law there was recourse to be had still unto their Sacrifices which were remembrances of sin I said before and consequently of terrour and bondage seeing if they failed they had reason of fear in regard of temporal punishments as much more then we as they had to expect temporal blessings more then we upon their obedience upon the account they were under a peculiar temral covenant Adde hereunto These temporal things under that covenant were resemblances patterns and in some sence portendments of future To what end then served the Law says the Apostle as you may likewise adjoyn from this supposition It was added because of Transgressions The Law entred that the offence might abound Again By the Law comes the knowledg of sin and though sin was in the world before men were not apt to impute it to themselves without a Law The Law then was for the brideling the Jews from sin and through the conviction of sin upon the Conscience and that temporal death they saw due to them in the Beasts that were slain in their behalfs they might be driven in the sence of their spiritual estates to the remedying Law of Mercy upon Repentance which is the substance of the Promise which God had given to their Fore-Fathers and has established in the Gospel For Christ was the end of the Law for Righteousness and the Law was a Schoolmaster says the Apostle to drive us to Christ Of the Law and Gospel FOR this Theam I shall have need to speak the less in regard of what hath been said already That which I have to offer I shall serve in by way of striking light at a passage or two in a Book which hath been intended in the Chapter before but not named I am sensible how many there are who being taken with the Preaching of free grace are too apt to disrellish other Preachers who press more unto Duty and I think that Writer does not therefore spend his pains without good cause about the consistency of good works with the Gospel and Justification It is objected against such Divines that they are but Legal Preachers and that they impeach the grace of God by putting men so much on Doing To the one his Answer is They Preach not the Works of Moses Law but the Works Christ enjoyns To the other he tells us The Law and Gospel both put us upon doing but not the same thing nor with the same disposition which he explains The Gospel gives better rules of life and power to do according to them with a more willing and chearful mind than the Law did I will here under favour of this ingenious person use a few words For the first I look not on this Answer so jejunely as if the meaning of the Authour was only that they preach not the Ceremonial Law for who need be inform'd of that or that the ceremonial Law does no longer oblige But supposing the Moral Law it self coming under a double consideration to wit as delivered by Moses and as it is in the hand of Christ it is this indeed which is worth his enquiry how the dutyes of the ten Commandements or those good works which we as well as the Jews are bound to perform are obligatory in the one respect and not in the other Now should he have used these words as some of our Divines do and by the distinction intend only we are not obliged to good works in the point of Justification but out of gratitude to our Redeemer or to that purpose he must run streight into that premunire which he strives to avoid to wit of Justification by Faith only If he stick upon this that the Law as it was in the hand of Moses was given for a temporal covenant and not so as it is in the hand of Christ I do not see what that does signify to the objection This is that therefore which is to be said and to be conceived therefore what he intends By the works of the Law understand we that exact obedience which is required unto living by the Law Do this and live By the works Christ enjoyns let us understand that sincerity only in our obedience which God requires unto our living by Faith or accepts though imperfect through Christ Good works are not exacted now of any in the first sence but good works are required of all in the second That Preacher that should Preach obedience to the decalogue as necessary to life in the former sence were a legal Preacher indeed but that Preacher that preaches obedience and good works in the second sence is but a Preacher of the Gospel and may not preach otherwise as he tenders his Hearers Salvation And behold one came to Christ and said what shall I do that I may inherit Eternal Life And he said to him if thou wilt enter into life keep the Commandements The Commandements then I say may be considered as the matter of the covenant of works or our Legal Righteousness or as the matter of the covenant of grace or our Evangelical Righteousness In the former sence if any man could perform them he should merit Eternal Life and be sure to have it but there is no man can keep them as they are so required In the latter sence there is no man but must keep them as to the prevalent interest of his will which constitutes integrity and does that ever was and is finally justified and saved For the second we have two or three things to be touched In the first place I do not believe craving that Gentlemans pardon that the Gospel gives any better or any other rules of life than what are contained in the Law It is true that Christ hath instituted other Sacraments but it is the Moral Law we call the rule of life and that Christ came not to bring us the Systeme of any new Law but to explain aad establish the Law Moral which the Jews I count and Gentiles both ever had the one by the light of Nature the other by Revelation also
