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
mean by leaving himself at liberty This you say is these Mens free Grace while they deny the Gospel Rule or Law These Taunts and Falshoods are well enough it seems in your Mouth its suitable to the rest of the Prittle Prattle in this Preface 8. You say the Question is not Whether God hath not as to us absolutely promised and covenanted with Christ that the Elect shall believe and all Men believing be pardoned and so persevere in Faith and Holiness to eternal Life which I affirm Pref. p. 5. R. Here then you allow that there is an absolute Covenant of Grace for whatever distinction you would make between the Covenant of Redemption and the Covenant of Grace there 's no Man of sense can deny that the Covenant of Redemption is a Covenant of Grace and if God hath absolutely promised to and covenanted with Christ that the Elect shall believe and be pardoned this must stand absolute to the end of the World But by your favour tho' I am for the absoluteness of the Covenant of Grace yet it was not absolute but conditional to Christ that Faith and Pardon and Perseverance as promised to Christ for the Elect were conditional and the condition was that he should make himself an Offering for Sin bear it and make full satisfaction to the Law by his Righteousness Active and Passive and make Intercession for Transgressors and therefore tho' you affirm here yet I deny But the Question is you say whether there is a Covenant which requires our true believing consent to the Terms of it to the condition of Pardon and Glory and supposeth this true consent in the actual bestowing these Benefits This Mr. C denies and I affirm Res 1. I deny that there is any more Covenants of Grace than one and say That the Covenant between the Father and the Son was that original Contract which was displayed and made manifest in the Gospel of the old and new Testament and in whatever is required in this Display is absolutely promised For if there be two Covenants wherein the same things are promised and to the same Persons the first absolute and the second conditional the one must certainly be vacated by the other For if I promise to a Person or to another for him to give him a House freely and afterward make a covenant Bargain with him that he must pay me 20 l. or 20 s. per annum the first Covenant is vacated or if I am bound to stand to my first Promise the second Agreement falls to the Ground 2. Likewise observe what you affirm That God hath made Terms as a Condition i. e federal of Pardon and Glory So that here is brought in a Covenant of Works to intervene betwixt the absolute Covenant and bestowing the Benefits absolutely at first promised Now Men may see plainly what you mean when you talk so much of Pardon for and by Jesus Christ this Pardon is one of the Benefits bestowed in your new Law judicially by way of remuneration to the performance of the Terms of Duty required 9. It is not whether Faith be the only Grace by which we receive and rest on Christ for Justification and that it is Christ received by Faith doth justifie which is the sense of the Protestants when they say we are justified by Faith alone this I affirm R. Yes you do in your sense i. e. That Christ justifies here as much as is needful as to legal Righteousness but there is another Righteousness viz. Evangelical that puts in for a snack viz. that of the new Law And you do much misrepresent the Protestants for they say Christ's Righteousness is all our Righteousness of one kind and another that we are justified by a Righteousness without us and not by any within us any Act or qualification whatever But the Papists say with you the Council of Trent doth anathematize Those that say a Man is justified without the Merit of Christ by which Christ did merit for us or is formally just by that Anath 10. And they curse also any one that saith that he is justified only by the Imputation of the Righteousness of Christ or only by Remission of Sins without inherent Grace Anath 11. But let 's have the Query then It is you say Whether he that can truly believe to Justification must be in part a convinced penitent humbled Sinner and this you affirm and say I deny R. You should have told the Place and my Words It s possible I may deny it in your sense and I will prove how that you must deny it in my sense i. e. that legal Convictions and Humiliations are no federal conditions of Faith for you say That the first Grace is absolutely given and if so there 's no federal conditions of it Why do you not bring in hearing the Word as a federal condition of Faith for it comes by Hearing Why do you not bring in a Mans having his Senses and Understanding and many more things And now you talk of Humblings let me mind you what you say Page 15. You tell us of the Sum of the Popish Principles our Divines oppose 1. They think that by Attrition or a selfish legal fear of Punishment Men do ex congruo or meetness merit Charity and Faith which be the beginning of Sanctification and that this begun Sanctification is all our first Justification 1. What do you say less than they setting aside the word Merit and they say as to that de congruo its scarcely so Nay some are against Meritum de congruo as being any Merit but only a disposition and meetness of the Subject such as you would have and we may put their Attrition to your Humblings as a meetness for Faith See what the Council of Trent saith Can. 8. When Paul saith