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
Written or not which doth command or forbid any thing as the series of his Arguments and thâ—t effect which he ascribes to the Law in discovering Sin doth prove you may see much more in him to this purpose The Works of the Law are called the doing of those things Haec autem diligenter considerata manifesta indicant in hoc ver siculo appellatione legis sine Articulo intelligi omnem doctrinam scriptam aut non scriptam quae aliquid aut jubeat aut interdicat c. which the Law commands as they are done by us or not done by us not as simply commanded by the Law Now I suppose you will not call this learned Man's arguing here a Cobweb It were easie to shew upon what probable Reasons the Prepositive is added or omitted in other places of the Epistles where Law is mentioned which to avoid prolixity I must now omit It 's enough at present that it is left out in these eminent places where Justification by any Works of any Law is utterly denyed and condemned It 's frivolously objected by you that the omission of the Article here argues not because the Socinians would improve the leaving out of ὸ Joh. 1.1 against the Deity of Christ and say the word was a God not the God a God by office as one preached at P. H. whereas it s in that Text an Argument against them and there is doubtless a great force in it for as Mr. B. saith by the first words the word was in the beginning the eternal Essence of the Son is asserted 2. By the next The Word was with God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 where the Article is exprest and the Person of the Son is distinguished from the Person of the Father God without separation And in the third Enunciation he affirms That the Word was i. e. ver 1. Et essentialiter Deus Patri 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 essâ—ntially God the same in Essence with the Father and if the Article had been added and it had been 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it had affirmed the Son to be the same Person with the Father It 's no small matter therefore in the declaring this divine Mystery that the Article is first added and then afterwards omitted to shew Christ is God tho' not God the Father See what an Argument yours is because the Socinians will make a false Inference from the leaving out ὸ Joh. 1.1 Therefore it must be Socianism to argue from Rom. 3.20 because the Prepositive is left out and Law used indefinitely that all Laws are understood and Justification by all Law-Works are excluded And whereas you say the Text speaks directly of the Law of Moses if you mean thereby the moral Law it was essentially the same with the Law of Innocency and the denial of Justification by one is also a denial of Justification by the other and so by all Doctrins requiring duty as Mr. Beza saith What you say of Gal. 3.11 militates against your self whereas you say Was every Law given 430 years after Abraham Is not the Apostle express in the 3 first Chapters that that Law was the Jewish Law Do you not mean Moral and Ceremonial and Judicial For of these parts were the Jewish Law or at most the Law of Nature together with it R. Were not these all Laws of Duty that God made and all comprehended in the Law of Nature requiring universal obedience to God in all things that he should ever Command But observe that Justification by Christ which is the same always in the Apostle's sense as Justification by Faith is opposed to Justification by the Law of Moses which was the way the Jews looked after partly by Sacrifice partly by their Obedience to that Law in the preceptive part and thus they followed after that Law of Righteousness Rom. 9.31 and attained it not because they sought it not by Faith sed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quasi operibus legis as it were by the Works of the Law v. 32. Mr. Beza refuting Erasmus on that place saith Erasmus wrongs the Jews in that he thinks that they lookt upon the Salvation they had to have been by Works only the Grace of God excluded for the contrary to this Assertion appears by the Prayer of the Pharisee that the Jews had no other Opinion of Merits and Grace than now our Sophists have which conjoyn Free-will with Grace and Faith with Works And indeed this was the Stumbling-block I might go through Paul's Epistles to evince this That all sorts of Works are opposed to Grace in Justification quasi e regione perpetuo adversantur And this is the Point he deals so roundly with the Galatians about viz. Their Judaizing in joyning Works with Faith in Justification not so much the Ceremony of Circumcision which at another time he admitted of but because of the reason why now the Galatians thought Circumcision so necessary viz. as a Work of the Law therefore he testified That if they were circumcised Christ would profit them nothing and thereby they were obliged to keep the whole Law for Justification because obeying it in one point would not serve they could