to the Sripture but if he be a Heathen and acts herein but fully up to his light I dare not deny the same of him And indeed what is that pure love of God out of which you will say alone a man must act If you love me says Christ who knows best keep my Commandements The love of God and keeping his Commandments are the same The commands of God are to be kept that we may inherit Eternal Life Christ tells the Ruler in the Gospel express I have noted before and consequently we may love God to that end If man could do any good to God by his duties or any hurt by his sins then should I believe there was some other end of our duty than man's Salvation You may say this appears selfish or self-love only I answer that that man then who does but love himself so as to seek the Salvation of his Soul above his flesh this world and any thing therein is the man he should be in the sight of God If you stick at it consider what is Salvation A loving God a delighting in him a conformity to him I love God in keeping his Commandements in this life that I may be conformed to him and have complacency in him to all Eternity I will adde our Orthodox Divines say not and are not to be so understood that good works may not be done with respect to the reward but with respect to the reward as due to them ex condigno For to expect that God should accept of what we do in bearing with our failings and rewarding us out of Grace when we walk sincerely before him is but to act our Faith on or putting our trust in his declared goodness Christs Merits and the promises of the Gospel The other Apprehension is that a Christian must not live on his own Purse or Earnings A pretty sound of somthing which as I suppose does signify that which other Divines intend by Resting in Dutys There is therefore a resting in Duty I may say and a resting on God in Duty I doubt not but a Christian is to trust to God for whatsoever he seeks of him upon the performance of his duty when it were but presumption to do so without that performance It is true that no man by any thing he can do seeing when he hath done all he is but an unprofitable Servant can deserve or merit any thing from God's hand and much less his saving Grace which is most free so as it may be properly said to be earned as wages is due unto work or to make his blessings of debt yet is a Christian by his prayers and the like duty said to get or obtain from God whasoever he hath from him and as a man does live on his Estate which he gets so may a Christian be said to live his spiritual life upon the riches of God's grace which he gets by his duty The want of trusting to duty therefore in a right sense is indeed I doubt me more reprovable in our Protestants ordinarily than their resting in duty And I am seriously troubled very often at what I have observed in some of our special practical Divines about this point of resting in duties I will particularly name Mr. Shepheards sincere Convert which is enough to bring any man Religiously melancholly for the more pious his Soul is in the case the more liable it must be to such stroaks into desperation I will therefore say thus much in zeal against that danger Let a man be but careful of two things about resting in duty and trouble himself henceforth no more but about the doing of it The first is Let him take heed of making any duty a pillow to lay his head on to rest in sin Thus it is dangerous indeed to rest in duty and this may be either when a man thinks he may sin and go on in it because he Prays gives Almes or the like as if that would bear him out Or chiefly when a man shall sit down short of sincere Conversion by doing of some duty that is by taking up in leaving some sins and doing many things he did not before he shall content himself and not come up to that universal unreserved giving up himself to Christ as is required of him to that sincerity of life which is the condition of Salvation This is the most deadly dangerous resting in duty that I will admonish every Soul of And then for the second I will say only Let him be a Protestant which I count he is and I doubt not but his opinion alone against merit and that he is justified through Christ will secure him for the rest of this business Provided though he remembers still that humility and the like qualification of Soul when he hath done all he can do is also his duty And now after I have spoken of these Heads if any be otherwise minded in whatsoever I have hitherto said and are resolved to keep to that only which they count the soundest Calvinisme in them all I will be so candid as to lay down their doctrin for them to the best advantage God hath Elected some to Salvation Christ dyed only for them That which he hath Purchased by his Death is not only the benefit conditionally but Faith it self the condition Faith is the perswasion of a man that Christ hath died particularly for him and so his sins are forgiven This perswasion or apprehension of Christ makes Christ ones own and so justifies instrumentally without works