a Man is justified by Faith and gratis it is to be understood because Faith is the beginning and the things that precede Justification are not meritorious of Grace See now how you abuse the Papists Nay I 'l tell you more for I would give the Devil his due you abuse the Papists in charging them for making this begun Sanctification all their Justification The words of the 7th Canon of the Council of Trent are That Justification followeth Preparation which is not only remission of Sins but Sanctification And therefore they make not only Sanctification begun to be our first Justification And in the 10th Anathema they curse them that say A Man is justified without the Righteousness by which Christ did merit for us Now I think you ought to ask the Papists forgiveness for slandering of them Rhemists on Rom. 2.3 they grant That the beginning of our Justification which they call the first is meerly of Grace neither can we do acceptable Works before we be justified but in the second Justification which is the encrease of former Justice a Man may merit by good Works So again they say Works done of Nature before or without Faith can't merit
but Works done by God's Grace may and are joyned with it as Causes of Salvation and in these Points the Protestants oppose them I could fill a Volume with it if need were but it s enough to say you are mistaken in telling us what the Protestants oppose them in You say also that I say That Pardon is rather the condition of Faith nay Pardon is the cause of Faith R. I say rather for if a federal condition must lye between giving and receiving giving is the causal condition of receiving and not receiving of giving 2. The Object must be before the Act of the Organ Pardon is the Object applyed by Faith Application before there is an Object is contradictio in adjecto 3. The Promise of Pardon is the Ground and Reason of our believing therein is the Grace brought therein doth the Truth and faithfulness of God appear and the Apostle saith Faith comes by hearing this Word of Promise i. e. is wrought by it Rom. 10. And he opposeth the Works of the Law and the hearing of Faith in Justification Gal. 3.2 5. And what is that acceptation but of Faith which the Apostle speaks of 1 Tim. 1.15 And what doth it accept but that faithful Gospel saying there mentioned That Christ came into the World to save Sinners and the chiefest It s the Grace of God working in this Promise that hath wrought Faith in the hearts of thousands 4. We say with all soundest Protestants That Justification in Nature is before Sanctification and the Cause of it and therefore of Faith because Faith as a Grace wrought is a part of Sanctification It s enough for you to hold up that you call Error and give it Name and so let it go 10. It is not whether Sanctification taken strictly do follow Justification this I affirm R. If you affirm this you should not make so strange of my saying Pardon is the condition of believing What you hide under strictly I concern not my self Sanctification is Sanctification and if Justification goes before it you allow it to be conditio ordinis at least Therefore I conclude Pardon is rather a condition yea I say not meerly of Order but such a condition as is an influential Cause But go on stating your difference But whether effectual Vocation make a real habitual change in the Soul and that this Vocation is in order of Nature before Justification This Mr. C. and the Letter and I affirm with the Assembly R. As to the Letter I must tell your Answer to it is short and ungenteel and as he did Bellarmine who said Bellarmine thou lyest when you say it was rather to serve a turn than to argue it spake Truth weakly and other things erroneously and ignorantly c. It justifies a necessity of dealing a little more roughly with Men of your Country and Kidney But to our Point in hand it need not be enquired whether you take effectual Vocation in the active or passive Sense seeing you say its such as makes a real habitual change in the Soul And seeing it makes such a change it must be a change of Sanctification and this you say is before Justification how can that be when you had said before that Justification is before Sanctification strictly taken What kind of Sanctification I pray is effectual Calling Is it not so in a strict sense when you say its a real habitual change in the Soul Is this not turning from Darkness to Light raising us together with Christ or being born again But all this must be done before the Relative change a Man must be free from the reigning Power of Sin and alive from the Dead without Jesus Christ our Lord. See what the Assembly saith in the larger Catech. Q. 67. That effectual calling is the Work of Gods Almighty Power and Grace whereby out of his free and especial Love to his Elect and from nothing in them moving him thereto he doth in his accepted time invite and draw them to Jesus Christ c. and they are hereby made able and willing freely to answer his Call and to accept and embrace the Grace offered and conveyed therein i. e. then they are effectually called when they have embraced the pardoning Grace of God offered and conveyed which shews the previousness of that Grace working the effectual Calling consummated in believing and embracing the Gospel offered the Gospel Grace in the Promise is always that which works first upon the Sinner moves his Heart and draws it forth in believing 11. It is not whether our sincere Faith and Love c. are