not be justified partly by Christ and partly by some partial obedience to the Law and there was as much reason to plead for a Mosaical imperfect obedience to joyn with the Sacrifices in Justification before Christ as there is now for an Evangelical imperfect obedience to conjoyn with Christ's Righteousness now and more Lastly Grace and Free-gifts is by all Men opposed to all conditional claim upon performance of a Duty required by any Law and the Apostle always makes this Debt Rom. 4.4 Let the conditional part be never so small it 's a Debt ex pacto Hence the Apostle placeth both eternal Life and the Righteousness by which we are justified all in free Gift to us Rom. 5.15 16 22. Yea he directly opposeth the Gospel gift of eternal life which comprehends Grace and Glory to any Law with Sanction v. last i. e. any Law that pays Death as the Wages of Sin The Wages of Sin is Death but the gift of God is eternal â—ife through Jesus Christ c. Now if your new Law makes Death the Wages of any Sin then the Gospel gift of eternal Life is opposed to it You say p. 25. The Benefits are not given us for our Faith but upon believing R. For and Upon in a Covenant sense are the the same to convey an Estate upon the payment of 5 Shillings is a Bargain and good ex pacto tho' the Estate be worth hundreds You say If a Man says I will give you a thousand Pound provided you will come and fetch it is it not free Gift I suppose it s reckoned so by him that is able and willing to fetch it But the Case may be so that if some Men offer me a thousand Pound I will not fetch it to have it and then I may not be able One may offer a thousand
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
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
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
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
4. It 's performed from higher Motives and Obligations viz. that great Love wherewith God hath loved us constraining us to the highest love and expressions thereof to him 5. As for all Sin and Disobedience even Impenitence and Unbelief to any Commands of the Gospel it 's condemned by the Law and every one under the condemnations of Impenitence Unbelief rejection of Christ or disobedience in a Natural Estate are therein under the Law but there is no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus I◠mean to their Persons tho' all their Sins also are condemned by the Law 2dly I proceed now to your Arguments Mr. W.'s Arg 1. The Gospel is called a Law by the Spirit of God Isa 42.4 Mic. 4.2 Rom. 3.27 Ch. 10.31 Jam. 1.25 and 2.12 Psal 19.7 Gal. 6.2 Rom. 8.2 R. As to the places quoted out of the Old Testament as Isa 42.4 Mic. 4.2 Ps 19 7. I have shewn that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies Doctrin and Instruction and sometimes is taken for the whole revealed Mind and Will of God in the Word and it 's called by the Name of Law as a part for the whole both Law and Gospel in that place Isa 42.4 a Prophecy of Christ it 's a Promise that the Isles shall wait for Christ's Doctrin and receive all Commands from Christ whose Precepts may be called Laws tho' of another nature than a Law with Sanction the preceptive parts of the Gospel are often called Laws especially in the Old Testament but this makes not the Gospel itself a Law tho' it contain many Precepts That of Mic. 4.2 Psal 19.7 hath the same answer those places explicate themselves by the Word of the Lord The law shall go forth of Zion and the word of God from Jerusalem So that Law signifies no more than the Word preached both Law and Gospel it were easie to shew how it 's used at large in the Proverbs and Psalms and elsewhere not under any distinct consideration of Law or Gospel We have shewed the Covenant of Grace is exhibited only in a way of promise and free-gift unto sinners as such takes them into Covenant with God not upon any terms of their doing perfect or imperfect performed in their own or another's strength tho' it takes them into the Kingdom where Christ rules and governs them and from which Kingdom goes forth all the Word of the Lord both Law and Gospel Lastly The Old Testament speaks often prophetically of the Gospel in its own Terms and Dialect as by Priests Sacrifices c. Isa 66.21 c. 56.7 c. 6.7 Ezek. 40. c. 41 42. That of Rom. 3.27 where the Apostle saith that boasting is excluded by what Law By the Law of Faith it may be taken for an ordinary rhetorical figura dictionis called Anadiplosis and Beza saith the Apostle doth here de industria 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 say the Law of Faith instead of Faith because the adversaries of Grace were always wont to have the Name of the Law in their mouths for which reason our Lord calls Faith a Work Joh. 6.29 and on which place he saith they are plainly ridiculous who from hence will argue that Faith is a Wo k and that therefore we are justified by Works But if any that contend for a further account of the meaning of this Expression 