either Legal or Evangelical and how also to serve this turn I have set down in my paper of Justification page 15. No man can be ever in good earnest thus perswaded but the Elect for whom alone this Faith is purchased When a Minister then declares the Gospel and requires of all in God's name to Believe to wit to believe particularly that Christ hath dyed for their sins as knowing not for his part who the Elect by name be there is no fear of hurt unto any seeing no person on earth shall be able to be perswaded hereof indeed that perswasion with Calvin and Luther being true Faith but the Elect only Besides as soon as this perswasion once is but wrought it does so possess the Soul with love and gratitude to the Redeemer that it constrains it to Christian duty so that unfained Conversion Self-denyal a Crucifixion with Christ to the world and the flesh and the life of God and that with perseverance to the end do follow as naturally to wit according to the new Nature as the Fig-tree brings forth Figgs or the Olive Olives without all possibility of separation from it This Doctrin if any will so concatenate the parts does seem to me to carry a kind of mysterious authority in it that I find some awe for it at my heart although really I am convinced both of the danger of it and also excepting only in the first proposition that it is untrue So far am I from despising of those against whom the spirit of that Authour in the book intimated seems so much over-sharpened when yet I do encline in my own sentiments to hang things together much rather after his fashion than theirs who would look upon me as more Evangelical in such a Determination Deo Gloria mihi Condonatio J. H. ERRATA PAge 16. l. 21. for desires read deserves p. 18. l. 7. for Clouds read Cloud
I will confess though in my judgment I am perswaded that what I have writ is the truth and it is nothing but truth that made me write it yet does my heart a little misgive me that it were better to let pious men alone to such apprehensions as they have imbibed though mingled with much darkness and some errour in such a point as this where so much of their peace and life is bound up then to offer them any unsettlement by cleerer light though I were able indeed to bring it to them I may be allowed to be sorry if I offend any body but I ought to have a care I stumble none who are good men and live godly Neither would I streighten my own soul If there be any thing more therefore in the imputation of Christs righteousness then I have expressed in that paper which I know not I doe not part with my portion in it I protest thus much but will rather renounce all upon the conviction to cleave to it That Christs righteousness does justify us from the Law and so from sin and from condemnation I do hold no less then others but that Christs righteousness does justify us by the Law is an overgrown conception It is certain that no works of man be we never so holy are able to stand before God in his disstrict judgment that is if he should deal with us according to the exact justice of the Law without shewing us any mercy which will be acknowledged by Protestants and Papists who are ready to pray both with David Enter not into judgment with thy servants O Lord for in thy sight shall no flesh living be justified If any Papist then shall think that mans righteousness is made so perfect by Christs merits or any Protestant that Christs righteousness it self is so made ours as that we are justified by the Law upon that account they are both mistaken This is the only true extreamity on both sides for it is not by the Law but by Faith by the Evangelical covenant or by Grace that we are justified We are not under the Law sayes the the Apostle but under grace It is enough for a poor sinner to have a righteousness imputed to him without works and that he is pardoned but to have a righteonsness imputed to him with works is more then we can sind to be allowed him Christs righteousness is such and to have that made ours in it self or so as that in Gods reckoning we must be as righteous as he I must needs say it is not harder perhaps to believe that the bread is turned into Christs body where we have a text for it in the Sacrament then to believe such a conceit for which we have no Scripture at all in the matter of Justification What then Do I deny Imputation No but I explain it It is by the righteousness of Christ not inherent in us our Divines will say Ordinarily but imputed to us that we are justified And what if I thus interpret this for them that is not as if we had done in his person what Christ did but by his righteousness made ours in the effects only So the very Learned Bishop Forbs expresly Hoc est Quoad effectum fructum See Considerationes modestae De justificatione l. 2. c. 2. I will use the same words as they use but I am not bound to the same construction Even as I will speak of mans insufficiency I mentioned before as other Divines do and as the Scriptures do that we can do nothing but I will keep the due interpretation I will say we can and that we cannot without loss of my liberty for I must understand it with its right measures I will say I can in confession of my sin and acknowledging God just I will say I cannot in the sense of my corruption and the imploring his grace Indeed a man can