imperfect and so can be no meriting Righteousness which I affirm R. You affirm they are imperfect and so do I but not therefore that they can be no meriting Righteousness for the Merit of Righteousness doth not depend upon the perfection of the Duty or Service in it self but its perfection in relation to the Law that requireth it if the Duty required be never so weak little and lame if I have such a degree as the Law requires its perfect as to that Law The Law requires a poor Man to pay a Shilling to a Tax it s as good obedience as another Mans that's required to pay twenty Many Instances might be given the Papists say Merit lies not in the value of the Action but in Gods Acceptation The Council of Trent saith Our Works are meritorious of eternal Life Quia a patre acceptantur per Christum yea saith S. de Clara Actus meus dicitur meritorium quia elicitus seu Imperatus a gratia ex pactione divina acceptatur ad premium Deus ab aeterno ordinavit hujusmodi actus esse dignos vita eterna quando eliciuntur a gratia habituali non igitur tota ratio meriti a gratia ipsa So Scotus Actus non est meritorius praecise quia perveniens ex gratia sed quia acceptatur a Deo tanque dignus vita aeterna But where 's the Question then Whether Faith and Love c. are disobedient even in a Gospel account and so uncapable of being Conditions of any of its promised saving Benefits R. In the sense of the Papists they be not but be accepted of God for this end to be federal conditions of a Law Covenant they are perfect in that kind and relation and merit the Benefit but we say tho' any of our Gifts of Grace or Duties are accepted in Christ yet they are not accepted to any Merit or Worthiness of any other Grace federal conditions and worthiness of all Grace and Blessings bestowed on us are only in Christ and hence Faith and Charity and other Gifts of Grace tho' they have a conditional connexion one to another yet they are all of Promise and can't be federal conditions of any promised saving Benefits Mr. C. saith I am against the Articles of the Church of England and the Assembly I am sure he'el never prove it and I profess the contrary but I am sure he 's against all the
begun 3. Either the first Grace is through Christ or not but 't is strange to say That Christ gives inherent Grace to one that 's not united to him but as his designed Head as you phrase it and to one in a State of Condemnation And should make a change in his Nature before a change of State 4. Then Sanctification if Faith be any part of it must be before Justification contrary to the best Protestants and what you have said Your 8th Exception is That I say 't is the Doctrine of Imputation that you banter and you tell us what you say of it in your Book where when I come to the Places you quote here you will see my Remarks on your Sayings And so as to the ninth and tenth it will be spoken to in its proper place And as to the elâ—vâ—nth and twelfth I am of the same Mind I was I shall not spend Time in Vindication and I leave the considerate Reader who understands himself whether I do not give a very fair account of your Opinion whereof by the Quotations of yours out of your former Book you give sufficient Confirmation As to the stating Questions in difference between us you do it not fair The first you say is Preface 2. l. 1. Whether the elect are required to believe that they may be justified This you say I deny R. You should have quoted the Place I say there are Commands in the Ministry of the Gospel unto Sinners to believe and obey the Gospel that they may partake of Justification by Christ's Righteousness but not to perform it as a moral condition that therâ—by they may be qualified for Justification or made meet for it as you say 2. You say it is not whether the Gospel be such a Law that the Acts of Obedience to it stand in the place of Works so as for them we are saved but whether the Gospel assure Salvation for Christ's Merits to such as obey it and their active exclusion of Salvation to such as disobey it This you say you affirm and I deny I 'll tell you what I say The Gospel can't be a Law commanding Obedience as a federal condition of the Promise but upon performance of it the Promise must be a reward of Debt and if the Promise be Justification for the Merits of Christ then its due as Debt upon the said Obedience and tho' you say Justification for the Righteousness of Christ yet that Justification must be the reward of Obedience required in that Law 3. It is not whether we are justified by our Faith as an Act of ours as if they you mean Repentance too as Works or Qualifications were a Jot of that Righousness for which or by which we are justified This I deny Rep. Who says you say its that Righteousness of Christ to which you annex your for or by but for and by this Righteousness we come to be justified by our Faith and Repentance the Duties required in another Law which you tells us is the Gospel Rule i. e. your Law That a Man must be a penitent Believer whom God will justify for the righteousness of Christ This you say you affirm and I deny and that with good reason that our Faith and Repentance must be previous qualifying Duties to our Justification So that a Sinner must repent and believe in a state of Condemnation before he is justified and it s no more than this that for Christ's Righteousness which is our legal Righteousness we shall be justified by or according to our Evangelical 4. Your next Particular is the same and