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
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
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
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
Pound to a Man that lies with broken Arms and Legs in the bottom of a deep Well provided he will come and fetch it especially when he knows no Body can set his Limbs and help him out And how oft do you say the first Grace is ablolute And to say the same thing is absolute in the power of another and make it a condition by Law with Sanction unto me is the greatest absurdity in the World And I tell you that if a rich Man offers a hundred Pound to a poor Man Lame and Blind and in Prison and the King makes a Law he should come and fetch it or else be hang'd it would cease to be a Free-gift Arg. 2. That which is a Law with Sanction curseth every one under that Law with an irretrievable Curse upon the first Transgression of the said Law but the Gospel doth not bind any one under a Curse irretrievable by the Gospel upon the first Sin or many Sins committed against the Grace of it therefore the Gospel is not a Law with Sanction The Major is very manifest That there 's no Law pardons a Transgression of itself It is a universal Maxim concerning not only the Law of Creation but of all Laws Gal. 3.10 â—rom Deut. 27.26 the Apostle saith He that is under Law is under a Curse provided he doth noâ— all things that are written in the Book of the said Law that he is under therefore first he saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the second place 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Suppose you speak of your New Law the Condition whereof you make Faith and sincere Obedience lowered Conditions and imperfect Obedience And these are the all things contained in the Book of this Law then immediately upon the Publishing and Promulgation thereof all Unbelievers are irretrievably condemned by that Law The Wages due by that Law to every Unbeliever upon his first unbelief is Death And the said Law cannot relieve him because he hath not done whatever was writ in the Book of this Law its true one Law may relieve us in respect of another in some sense at least as to the Curse of it but no Law relieves from its own Curse therefore if the new Law curseth Unbelief it curseth the Unbelievâ— irrâ—treivably upon the first Act of Sin in that kind The Minor is plain because the Gospel do 〈◊〉 relievâ— from thâ— Curse that lies upon Men for Unbelief being in its proper Natu â—a Transgâ—â—â—sion of and Disobedience to the first Law there 's no Sin or Curse but th â—ospâ—l gives â—â—eâ—â—f though aggravated by the rejection of a Remedy all Laws with Sâ—â—ctâ—on give the due Recompence constituted by that Law to the Transgressor of it in â—ny one Point therefore sin is always in respect of that Law against which it is unpardonâ—ble for therein the nature of that Sin is adjusted and the Punishment that is made due to it Hence therefore if the Gospel be a Law with Sanction every one that appears upon Tryal to have transgressed it after its Promulgation less or mâ—re is under the Curse of it and that Person which any Law hath once cursed it can never bless therefore this Position puts thousands under a most certain hopeless and helpless Condition by the Gospel Arg. 3. That which is a Law with Sanction if it contain a Promise of Benefits upon Obedience is a Covenant of Works for upâ—n the same Grounds that the Punishment is the Wages due in case of disobedience Upon the same is the Benefit due in case of Obedience the same Law makeâ— one a Dâ—bt as well as the other for whatever is of Law is of Debt either upon the account of Sin or of Righteousness the Law was the same upon both accounts to Adam Life had been a Reward and Wages due as well as Death Therefore the Apostle argues so strenuously against all kind of Works Rom. 4.4 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to him that worketh there 's a Reward not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not of Grace buâ— of Dâ—bt and he excepteth not him that worketh according to the new but to him that worketh whether according to the Old or New Law the Reward to him that worketh by any Law is Debt by the said Law Arg. 4. If the Gospel be a Law it s either the same Law with tâ—e Law of Nature or a distinct Law from it But it s neither the same Law nor a distiâ—ct Law from it therefore no Law with Sanction The Necessity of the Consequence in the disjunction cannot be doubted by any Man of Reason The Minor is thus demonstrated 1. It s not the same Law with the Law of Nature this you will not say because you call it a New Law And if it be the same Law then you have no Pretence to evade all the Consequences that will be dâ—awn upon you from the Doctrine and Arguments of the Apostle Paul therefore I doubt not but I am secure of you as to this part of the Dilemma Therefore I come to the second That which must be essentially the same Law with the Old Law is not a distinct Law from it but your New Law must be essentially the same with the Old Law therefore is not distinct from it Your new Law can have no Essentials distinct from tâ—e Old Law for if it have the same Essentials its the same the same Matter and Form and the same integral Parts wherein they