hardly consider the Doctrin of St. James never so little with that of Paul which is one part of my paper but it will lead him to the other which is to see that what our Protestants say ordinarily on this matter does need a favourable exposition It is a jejune thing I count to bring the great dispute that Paul hath with the Jewes about justification to this result only whether we are justified by Faith or the proper Work or Fruits of it It is but a little more satisfactory to bring it only to this whether it be by the observation of Moses Law For though this was the occasion of the dispute and the Apostle therefore does shew them how it was by the Promise and so by Faith that Abraham and the Jewes themselves had life and not by the Law which was but a Schoolmaster to lead them thereunto or unto Christ yet it is manifest that he advances the point higher while he tells them that by Works neither Jew nor Gemile could be justified so that by works he must mean the observation of that Law of works which was common to both and not Moses Law only and the resolution of the dispute in both Apostles comes to this as I have said that it is by the performance of the covenant of Grace and not of the ovenant of works or Law of Moses that a man is to look for life everlasting I must add Nor are they to be heard in a third place who say that the dispute between Paul and the Jewes is neither of these but whether we are justified by our own righteousness or by the righteousness of Christ and so resolve that it is not by any works which we do even Faith it self as a work but by the works Christ hath done for us that is by the obedience of his life and death only For though this be taught ordinarily by our Protestants and is coincident with the first result there is one thing I must say these Divines have not considered which I have offered them in my paper that must bring them to another understanding It is this that the Apostle does indeed stand much upon the Righteousness of God in opposition to works in the business of justification but never opposes our works to the Righteousness of Christ the Righteousness of Christ in their sense being truly a very contrary thing to the Righteousness of God in the sense of the Apostle The righteousness of God according to the A ostle if I may then describe it but as well as I can and as the thing is and a little more fully then I have in my former paper is on Gods part his taking our human frailey or falne nature into that meet consideration as not to deale with us in his district judgment which we cannot beare but according to his Covenant of Mercy the righteousness sacrifice attonement or satisfaction of Christ being supposed as the foundation upon which his Justice does stand good notwithstanding this condescention And consequently on Mans part this righteousness is our imperfect duty performed in sincerity
good works in or through Christ Jesus When God made man at first and gave him a Law it was that he should live Holy When righteousness then was the end of his Creation and the Law thereof how is this said to be the end of his Redemption I answer Righteousness or holiness as they are one we must know does lye in a conformity to the Law which God gives us There is nothing else and nothing less then this the full performance of a Law given that is Righteousness Upon this account as soon as man once fell and broke the Law of his creation it was impossible he should be righteous any more unless there were a new Law brought in in the performance whereof he might attain to that again which he had lost Now to this end was it that Christ came and died this was the very main business I count of his Redemption even the procuring this new Law or another Law with lower termes which some men performing they do thereby become righteous and so have righteousness according to that Law imputed to them for remission and life eternal Here you see what that righteousness indeed is which Christ is said to bring in and in what sense he hath brought it in or how such Texts as those before do attribute our Holiness to him The obedience of Christs life and death we know was fulfilled on earth and of this he himself hath once said It is finished But the righteousness he is said to bring in is called an Everlasting righteousness And what then can that be but the righteousness of the Gospel which upon the same account also is called the Everlasting Gospel That is because it is by this righteousness in opposition to that of the Law or the righteousness of works that all men from the beginning of the world to the end of it and so is it to be accounted ever of force do obtain everlasting Salvation I know the great difficulty of this Doctrin will lye on the point of remission Our Divines do generally place justification in the remission of Sin so do the Papists with something else and so have I my self after others Nevertheless as I remember St. Augustine in one place does find fault with this in Pelagius so hath the perplexity of it of late lead me into the like thoughts The truth is Pardon of Sin is a benefit unto which the justified person is adjudged as eternal life is but remission of Sin must not be made the formal reason of justification Our Divines may define justification to be an Act of Grace whereby God