I say as before God doth not justifie us as a judicial Act for any Duty or Act tho' wrought by the Spirit 5. You say It 's not whether we are justified upon believing before any Works which follow the first Act of saving Faith R. No for the Papists own their first Justification to be so but you say If Faith should be ineffectual to Acts of sincere Holiness and to prevent Apostacy and utter Ungodliness would we not be subject to condemnation by Gospel Rule This you say you affirm and I deny R. Let us examin this then and see what you affirm 1. That there 's a possibility true justifying Faith may be ineffectual and so there may be a falling away 2. That till Faith hath brought forth sincere persevering Obedience we are not fully and certainly justified we must be justified by the second Justification before we be secure 3. That Apostacy and utter Ungodliness is prevented by a Gospel Rule of Condemnation that we are made subject to it s a fine way to prevent Apostacy to lay us under a Rule of Condemnation you mean a Sentence For my part I can t see these things hang together nor know what you mean by a Rule of Condemnation but in the sense of the Law working Wrath which is quite contrary to the nature of a Gospel 6. You say and we say That Holiness and good Works are necessary to Salvation but that I deny they are indispensable means of obtaining the Possession of Salvation through Christ R. If I say they are necessary it is enough tho' I may not own them to be indispensible means in your sense as a Law condition is an indispensible means of the Reward and if they be indispensible means the Thief upon the Cross could not have been saved and hundreds more that I doubt not but God saves in the like manner 7. It is not whether Justification Adoption and Glorification be Acts of Gods free Grace which I affirm R. But you said otherwise That forgiving adopting and glorifying and the conveyance of every promised Benefit given on Gods Terms are judicial Acts of God as a Rector i. e. As you after say That Grace is so dispensed by way of judicial rectoral Distribution of Rewards c. Pref. of the 1st Book But the Question is you say Whether it pleased God to leave himself at liberty to justifie the Unbeliever while such and glorifie the Unbeliever and Wicked and alâ—o to damn the penitent godly Believer this Mr. C. affirms and I deny R. You should have shewed the place where I said it that your Charge might have fastned by a Demonstration I marvel you blush not at such things as these 1. Where have I that Expression of Gods leaving himself at liberty It s one of your Terms of Art not mine 2. That he justifies the Ungodly is what the Spirit of God saith and therefore I may 3. But I say in justifiing him he sanctifieth him and whatever a Sinner is he is justified as such not as made holy and sanctified unless you 'l confound Justification and Sanctification as the Papists and Quakers do 4. But when did I say That God doth glorifie an Unbeliever and a wicked Man or damn the penitent and godly Believer Or that in the Covenant of Grace he hath made any such Exception that he may or will do so I suppose that you must
believe as non-elect or Judas therefore some Men shall not be saved Now see how well you agree with the Assembly in this Point ch 10. § iv they say non-elect ones tho' they may be called by the Ministry of the Word and may have some common Operations of the Spirit yet they never truly come unto Christ and therefore cannot be saved You say Forgiveness is an act of Soveraignty and how you will reconcile that to what you say before and after I know not 1. That it 's a judicial Act by a rule of Judgment if so it 's not in that respect a soveraign Act wherein God is free to give faith and forgiveness to whom he will And 2. You say he hath not left himself free to give forgiveness to whom he will of the adult without faith and therefore God must come under a Law to give forgiveness in the way of a Law whereas the same soveraign grace that enclines him to one doth also to the other and both faith and forgiveness are the free gift in the Promise in a way of shewing forth his righteousness Mr. W.'s Arg. 6. The Apostles with all the Saints may be arraigned as fallen from Grace and turned from the Gospel if it be no Rule according to which God applies Christ's Righteousness How should Peter say Repent and be baptized R. I see no Consequence here at all the Argument to me seems to run thus Either the Gospel is a new Law with Sanction or else the Apostles are fallen from Grace And what 's the reason of this forced Argument The Apostles preached That Men should repent and be baptized I hope you will make Baptism too to belong indispensably to the new Law as a Condition but I pray doth the Gospel requiring and calling for Gospel Duties make the Gospel a new Law with Sanction Are not Gospel Duties from Gospel quickning and enlivning a poor dead Sinner to obey the Gospel Commands of Christ to an Unbeliever He doth not deal with him as a Person under a moral Power to answer them and therefore putting him under tryal by his natural strength as all Laws do but Gospel Commands are as Christ's Voice to Lazarus in the Grave Joh. 5.25 I pray by what Law are dead Men capable of coming to Life The Gospel is the power of God to Salvation not the power of Man You alledge the Gaoler's words Act. 16.36 What shall I do to be saved I wonder you should insist upon the words of a Man that knew not