consist The parts of a Law are Condition and Promise in case of Obedience and Threat in case of Disobedience the connexion of these makes the Form all this you 'll allow Hence there 's the same Law-Nature in one as in the other and therefore it s a Law in the same way and manner and a Man under it must be dealt with in a Law way and manner Obedience to God was commanded there and so here Disobedience to God forbidden there and so here Life promised there upon Obedience and Death threatned there upon Disobedience and so here And what Obedience is there which is not commanded in the Old Law And what Disobedience that is not forbidden there But you will say the Old Law commanded perfect Obedience and the new imperfect A. The New Law would not certainly command what the Old Law forbad but the Old Law forbad all Imperfection in Obedience and cursed it 2. Whatever the degree of Obedience is that any Law requires its perfect in regard of that Law that requires it 3. It should be strange if God should make that which is imperfect sinful condemned Obedience by one Law to be perfect Obedience and justifying by a New and so set Law against Law Lastly as to the Promise it s the same for it was everlasting Life both in the old Covenant and the new the manner of having it by Works or by Grace alters not the nature of the thing itself A House in itself is the same whether I purchase it or it be given From all which I
particular that most worthy Divine Mr. Traughton in his Lutherus redivivus a Book worth every Christian 's having You say p. 25. Hath the Gospel-Covenant no Sanction what think you of Heb. 8.6 R. You might have said Heb. 9.15 16. I said not that the Gospel-Covenant hath no Sanction it hath a Sanction as a Testament in the Death of Christ in which the Law is satisfied for us and upon which the better absolute and clear Promises are founded and herein was that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 placed the establishment of the Promises of Life and Salvation on the sure Conditions of Christ's Righteousness and not of our Performances You say What will become of Dr. Owen 's Law of Justification p. 167. R. His Law of Justification is the Law that Christ came under in doing and suffering the fulfilling God's Will for the justification of a sinner this was the Law that was in his heart for the Doctor 's words are Not that he did as a King constitute the the Law of Justification as you say for it was given and established in the first Promise and he came to put it in execution You say It 's one thing to be justified for Faith and another to be justified by it R. I say so too if it be in the Apostle's sense by Faith be in opposition to by Works but if you make Faith a Law-condition then this by becomes for and it signifies just as much as being justified by Works And thus Mr. Bulkly in your own Quotation is against you for he saith If we make the Commandment of Believing to be legal then the Promise of Life upon the Condition of Believing must be legal also And so it must needs be upon your Hypothesis that the Gospel is a Law You often say the gospel-Gospel-Law is not a Law of Works and that Paul saith so p. 26. What is so said either by the Apostle or you the Gospel is denied thereby to be a Law with Sanction or Law-Covenant for if there be no Works as Condition of it there 's nothing but Promise but where is your sincere conditional imperfect Obedience if there be no Works It 's absurd to say the first Grace is a Condition required of us because you grant it absolute You tell us what Dr. O. saith on Ps 130 p. 230. This is the inviolable Law of the Gospel i. e. believing and forgiveness are inseparably conjoyned which hath nothing of your sense in it Concerning Faith's being the Condition of a Law with Sanction he saith nothing he means no more but that they are connexed by God's constitution So there are many things connexed in the Promise as Faith and Forgiveness Faith and Repentance Faith and Love Justification and Sanctification and Glorification I could quote you a hundred places out of Dr. O. where he militates against this very Principle of yours See Dr. O. of Justifie p. 407. The Apostle speaks not one word of the Exclusion of the Merit of Works only he excludes all Works whatsoever Some think they are injuriously dealt withal when they are charged with maintaining Merit Yet those that best understand themselves and the Controversie are not so averse to any kind of merits knowing that it 's inseparable from Works Those among us who plead for Works in our Justification as they use many distinctions to explain their minds and free themselves from a co-incidence with that of the Papists they deny the name of Merit in the sense of the Church of Rome and so do the Socinians See more p. 408 409. where he shews all Works before and after Grace are excluded What you quote out of my honoured Father's Book I see nothing contradicts me if rightly understood had not your Doctrin been contrary to his tho' I hope I should defend the truth according to my light and conscience tho' against my own Father I should never have given you the least opposition but it 's not Human Authority must turn the Scales in these Matters You quote Mens transient Expressions that speak of a Gospel-law and Conditions in a