gives us Eternal Life or a right to it as well as an act of grace whereby he pardons our sins That act that very only act wherein the form of justification does lye is Gods accounting or pronouncing a man righteous and this is a forensical act according to Law the Law or Covenant of grace Which covenant promising Forgivencss and Life upon the performance of its Conditions when a man hath performed them he hath a right to those benefits and when God does declare or account that a man hath performed them which is all one as to judge him righteous these benefits flow to him from that judgment or are confer'd on him by that act as Effects of that cause and consequently cannot be the very act it self which is the cause of them To forgive a mans sin and declare him righteous are two things inconsistent one with another in the same respect and therefore when God pronounces a man just it is according to the Law of Faith and when he pardons his Sin it is in respect to the Law of works And how then can two acts incompatable but in divers respects cùm omne ens sit unum be made to enter one and the same definition It is true as all agree that there are no works that man does or can doe able to make God any amends for our offences so that remission of sin must be attributed altogether to the merits of Christ in regard to the attonement made But we must distinguish of Remission Remission is either Conditional and Universal as it lyes in the Covenant and is the purchase of Christ or Actual as it lyes in the application thereof to particular persons upon performance of the condition When Divines do say we can doe nothing our selves for procuring reconciliation and remission it is to be understood of Conditional universal remission No mortal could do any thing toward the obtaining of that God was in Christ reconciling the World unto himself not imputing their trespasses But as for remission Actual that man must be blind who sees not that God does every where require us to repent beleeve confess our faults forsake them do good works forgive others that we may have pardon and be saved Conditional pardon now is antecedent to a mans justification and contained in our redemption In whom we have redemption through his blood even the forgiveness of Sins Actual remission is subsequent to justification for we must be supposed first to have performed the condition and be pronounced righteous and then pardoned When there is no remission then but what does either goe before or follow justification it cannot be made the very act it self of our justification There is one Text may be opposed Even as David also described the blessedness of the man unto whom God imputeth Righteousness without works Saying Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven It seems that the Righteousness which Paul speaks of without works in the one verse is described by pardon in the other This I my self have alleadged but upon farther consideration I answer The man to whom God imputeth righteousness without works or the blessedness of that man is described but we may suppose not the Righteousness without works The scope of the Apostle is plainly to shew us only that it is not by works of the Law or such works as would make the reward of debt and not of grace as appeares in the immediate verses before which are perfect works that a man is justified And he proves it by this argument because the man is blessed whose sins are forgiven that is as much as to say not he who is without sin but he who hath sin and it is forgiven The man who is blessed is justified But the man who is blessed hath sin to be forgiven Therefore the righteousness which a man hath or is imputed to him is not a righteousness according to the Law of works but according to the Covenant of Grace This I say is the scope of the place Gods imputing Righteousness to a person is indeed a phrase signifying Gods accounting him righteous or justifying him and the Apostle Proves a man is justified without works that is perfect works because he hath sin to be covered I will yet repcate The man to whom righteousness is imputed without works is pardoned but it followes not that this Righteousness without works
is a truth somthing more considerable as I take it than that alone which our Divines contend for against the Sooinian in this matter In the next place when Divines make a difference between the Law and Gospel as to the power of doing that the Law commands to do but the Gospel gives power to do The Law commands the tale of Brick but gives not Straw and the like expressions I doubt not but they have some verity at the bottom which should have nakedly been laid down if he could by this Bright person For the delivery of things after others by roat without disgestion is the great fault which he finds so often in other mens Books The Law and Gospel we know are liable to a diverse acception By the Law most properly I think we are to understand that Law which is written in the heart of man by Nature in Adams and ours the copy whereof is the ten Commandements called the Moral Law and by the Gospel the Law of Christ That which he delivered and his Apostles The matter whereof in both may be considered qua faedus or qua regula to use the terms of others Qua regula the things required in the Law moral and the