Christ and knew no other way of Salvation than by doing Paul indulged him not in this Opinion but taught contrary exhorting him to believe in the Lord Jesus Christ which the Apostle always opposed to doing Faith being a Grace that excludes works of any Law yea it self as a work it will ascribe all to Christ and free Grace It 's new Doctrin that a Command to believe should be a Command to work for Life as the obedience to a Law when it calls Men from under the Law and it saith That a Believer is not under the Law but under Grace It should have said you are not under the old Law but you are under the new Law You instance in Gal. 2.16 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there doth not denote a priority in time of Faith to Justification but of the end of Faith we should believe for this end that the Grace of Justification by Christ's Righteousness alone may shine into our Hearts by the light of Faith that we may have Peace with God in our Consciences through the Lord Jesus Christ and so we do not only in our first believing but in all other Acts. And this hinders not but that God's gracious Acts prevent ours and causeth them God's love let forth to us constrains us and is the reason of our loving him Justification may be considered as terminating on our Persons and terminating on our Consciences in this last sense the Apostle speaks but note what is the Antithesis And not the Works of a Law If he had not meant the Works of every Law he should have distinguished and said Not by the Works of the old Law but by the Works of the new Law It 's strange he should keep the Galatians in the dark about the Works of the new Law it was but Works that they looked for to joyn with Christ in Justification I am confident this very distinction would have satisfied all the Neonomians of his time Mr. W.'s 7th Arg. The Gospel is at least part of the Rule by which Christ will judge the World this must be a Law if it be a Rule of Judgment R. Your Argument is That Rule by which God will judge the World is a Law but the Gospel is a Rule by which God will judg the World therefore I deny the Minor 1. You say Part of that Rule I pray what 's the other part Will the Rule of Judgment have two parts Do you mean the old Law will be another part Or will God judge some by the old Law some by the new 2. It 's not likely that God will judge the World by any more than one Law and that the Law of Creation and that by which he governed the World that Law which hath been the Standard of Righteousness from the beginning of the World to the end 3. It 's likely to be that Law that all the World are become guilty by they shall not be guilty by one Law and judged by another 4. It 's likely to be that Law that Men's Consciences accuse or excuse by 5. It 's likely to be that Law that will reach Jews Christians Infidels and all that never had the written Law or Gospel 6. If the Gospel be a Law then to try by it must cease to be a Gospel for it will bring execution of Indignation and Wrath no good Tidings I suppose you will not say the Sentence Go ye cursed is Gospel Well you say The Work of that day is not to try Christ No sure I believe not but Christ must sit upon his Throne judging the World Nor whether Christ's Righteousness was imputed to all that Believe but will be to decide the cause of all Men to silence all Apologies c. 1. I suppose you mean to decide Believer's state which hath been undecided till then 2. To prove that the rest of the World had not Faith As for the first sort I would know whether their Tryal will be before the Resurrection or after Before it can't be they must be raised first and those that die in Christ shall rise first And it s said Bâ—essed and happy are they that have part in the first Resurrection and how shall they be raised Incorruptible in Glory like to Christ at his Appearance immediately carryed up into the â—ir to meet the Lord. Is it likely that now they are Clothed with all this Glory at the Resurrection they shall come to stand a Tryal for Justification Surely their state
Justice and Mercy in such a way of Salvation his Designs to magnify his Law and make it honourable to exalt his Son Jesus to be a Prince and Saviour and give Remission of Sins to exalt his free Grace in this salvation by a free justification adoption sanctification and glory and in doing this Justice should lose nothing of its due is all great and glorious Gospels 8. That in all these great and precious things there is such a connexion together that one encourageth and leadeth to another Promise leads to Duty and Duty to the receiving of Promises Grace leads to Glory and that Perseverance is as infallibly setled in electing Grace and as absolutely as the first Grace This is admirable Gospel 9. The great and clear discoveries that are made of the evil of sin of the dangers sin leads to and sinners are in and running into by continuing in sin and laying open the strict nature of the Law that it dispenseth not with the least sin it requires still perfect righteousness and holiness and sentenceth the sinner to eternal death and damnation for it and therefore it 's impossible that any flesh living by ordinary descent from Adam can be justified by the Works of the Law it 's a gracious and necessary piece of Gospel to take off a poor sinner from the love of sin and fondness of his own righteousness which every sinner by nature is apt unto and to set up the Lord Jesus as the only Name whereby he