sense that may be born with when they approve themselves clear in all main Points others speaking in such a Dialect in Sermons and Practical Discourses To shew that such things as God hath conjoyned Man is not to sever As for the two great Divines besides D. O. I mean Dr. Goodwin and Mr. Clarkson I know them to be expresly against your Notion of the conditionality of the Covenant and by what you quote out of them it appears to be so See Dr. Goodwin's Judgment about Condition Whether Faith be a Condition Sermon XXII p. 301. I would have this word laid aside I see both Parties speak faintly on 't Perkins on the Galatians and another There is danger in the use of it a Condition may be pleaded 2. In those Expressions if a Man believeth he shall be saved import that he that doth so shall be saved in the event which the Elect only are to whom he giveth Faith My Beloved the nature of Faith is modest it never maketh plea for it self if it were a Condition a Man might plead it before God and the making it a Condition seems to me to import as if there were an universal Grace and that it is the Condition terminateh it to this Man and not to that What Mr. Clerkson saith is nothing to your purpose for he saith The first Blessings of the Covenant are promised absolutely and subsequent Blessings are in some sense Conditional Not that God makes a conditional Bargain with us but because divine Wisdom hath made a connexion between these Blessings that they shall never be separated c. Lastly I shall give an Account of the beginning and progress of this Neonomian Error This Doctrin was first forged by the Pharisees of old who did not believe themselves justified by perfect Obedience to the moral Law their owning the Sacrifices and other Types their Gospel being a sufficient evidence that they acknowledged themselves great Sinners and far enough from perfect Obedience they only thought that Obedience that they did perform was through the merciful Nature of God accepted to Justification of Life and their Sins expiated by Sacrifices For not only the Scriptures give us full assurance of this to be truth but it were easy to shew what the Opinion of the ancient and latter Jews were in this Matter 1. They placed their Righteousness not in perfect Obedience but in sincere So Paul before his Conversion Act. 26.5.9 Chap. 23. 1. Rom. 10.9 The Jews went to establish their own Righteousness and their imperfect Obedience as such in conjunction with the attoning Sacrifices for their Justification And R. Menahem saith Scito vitam Hominis in praeceptis Know that the Life of Man in the Precepts is according to the intention that he hath in doing them But they say Faith is the cause of Blessedness and therefore the cause of eternal Life Thus the Author of Sepher Ikkarim
And that Faith justifies as Righteousness itself for saith the same Author Our Father Abraham was praised by reason of his Faith for it 's said Gen. 15. He believed God and it was accounted to him for Righteousness And that this Doctrin was that which Paul contendeth with the judaizing Christians about and the false Teachers among them I doubt not in the least and am very apt to believe that it was these Neonomians that laid that Charge upon Paul's Doctrin that it was a Doctrin of Licentiousness and made so great a Cry against it for Antinomianism or as being destructive to the Righteousness of the Law and Obedience thereunto Philip a Presbyter and Hearer of Hierom on Job 42. tells of a Heretick then living that held this Opinion That the Gospel was a Law Christop Pelarg. The next I find it charged upon is Pelagius as one of h s grand Heresies And from the Pelagians saith Dr. Leydecker the Papists have taken up this Principle The Council of Trent Anath 20. Cuâ—se all that say the Gospel is a Promise without condition of observing the Commands And Anath 21. They Curse those that say Christ is given for a Redeemer and not a Law-maker And Anath 26. They Curse them that say The just ought not to expect a Reward for their Works Peter a Soto tells us the Catholick Church doth hold That Christ gave a new Law The same saith S. De Clara. It is generally hâ—ld by all the Jesuits Bellarmin in his Controv. de Justif contends That the Gospel as such is a Law and that it contains proper â—aws with Threats and Promises and requires Obedience as the Condition of Life and of the accomplishments of Promises which are so conditionated and that Merits cannot be otherwise defended which the Papacy holds Gregory de Valâ—ntia tells us They reject the usual distinction of Law and Gospel viz. That the Law Promises are conditional the Gospel Promises free and absolute Tom. 2. Controv. Disput 7. Q 6. Le calls it a Fiction Mr. Fox in Act. Mon. Impr. 7. p. 34. vol. 1. gives this following Account of the Papist's Opinion in this Point They say Moses was a giver of the old Law Christ of the new Thus imagine they the Gospel to be nothing else but a new Law given by Christ binding to the Promises the Conditions of our doings and deservings no otherwise than to the old Law and so divide they the whole Law into three parts the Law of Nature the Law of Moses and the Law of Christ to the fulfilling whereof they attribute Justification And thus they lead the Consciences of Men in doubt and induce many Errors bringing