1. It is the Doctrin of Justification by Faith in Christ's Righteousness which he opposeth to all Law-Righteousness as Rom. 4. or other Doctrin that teacheth contrary 2. It may be taken for the nature of Faith the power and efficacy of it the nature of it and its power in the Soul is to make a Man renounce all inherent righteousness in the same sense is Law taken Rom. 8.2 the Law of the Spirit of Life that is in Christ Jesus viz. i. e. the nature power and efficacy of it So Rom. 7. The Law of Sin is no more than the power and prevalency of it whereby it captivates us Jam. 1.25 The Law of Liberty is no other than the Gospel-Doctrin of Freedom by Jesus Christ Joh. 8.36 from the Law Moral and Ceremonial for justificaion yea he speaks to them as such saith Beza on whom no Yoak of Ceremonial Bondage was laid as Peter Acts 15.10 yea such as the Moral Law could not retain as Servants under fear but the Spirit of God forms them into free and voluntary Obedience Hence it 's plain enough that the Apostle opposeth the Gospel to a Law with Sanction which enforceth obedience from the threats thereof So Beza carries c. 2.12 This Epithite of Liberty saith he is very fitly added Having shewed he spake of the Moral Law before which he called the Royal Law in its full Sanction as appears from v. 8 9 10. for seeing we are made free by the Son by a much better right the Lord requires of us the Fruits of Righteousness rather than of those who remain under the Tyranny of the Law of Sin c. So that from these Expressions of James here is so little pretence for a Plea to make the Gospel a Law with Sanction that the Apostle seems strenuously to argue against it I wonder that place is mentioned Rom. 9.31 the Law of Righteousness is plainly the Law of Works for it was Righteousness by this Law they sought after but lost their labour not seeking after a Righteousness to satisfie the Law by Faith in Christ You argue also from Gal. 6.2 This is spoken of a particular Precept which are frequently termed Laws or Instructions Bear one anothers burdens and so fulfil the law of Christ or his Command yea from an Obligation so to do an Obligation to Obedience and Thankfulness is sometimes called a Law of Love And what was the obligation Christ bore our burdens Isa 53. Therefore we should bear one anothers burdens as he carried our griefs and sorrows Be followers of Christ as dear children Beza and others refer it to John 13.34 35. A new commandment give I unto you that you love one another as I have loved you i. e. I give you a new Motive and Principle to act Obedience from and this is contrary to a Principle and Spirit of Bondage and Fear from a Law with Sanction and this New Commandment is called the Old as to the Matter of it Mr. W.'s Arg. 2. Mens behaviour towards the Gospel is expressed by words that denote it to be a Law Rom. 10.16 2 Cor. 9.13 2 Thess 1.8 1 Pet. 4.17 R. You said tho' the Gospel be a Law with Sanction yet it contains in it absolute Promises This I deny as a contradiction But I affirm that an absolute Promise may contain in it Law-Precepts as that Promise I will w ite my laws in your hearts the Gospel sets up the Law-Precepts as Rules of Sanctity and Obedience and calls for a conformity to them from better Motives and Principles yet upon bette◠Promises not such as provoked to obedience by rewarding the work performed in our own strength but such as
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
conclude This pretended New Law is no other than the Old Law furbished up again that in itself it must be essentially tâ—â—â—ame the Works and Justification by them that if there be some little difference iâ—â—odalities it makes no essential Change than is in a Man that wears one coloured Suit of Cloaths one day and another on another Day I argue That Covenant that bestows the Grace of the Promise without a previous Condition is not a new Law but the Covenant of Grace bestows the Grace of it without previous Conditions performed by us Therefore it bestows eternal Life unconditionally ergo for it bestows the first Grace according to yours unconditionally which is Eternal Life Joh. 17.3 Arg. 5. If there be no need of a New Law God is so wise he will not make a New Law if there be no need of it or use for it then the Gospel is no New Law But there 's no need or use of a New Law Minor There 's no need or use for it neither in respect of Law or Gospel Dispensation of Justice or of Grace 1. There is no need or use in respect of Law or Justice because the old Law is a sufficient Rule for distributive and commutative Justice it condemns every Transgression and Disobedience eternally it hath provided Curse and Condemnation enough for the greatest and most aggravated Sin for unbelief in the least and highest degree and so for Impenitency All the World is guilty by this Law God rules the World by it and will judge it by it there 's not the least or greatest Duty but is here commanded which is or shall be the Will of God