can be saved and to shew that he is able and willing to save to the uttermost whereby a sinner becomes dead to the Law and married by faith unto Jesus Christ This is in the glorious Gospel of God and our Saviour It is the light of it that shines into the heart doth this 10. It is good News and glad Tydings that the grace of God in the Gospel doth not make void the Law but establisheth it Rom. 3.31 Neither is the Law against the Promise Gal. 3.21 tho' that he that is under a Law for justification is under a Curse and that by the oeconomy of the grace of Christ in the New Covenant the Law and Gospel do sweetly harmonize 1. In that the Law hath been fulfilled in Christ as to all righteousness it hath a full Sanction as to every believer in the active and passive obedience of Christ their delivery from the curse of it being by this that he was made a curse for them all their sins are condemned in his flesh he bearing them on the Cross the Law hath its end as to all righteousness and compleat perfect holiness in Christ believers are all compleat and perfect in Christ as to the Law 2. It 's good News that Christ's death was not only the satisfying of the Law and Justice of God on the account of our sins and together with his active obedience the merit of grace and glory but that this same death of Christ was the Sanction and Ratification of all the Grace of the New Covenant as a Testament being by the death of the Testator and as a Law to Christ which he lay under by his Father's injunction to perform And this is the Sanction spoken of Hâ—b 8.6 and more fully explained c. 9.15 16 17. compared with c. 10.7 3. It 's good News to a believer that God hath provided a way for him to come into an acceptable obedience through Jesus Christ to the Law of God Lex attemperata foederi gratiae juxta illud inscripta cordi electorum jubet ea omnia quae in Evangelio proponuntur fide non ficta amplecti convenienter isti gratiae gloriae Vitam suam insti tuere Quando ergo Deus in foedere gratiae promittit pâ—ccatori electo fidem Rescipiscientiam consequenter vitam aeternam tum Lex cujus obligatio nunquam potest solvi quaeque ad omne officium sese extendit obstringit hominem ut illi veritati assentiatur promissa illa bona magnifaciat Impense desideret quaerat amplectatur Wits de Foed p. 198. because the Grace of the Gospel causeth him to love the Law and the Commands of Christ in the Gospel-way of performance He saith Oh how do I love thy law Oh that my ways were directed to keep thy statutes and he desires that now God would grant him his Law graciously see Psal 119. For the grace of God in the Gospel writes the Law in his heart in a true love to God with all his heart and a love to the Law of God to the holiness justice and goodness of it and his great desire is now that in Christ Jesus and conformity to him God's Law may be honoured and therefore he looks upon the very performance of holy Duties accordingly as his benefit and priviledge by the grace of the Gospâ—l Christ is sanctification to him he is created in Christ Jesus to good works he is redeemed from all iniquity Tit. 2.12 13. and taught by the grace of God to deny all ungodly and worldly lusts c. from love and thankfulness to Christ to keep his Commandments and this New Gospel restored Principle of obedience is the New Commandment spoken of Joh. 13.34 1 Joh. 2.7 8. 2 Joh. 5. not that it was materially a New Command 4. Lastly It is great and good Tydings that Jesus Christ is set on the Holy Hill of Zion that he is King Head and Governour to his Church and that he hath provided particular right Laws Rules and Precepts for them to walk by according to the original design purity and intention of God's Law and that now the Law of God goes no longer out of Mount Sinai but out of Mount Zion and the Word of the Lord from the heavenly Jerusalem Isa 2.2 3. Mic. 4.1 Heb. 12.18 22 23. And it 's Gospel that all Power is not only given to Christ in his Church as King thereof but all Power in Heaven and Earth is committed to him as to governing Providence and that he shall judge the World at the last day These things are all the good Tydings of the Gospel ratified in the Covenant of Grace graciously freely and fully bestowed on us in the Gospel and upon no federal condition of our own performance either before or after conversion Arguments that the Gospel is not a New Law with Sanction Arg. 1. If Law and Gospel are specifically distinct then the Gospel is not a Law nor the Law a Gospel but Law and Gospel are specifically distinct therefore the Gospel is not a Law The consequence of the Major is undeniable to any one that understands the nature of Genus and Species The revealed offers of salvation were never but by two ways to Man by Works and by Grace that is called Law this Gospel and they are contra distinct sub proximo genere and adversa as much as homo brutum sub animali and the Law can no more be called Gospel or the Gospel a Law than a Man
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