Gospel or Law of Christ are the same but qua faedus the Law of Nature originally requires these things in perfection to be accepted unto life and the Law of Christ requires them in sincerity only accepting them though imperfect unto life through his Mediation and Redemption This is the only difference that concerns us here between the Law and the Gospel The Law then and Gospel both being considered as the Doctrin of life how does this Author speak that the one gives power and not the other The rule shews what we are to do the power to do is not given by our being shown That which therefore is to be understood by such terms may come to this that that which the Law thus taken that is the Law of our Creation and qua faedus does require of man is not in our power to do and consequently none can attain Salvation by it but that which the Gospel requires we have power to perform and if we be not wanting to God's Grace upon the performance we shall be saved In the third place when he says the Gospel enables us to do with a more willing and chearful mind then the Law if we understand this kind of speech as those Divines do I think ordinarlly that use it in such a sence that Christ having done all our works for us that Righteousness of his which was a most perfect conformity to the Law being imputed or accepted in our behalf for life there are no good works now required of us to do but only as the testification of our thankfulness and belief of this and therefore we perform all we do with gladness joy and love altogether without bondage fear or doubt it being not in order to our Justification though we miscarry in the doing I do apprehend this Learned Man would be one of the first to dislike such Teaching Yet is there thus much here of truth also That when the Law so taken as before does give us no heart at all to do that which through the flesh as the Apostle speaks is indeed impossible to any the Gospel does give us encouragement to do upon the account that what it requires may be performed and by that performance through the assistance of God's Spirit as the condition Man is both justified and saved I know well that St. Augustine does use the like expressions and I think often but he does explain his meaning which comes to this that when the Law of works commands us what is our duty and threatens us if we do it not the Law of Faith he counts directs us to God for his assistance grace or spirit to do what he commands I do not forget neither that God hath promised his spirit and so his grace for the performance of the New Covenant and though it does not follow that if Adam had stood he should not therefore have given man his grace and spirit for performing the perfect obedience of the Old as well as to us for the performing imperfect under the New seeing that Father does speak of grace to Adam as to us and if we should ascribe the obedience he performed during his Innocency to his own strength and not to the adjutory of God's spirit altogether he would not endure it Yet if the Authour or those Divines of ours that speak as he does will chose rather to make good what they say upon the contrary assertion then can I tell how to understand with them When God made Man at first we know he endued him with original righteousness Let us suppose this righteousness alone sufficient to him for the performing the Law unto which he was made so that before the fall there was no need of that we call grace which is properly such help of the spirit as consists in the healing and relief of our falne estate to enable man to do that which he had strength to perform by nature until he did voluntarily deflect from it But when he was fallen and lost that righteousness which was his strength then are we to conceive a need streight both of a new Law to be lowerd brought down or fitted to his weakness that he may be able and also of grace that he may be made willing to perform it And thus shall there be grace the spirit and the promise of it belonging to the Covenant of our Redeemer when there was none nor need of it to belong to the covenant of our Creation However there is this I count most certain and I would have it to be noted that the spirit which is promised or given to man for his obedience to God is promised and given only in respect to this Covenant not for the performance of the Covenant of Nature for then should Adam never have falne nor we have had any need of a Redeemer It is true that there are some Divines are so much with Austin to have Adams standing supposing he had stood to be of grace that they will have mans original righteousness to be a work or habit supernatural from which when Adam fell he returned as they would teach us to his pure naturals and so his Posterity are born But this is a kind of Pelagianisme no ways to be received For what indeed should be a Creatures Nature if that be not which it receives from its Creation Besides if mans original righteousness be not lookt on as natural how shall original sin which consists in the loss of it be defined by the depravation of our nature according to the doctrin of the Church of England as well as the Catechisme of the Assembly Neither is Dr. Taylor here to be heard who cannot abide that that whatsoever he will call it which we contract from Adam without any will of our own