not only in way of moral Duty but in all Matters of instituted Worship under the Old and New Testament Lastly in respect of Justification and Reward if God had intended to have given Life as a Reward of the Works of any Law he could as easily have done it by the Old Law and sure would never have made a new one to have done it by 2. There is no need of a new Law in regard of the Dispensation of the Grace of the Gospel Because what the Gospel doth its in way of delivery of Man from the Curse of the Law that they lye already under and here there is no need of Law because it s done all in a way of free Grace Pardon of a condemned Prisoner must come meerly from the good will of the Prince its inconsistent with his Prerogative to be bound to it by a Law therefore God reserves this Prerogative he will have Mercy on whom he will have Mercy And its needless in respect of the condemned pâ—rson because there 's need of nothing but a free Offâ—r of Grace and Mercy to a condemned Prisoner if he refuses it its at his own peril it s his choosing but to remain in statu quo under the Law that he was condemned by and to be executed according to it You 'll say there 's need of a new Law in respect of new Obedience A. I say no for God's Law is still perfect in respect of the Rule of Obedience 2. The Gospel requires no other Obedience materially than what the Law required 3. The Gospel makes provision in the dispensation of free Grace for all Obedience the Law requires for the perfection of it in Christ for our Conformity to it through its Promise teaching and new creating and writing that Law anew in our Hearts which the Fall had blotted out Well to conclude this Argument the Apostle expressly saith Rom. 3.21 Now without Law 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Righteousness of God is made manifest being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets i. e. by the whole Old Testament as the Jews were wont to divide it and therefore saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. for Distinction from Law in the Sense that he took it in when he saith without Law new Obedience is obedience to the Law from a new Life Pâ—inciples Strength and for new Ends. Arg. 6. That which is inconsistent with the Grace of God in the Gospel is not to be admitted but that the Gospel should be a Law with Sanction is inconsistent with the Grace of God in the Gospel Ergo The Minor is easily made manifest 1. From the Nature of a Law that 's to enforce's Obedience where a thing is freely given it s expected it should be freely received and not enforced 2. It s inconsistent with shewing Mercy to poor lame blind Cripples to offer them Relief upon unperformable Conditions Yea it s also an abuse of Justice to make a Law That lame Men should walk before their Limbs be restored I pray did Christ heal the Diseased restore the Lunaticks raise the Dead cast out Devils by a Law 3. If it be consistent with the Grace of the Gospel to act by a Law in saving Sinners it must be before Regeneration or after not before for then they will come under no Law they are out in Rebellion against all Law nay they are already in the Custody of the Law and therefore not capable of coming under the Terms of another 2. Their Salvation must lye in Delivery of them from the Custody and Curse of that they are under which cannot be by making Terms with them but with the Law offended that detains them therefore it must be mere Grace without a Law that must open the Prison Doors to them 3. You say the first Grace is absolutely and freely given therefore the Sinner can come under no terms of Law in order to the bringing him into a state of Grace for terms of a Law laid upon any supposeth a Power and Ability in them to perform the said terms if they will and that they can both will and do if they will It is not a new Law after Regeneracy for then Grace begun would cease to be free Grace afterward Christ is not only the Author but the Finisher of our Faith and Obedience our perseverance and standing in Grace would not be so secure as its beginning the Grace of the Covenant would not be homogeneous one part would be free and absolute the oâ—her conditional and upon Terms but the Operation of the Spirit and Promises of after-after-grace they are all of the same nature from first to last as God begins so he perfects and compleats the new Man he works all our Works in us all-a-long in the same way and manner as they are begun Arg. 7. If the Gospel be a new Law it was made as soon as the old Law was broken And as new as it is it must be that Law by which the Patriarchs antidiluvian and postdiluvians were saved This consequence I suppose cannot be denied because we are saved even as they and the Gospel was preached unto them But there was no such new Law from Adam to Paul's time 1. The Gospel was not delivered to our first Parents in the terms of a Law but absolutely so to Abraham The Apostle is
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