most express in it That there was no Law given to his time that could be a Gospel i. e. that could give Life to Sinners Gal. 3.21 If there had a Law been given which could have given life verily Righteousness had been by a Law And now I pray except not at my reading 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Law indefinitely understanding any Law for our Translators render it so and I must tell you they should by the same reason have rendred 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the same manner and then the Text had been uniform in the Translation as in the Original if there had been a Law any Law given which could have given Life verily Righteousness had been by a Law Therefore your new Law was not gâ—ven before Paul's Time but the Gospel was therefore the Gospel is no Law with Sanction Luther on this place saith thus Though those Words of Paul be never so pâ—ain yet the Papists have this wicked Gloss always ready That he speaketh only of the Ceremonial Law But Paul speaketh plainly and excepteth no Law whether Moral or Ceremonial or any other Wherefore their Gloss is not worth a Rush And contrariwise we affirm That there is no Law whether Man's Law or God's Law that giveth Life therefore we put as great a difference between the Law and Righteousness as between Life and Death between Heaven and Hell and the Cause that moveth us so to affirm is That the Apostle saith The Law is not given to justifie to give Life and to save but only to kill and to destroy contrary to the Opinion of all Men naturally c. This Difference of the Offices of the Law and the Gospel keepeth all Christian Doctrin in its true and proper use This Witness of Luther I can set against all the Testimonies you bring from any whatever who hold or have held the Gospel a Law with Sanction as you do divers may speak of it under the term of a Law of Faith or understanding by Law the Precepts of the Gospel but if they plead that the true and proper nature of the Gospel is a Law with Sanction as you do I do renounce their Opinion and do oppose them therein as I do you it being as such fundamentally destructive to the Gospel and the whole nature of the Grace of it And on Gal. 4.4 Christ being made under the Law is not a Law-giver or a Judge after the Law but in that he made himself subject to the Law he delivered us from the Curse thereof Now whereas Christ under the Gospel giveth Commandments and teacheth the Law or expoundeth it rather this pertaineth not to the Doctrin of Justification but of good Works Moreover It is not the proper Office of Christ for which he came into the World to teach the Law but accidental as it was to heal the weak c. Wherefore the true proper Office of Christ is to wrestle with the Law to conquer and abolish Sin and Death to deliver the faithful from the Law and all Evils Let us learn to put a difference between Christ and a Law-giver that when the Devil goes about to trouble us under his Name we may know him to be a very Fiend Christ is no Moses he is nothing else but Infinite Mercy freely giving On Gal. 2.20 Now as it is the greatest knowledge and cunning that Christians have thus to define Christ so of all things it is hardest I my self in this great light of the Gospel wherein I have been so long exercised to hold the distinction of Christ which Paul giveth so deeply hath the Doctrin and pestilent Opinion that Christ is a Law-giver entred into my Bones You young Men therefore are in a far happier condition for you are not insected with those pernicious Errours wherein I have been so muzled and drowned from my youth that at my hearing the Name of Christ my Heart hath trembled and quaked for fear for I was perswaded that he was a severe Judge wherefore it is to me a double trouble to correct and reform this Evil 1. To forget condâ—mn and resist this old-grounded Errour That Christ is a Law-giver and a Judge 2. To plant in my Heart a new and true perswasion of Christ that he is a Justifier and a Saviour Ye that are young may learn with much less difficulty to know Christ purely and sincerely if you will Arg. 8. If the Gospel be a new Law then we must have a double Righteousness for our justification but we have not a double Righteousness for our justification therefore the consequence is good 1. From most of your Concessions that we have the righteousness of Christ and that which you call subordinate You should rather have said as Dr. Owen argues that Christ's righteousness is the subordinate it being in ordine ad in order to our justification by a new Law Mr. B. and others speak more distinctly and say a legal and evangelical righteousness but in truth it must be two legal righteousnesses For 2. There 's no Law but must have a pâ—culiar distinct righteousness from that of any other Law whereby a Man under it must be justified and all the righteousness that serves for justification by another Law hath nothing to do in our justification by the said Law and therefore there must be two distinct Righteousnesses and two distinct Justifications as there are two distinct Laws Unless you say the old Law is vacated which is a contradiction if you do but own that Christ is the end of that Law for righteousness to every one that beâ—ieved and then it cannot be vacated for a Law vacated and a Law in force is a contradiction and a Law fulfilled to every jot and tittle to every believer remains in force Therefore it remains that we have two righteousnesses for justification and both legal because all Law-righteousness is legal Christ's single righteousness is indeed legal in respect of the Law and â—vangelical in respect of sinners it being to them the gift of righteousness so with us the same thing differs only respectively 3. There must be as distinct righteousness for justification as there is unrighteousness for condemnation but each Law hath its distinct unrighteousness for condemnation The Minor is easily proved that we have not two righteousnesses for justification for if we have 1. Christ's righteousness is not enough for our justification unto life contrary to the Scripture 2. All the Popish Doctrin will unavoidably come in at this gate which is wide enough for it 3. Our own Works call them what you will let them be Faith and sincere Obedience imperfect Holiness c. must come in for a share in our justification contrary to Tit. 3.4 5. and an hundred places of Scripture besides nay for the whole of our justification by the new Law for the righteousness that answers that must be distinct from the righteousness that answers the old Law to enervate this Doctrin many have wrote to very good purpose in
