Death made with Men doth not consist in that viz. That we are justified before God and saved by Faith as it apprehends the Merit of Christ but in this that the Demand of perfect legal Righteousness being abrogated God accounts Faith it self and the imperfect Obedience of Faith for or instead of the perfect Obedience of the Law and graciously judgeth this worthy of the Reward of Eternal Life Which they justly brand as the Socinian Notion Reader I declare against this Error and have affirmed that Faith alone receives Christ and his Merits 2. That it 's the Righteousness of Christ alone which is the Meritorious or Material Cause of Justification 3. That our Faith Repentance or Works are not a jot of the material or meritorious Righteousness by or for which we are Justified They say Christ died that we might be saved if we believe I say Christ died that the Elect should believe and believing have Life through his Name To any one that knows the five Points wherein the Arminian Controversie consists I have said enough fully to acquit me I am positive for absolute certain Election for Christ's not dying alike for all For the Elect he died to secure their actual Reconciliation for others his Death is sufficient and real Offers of Salvation are made to them on the Terms of the Gospel notwithstanding their being condemned by the Law Again I say Man is corrupt and without the Grace of God he cannot believe All the Elect shall be though without violence brought by efficacious Grace to believe and finally persevere All which I oft assert in my Book An Account of some of Mr. C's Principles which he hath set up in opposition to mine I shall begin with Three of them and consider them together Mr. C. p. 24. The Essence of the Gospel is altogether Promise and Free Gift P. 28. The Gospel hath no Law-Sanction of its own but it only establisheth the Sanction of the Law by way of Promise to all that are saved P. 33. The Gospel as such is no Law hath no Sanction c. Which and many more places I may contract into this as his First Principle That the Gospel is in no sence a Law nor includes in it as any part thereof either any Precept nor any Promise upon any Condition on our part nor any Threatning If thou doubt the word Precept should not be added know the words above fully assert it And p. 23. he tells us The Precept of Faith is a Precept of the Law of Nature Mr. C. affirms p. 34. Whatsoever befalls Sinners retaining their sinful state and rejecting Grace is from the Law and not from the Gospel To talk of a Gospel-Threat is a Cataâ—…hresis at best and nothing else can save it from being a Bull. His Second Principles is The Gospel hath no Threatnings When my Question answer'd by him p. 32. was this Doth God promiscuously dispense these viz. Forgiveness Adoption Glory or any other promised Benefit given upon God's Terms I say Doth God dispense these without any regard to our being Believers or no Or whether our Faith be true or no Mr. C. answers I would know whether if God distribute his Free Grace to poor wretched worthless Creatures according to his Election and distinguishing Mercy doth he do it blindly because he finds no Reason in them Whence I may call this His Third Principle That God forgives adopts and glorifies Sinners without any respect to their being true Believers or no and Election and distinguishing Mercy be the only Rule by which he forgives adopts and glorifies Sinners as well as gives the First Grace To put the better gloss upon his Principle he saith p. 13. Doth God dispense Faith blindly c A. The Question was not whether God gave Faith absolutely but whether he gave Forgiveness and Glory promiscuously Nay he knows I oft-times affirm the former And in p. 21. he reviles me for saying That there must be a Work of the Spirit for conformity to the Rule of the Promise in the person to be pardoned Yea this third Principle must follow and is but the same as That the Gospel is no Law or stated Rule of Forgiveness Adoption and Glory And he affirms that Faith is a Precept of the Law and denies that any Precept of the Law is a Rule of Happiness with a Sanction p. 22 23. Repl. Not to insist how in the first Point in what he saith of the Sanction he excludes Forgiveness of Sin altogether yea and as he words it may bind the penal Curse on us He opposeth in these three Principles what he calls my 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 11 12 13 15th Paradoxes but had he considered the 4th and 13th he had answered his few seeming Arguments and prevented his gross misrepresentation of my Principles There he might have seen that I assert 1. There is a Certainty that the Elect shall obey the Terms of the Gospel and be infallibly saved 2. That it is Christ's Righteousness which is the alone meritorious Cause of a Believer's Justification and Salvation and that our complyance with the Terms of the Gospel by the Grace of God is no more than our answering that Rule by which God bestows on us Justification and Salvation for the Satisfaction and Merits of Christ. He that cannot distinguish between the Righteousness for which we are saved and a complyance with that Rectoral Method wherein God doth save us for that Righteousness and the Interest arising from that method complied with had better sit still than meddle with these Disputes Reader tho' I did not once call the Gospel a Law in all my Book and only said in my Preface that the Apostle called it a Law of Faith with respect to what I had discoursed yet because the whole of Mr. C's Book runs on this I shall insist most on this Head 1. by explaining the word Law then 2. in what sence it is not a Law 3. shew in what sence it is a Law which I shall prove c. 4. answer his Objections 5. produce some Testimonies 1. As to the name or word Law It hath pleased God to call the way of his application of Grace to fallen Sinners by various names and by that variety to help our Apprehensions which one name would not so well contribute to It 's called a Law a Covenant a Testament a Promise a Word c. none of them exclude the others and are easily reduced to each other A Promise of God that sets down an Order in conferring Benefits wherein he enjoins any Duty on Mans part in that Order hath the nature of a Law yea tho' he engage to enable the Person to do that Duty We must also consider that God in some respects varies these Terms from their common use among men both his Dominion and his Grace abating their rigid Sence He calls it a Law but yet his Mercy resolves thereby to confer such Benefits as brings the Law