the People into a false opinion of Christ as tho' he were not a Remedy against the Law but came as another Moses to give a new Law to the World Dr. Barns who suffered Martyrdom in Henry VIII.'s time An. Dom. 1541. vigourously opposed the Popish Bishops in this Point as appears by his excellent Treatise of Justification In defending Justification by Faith alone according to the true meaning of the Apostle Paul hath these Passages It were but lost labour for Paul to prove that Works did help to Justification for that the Jews did grant and required no mâ—re but that which they stood upon was that Works might not be clearly excluded But here peradventure it will be said that Paul condemns the Works of the old Law but not of the new Law Are you now satisfied in your Consciences Think you that you have now assoyled Paul's Argument Think you to be thus discharged before God Go boldly to the Judgment of God with this Evasion and doubt not but then you shall find St. Paul stiflly and strongly against you and your new Works as ever he was against the Jews and their old Works Briefly what Works can you excogitate to do which be not in the old Law and of the old Law Therefore he speaks of all manner of Works for the Law includeth all Works that ever God instituted the highest best and most of Perfection what Works in the new Law have you better than those of the old Law â— But grant that there be certain Works of the new Law which be not of the old yet have you not nor can prove that these shall justify for there can be no more goodness in Works than were in the Works of the old Law for they were to Gods Honour and the Profit of the Neighbour and yet you grant they cannot justify St. Paul disputâ—s against them that were Christned and had Works of the old Law and of the new yet concludes that Christ alone justified Mark his Argument If Righteousness cometh by the Law then is Christ dead in vain c. where he proceeds to enervate this Doctrin of Neomianism From the Papists the Socinians took up this Doctrin as Dr. Leidaker shews styling them Our new Pelagians They do indeed saith he exclude Ceremonial Works and Works of the Jews who oppose the Gospel but when they may seem to differ from the Roman Catholicks in the Doctrin of Merit they answer Socin saith Paul treats concerning perfect Works of that Law and seeing none can be justified by them the Law requiring perfect Obedience therefore the Apostle saith We are justified by faith and obedience so far as a man is able to perform them That Paul excludes Works of the Law not interrupted by Sin i. e. perfect persevering Works or merits not those that are performed according to the mild Law of the Gospel And he takes notice how Dr. P. Barrow a Divinity Professor in England was among the first of ours that deserted the true Doctrin and an assertor of this Doctrin That the Gospel is a new Law shewing that no Man was ever justified by a perfect observance of the Law but by that Observation which depends upon Mercy and includes pardon of Sin the regenerate do perform that Law in his Treatise de pâ—aestantia legis c. 13. This Dr. Barrow the Arminians when they began to spring up highly applauded saith Dr. Leidaker His Words are Similes habent labra lactucas He says they changed the very Decalogue into a Covenant of Grace confounding it with the Gospel asserting a Covenant of Works saying That notwithstanding the giving Christ God might have set up again a Covenant of Works but he would not because of the weakness of the Flesh Therefore in the room of the rigid Covenant of Works he substituted a milder Covenant mixed with goodness and grace in which Faith with imperfect Obedience to the Law might be accepted for perfect Righteousness unto Life These Doctrins Arminians began to vent but Episcopius taught them openly whom Curcellius also followed as his Master and more lately Dr. Limburgius who asserts That the Scripture no where teacheth Christ's Righteousness is imputed to us and saith This Error so he calls the Doctrin of the imputation of Christ's Righteousness ariseth from a false Opinion That
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
conclude This pretended New Law is no other than the Old Law furbished up again that in itself it must be essentially tâ—â—â—ame the Works and Justification by them that if there be some little difference iâ—â—odalities it makes no essential Change than is in a Man that wears one coloured Suit of Cloaths one day and another on another Day I argue That Covenant that bestows the Grace of the Promise without a previous Condition is not a new Law but the Covenant of Grace bestows the Grace of it without previous Conditions performed by us Therefore it bestows eternal Life unconditionally ergo for it bestows the first Grace according to yours unconditionally which is Eternal Life Joh. 17.3 Arg. 5. If there be no need of a New Law God is so wise he will not make a New Law if there be no need of it or use for it then the Gospel is no New Law But there 's no need or use of a New Law Minor There 's no need or use for it neither in respect of Law or Gospel Dispensation of Justice or of Grace 1. There is no need or use in respect of Law or Justice because the old Law is a sufficient Rule for distributive and commutative Justice it condemns every