Christ gave full Satisfaction to vindicative Justice for all the Sins of the Elect and bore their Punishment in their stead and fulfilled the Law for them That the Gospel contains no Precepts but in respect of the Elect are meer Promises c. Which Doctrin of Limbergius are saith the said learned Author tantum non Sociniana He sheweth how this Man excludes all Works from Justification but only the Works of the new Law He shews how the Remonstrants the Dutch Arminians took up with this Doctrin how it prevailed in France which after the endeavours of Meliterius and Corducus Camero's triplex foedus gave the greatest occasion to which Cocceius and his followers opposed And lastly shews how it hath prevailed in England in opposition to which the Labours of Dr. Owen in his Treatise of Justification and of Mr. Troughton in his Lutherus redivivus is highly commended by him From all which it doth appear That this is no new Error but an old ones ever since Christ's and the Apostles times and hath been a leading Principle to all Doctrins contrary to the free Justification of a Sinner by the Righteousness of Christ alone apprehended by Faith And the foundation of the Doctrin of Free-will and the natural Power and Ability of fallen Man to do good Works that are pleasing unto God and in some way or other in part or in whole rewardable He that will see a full account of this Doctrin from tho Positions of the Jesuites and a câ—ear Refutation thereof and all their Arguments they bring for it even more than you do let him read the learned Dr. Christopher Pelargus loco xii de Evangelio in his Jesuitismus printed Ann. Dâ—m 1608. Divers Passages in your Reply and its Preface wherein you lie open I have omitted remarking upon 1. For brevity sake 2. Such as concern others I leave to them 3. As to all material Points in difference you 'l see my mind elsewhere I shall only note how weak and absurd the Reason is you give for your desiring the Testimony of so many to your Book viz. Because the People do often value Names more than Arguments Q. D. The People must be lead by an Implicit Faith as in days past Populus vult decipi ergo decipiatur Can Protestants think this Reason is for their Honour and Safety But I spare you and do assure you my Design hath not been for Contention in contending for what I have thought to be the Truth but my cordial Desire is that all may issue in the Unity of the Spirit of Truth and Peace and what collateral Expressions have fallen from my Pen from first to last that are justly disrelished by you or any other that feareth the Lord ascribe it to human Frailty which I am lyable to and usually may be seen in Contests of this Nature how just soever they be Excuse my plainness of Speech throughout and allow something to every Man 's natural Temper and Disposition Sir I am willing to be notwithstanding all that hath passed Your faithful Friend and Brother in the Lord J. C. BOOKS Printed for Henry Barnard at the Sign of the Bible in the Poultry EXamen Confectionis Pacificae Or a friendly Examination of the Pacifick Paper chiefly concerning the consistency of Absolute Election of particular Persons with the Universality of Redemption and the Conditionality of the Covenant of Grace Wherein also the New Scheme is clearly declared By Isaac Chancy M. A. The old Man's Legacy to his Daughters Wherein the hidden Mysteries of Faith and Experience are briefly discussed and laid down in a plain and familiar Dialogue in six several Conferences betwix the Author's two Daughters Elizabeth and Margaret To which is added Some Choice Discoveries of the Author 's most excellent Experiences in two Parts Written by N. T. deceased when near Ninety Years of Age for the private Use of his Daughters aforesaid and now made publick at the request of many by an Admirer of Grace and Truth The Banquetting-house or a Feast of Fat Things A Divine Poem opening many Sacred Scripture Mysteries profitable for all who would attain to the Saving Knowledg of God and of Jesus Christ Written by Benjamin Keach Author of War with the Devil Chirurgus Marinus Or the Sea-Chirurgion being Instructions to Junior Chirurgick Practitioners who design to serve at Sea in this Employ In two general Parts The first Part contains necessary Directions how the Chirurgion should furnish himself with Medicines Instruments and Necessaries fit for that Office together with a Medicinal Catalogue and an exemplary Invoyce The second Part contains the Chirurgions Practice at Sea both Chirurgical and Physical which practical Part serves as well at Land as at Sea By John Moyle Sen. The third and last part of Neonomianism Unmask'd in answer to Mr. Dan. VVilliams's first Book Is now in the Press and in a few Days will be published