Transgression and Disobedience eternally it hath provided Curse and Condemnation enough for the greatest and most aggravated Sin for unbelief in the least and highest degree and so for Impenitency All the World is guilty by this Law God rules the World by it and will judge it by it there 's not the least or greatest Duty but is here commanded which is or shall be the Will of God not only in way of moral Duty but in all Matters of instituted Worship under the Old and New Testament Lastly in respect of Justification and Reward if God had intended to have given Life as a Reward of the Works of any Law he could as easily have done it by the Old Law and sure would never have made a new one to have done it by 2. There is no need of a new Law in regard of the Dispensation of the Grace of the Gospel Because what the Gospel doth its in way of delivery of Man from the Curse of the Law that they lye already under and here there is no need of Law because it s done all in a way of free Grace Pardon of a condemned Prisoner must come meerly from the good will of the Prince its inconsistent with his Prerogative to be bound to it by a Law therefore God reserves this Prerogative he will have Mercy on whom he will have Mercy And its needless in respect of the condemned pâ—rson because there 's need of nothing but a free Offâ—r of Grace and Mercy to a condemned Prisoner if he refuses it its at his own peril it s his choosing but to remain in statu quo under the Law that he was condemned by and to be executed according to it You 'll say there 's need of a new Law in respect of new Obedience A. I say no for God's Law is still perfect in respect of the Rule of Obedience 2. The Gospel requires no other Obedience materially than what the Law required 3. The Gospel makes provision in the dispensation of free Grace for all Obedience the Law requires for the perfection of it in Christ for our Conformity to it through its Promise teaching and new creating and writing that Law anew in our Hearts which the Fall had blotted out Well to conclude this Argument the Apostle expressly saith Rom. 3.21 Now without Law 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Righteousness of God is made manifest being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets i. e. by the whole Old Testament as the Jews were wont to divide it and therefore saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. for Distinction from Law in the Sense that he took it in when he saith without Law new Obedience is obedience to the Law from a new Life Pâ—inciples Strength and for new Ends. Arg. 6. That which is inconsistent with the Grace of God in the Gospel is not to be admitted but that the Gospel should be a Law with Sanction is inconsistent with the Grace of God in the Gospel Ergo The Minor is easily made manifest 1. From the Nature of a Law that 's to enforce's Obedience where a thing is freely given it s expected it should be freely received and not enforced 2. It s inconsistent with shewing Mercy to poor lame blind Cripples to offer them Relief upon unperformable Conditions Yea it s also an abuse of Justice to make a Law That lame Men should walk before their Limbs be restored I pray did Christ heal the Diseased restore the Lunaticks raise the Dead cast out Devils by a Law 3. If it be consistent with the Grace of the Gospel to act by a Law in saving Sinners it must be before Regeneration or after not before for then they will come under no Law they are out in Rebellion against all Law nay they are already in the Custody of the Law and therefore not capable of coming under the Terms of another 2. Their Salvation must lye in Delivery of them from the Custody and Curse of that they are under which cannot be by making Terms with them but with the Law offended that detains them therefore it must be mere Grace without a Law that must open the Prison Doors to them 3. You say the first Grace is absolutely and freely given therefore the Sinner can come under no terms of Law in order to the bringing him into a state of Grace for terms of a Law laid upon any supposeth a Power and Ability in them to perform the said terms if they will and that they can both will and do if they will It is not a new Law after Regeneracy for then Grace begun would cease to be free Grace afterward Christ is not only the Author but the Finisher of our Faith and Obedience our perseverance and standing in Grace would not be so secure as its beginning the Grace of the Covenant would not be homogeneous one part would be free and absolute the oâ—her conditional and upon Terms but the Operation of the Spirit and Promises of after-grace they are all of the same nature from first to last as God begins so he perfects and compleats the new Man he works all our Works in us all-a-long in the same way and manner as they are begun Arg. 7. If the Gospel be a new Law it was made as soon as the old Law was broken And as new as it is it must be that Law by which the Patriarchs antidiluvian and postdiluvians were saved This consequence I suppose cannot be denied because we are saved even as they and the Gospel was preached unto them But there was no such new Law from Adam to Paul's time 1. The Gospel was not delivered to our first Parents in the terms of a Law but absolutely so to Abraham The Apostle is