and so deny the Deity of Christ even by Mr. C's Argument 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Article is wanting to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 therefore it 's to be thus render'd The word was a God not the God a God by Office for that is a God but not by Essence which would be the God 5. The Context doth manifestly specifie this Law and not exclude every Law It 's true the Gospel argues à fortiori against Justification by the Law of Innocency yet he directly speaks of Moses's Law as any may see in reading the places Mr. C's Proof is taken from Gal. 3. 11. And doth not the Apostle v. 17. say The Law which was four hundred and thirty years after cannot disannul the Covenant c. Was it every Law that was given 430 years after Abram So from Rom. 3. 28. cap. 4. And is not the Apostle in the three Chapters express That that Law was the Jewish Law or at most the Law of Nature together with it But more of this last hereafter Reader Mr. C. seems fond of this Argument from the Article and thence oft repeats it but do thou but read one Book in the Greek Testament by his Rule viz. that where the Article is omitted from a word in negative Propositions there every Species is excluded yea bring it down to Names and where the Article is omitted then it is any Peter any Iohn who is there spoken of Obj. II. Mr. C. oft objects as p. 5. Works performed under a Law-Sanction are legal Works and do make the Covenant enjoyning them a Covenant of Works And a few lines before saith he The performance of Duty as Terms enforced by a Law-Sanction is a Covenant of Works so that such men are Preachers of a Law no matter what Law P. 21. The preceptive Will of God with the Sanction of Rewards promised upon the things required and Threats of Punishment upon the non-performance is alwaies a Law or Covenant of Works This runs through his Book and he oft saith The Gospel hath no Sanction and if we say so we make iâ—… a Covenant of Works P. 10. Christ is of no effect to him that is justified by a Law Repl. 1 He oft seems not to understand what a Sanction is for p. 24. he takes it to be meer Life and Death considered abstractedly but not as determining the way of giving of the one or inflicting of the other Whereas a Sanction consummates a Law and determineth what the Benefit or Penalty shall be and the certain Connexion between the Benefit and the Condition and between the Penalty and the want of that Condition c. Now will any except Mr. C. say That God hath not by the Gospel given Assurance that upon believing we shall be saved Have not we God's Word Oath and Seals for this 2. A Law-Sanction doth not exclude the greatest Mercy and Grace in conferring the Benefit It 's true that if the Condition be in it self meritorious then in that respect the Benefit is of Debt and was made a Condition in the Covenant because of its condignity if exactly proportionable or congruity if less valuable But God chuseth a Condition that hath â—…o merit either of Congruity or Condignity nay the Benefits are purchased by Christ qua good things in themselves and they be freely given tho' in this way Is it not a gracious Law though a Law that If fallen wretches will duly accept of my Son they shall have Life by him and this I command them to do 3. His Mistake seems to be in his Notion of Reward and in his upon and not upon performance of the Condition Gospel-Benefits are no Reward of Debt and yet they are given in a way of reward The Benefits are given not for our Faith yet upon believing not upon it as a meriting consideration yet upon it as that the presence whereof is made necessary by the Gospel this having required Faith and confined the Benefit to him that believes If a man says I 'll give you a thousand pounds if you will come to my House and fetch it is it not a free Gift though the poor man must come if he will have it And the Giver is yet bound by his Promise to give it if he come and not bound to give it if he refuse to come Do not say receiving Pardon is only naturally necessary and not as a Condition enjoyned for God might have applied Christ's Merits for Pardon though the Sinner consented not A Lunatick may be pardoned by a King and the Rich man might have sent the thousand pound to the Poor man's House whether he came for it or no but Christ resolved to shew his governing Authority in the displays of Grace and excite to Duty by Motives from Benefits though the Benefits shall be so given as that what we do shall be no cause or Merit of them 4. Hath the Gospel Covenant no Sanction What think you of Heb. 8. 6 He is the Mediator of a better Covenant which was established upon better Promises I hope he 'l grant this Covenant is the Covenant of Grace in a greater opposition to the first Covenant with Adam though more immediately opposed to the Jewish Covenant yet this second Covenant hath a Law-Sanction 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sancitum est saith Beza It 's a greatest part of the new Name Mr. C. hath reproached the Gospel with here 's a Law a Law-Sanction which the new Covenant is consummated by Men skilled in the Socinian Controversies lay the stress of the Cause of Truth upon Arguments from Condemnation and Justification being God's Rectoral Acts but what a loss will they be at if God do not 〈◊〉 by a or any Law as Mr. C. saith p. 18. Where 's Dr. Owen's Law of Iustification Yea We must part with the Force of Rom. 5. 19. 5. But why must it needs become a Law or Covenant of Works meerly by a Sanction The great difference between the Covenant of Works and the Covenant of Grace lies in this What is the Righteousness for which we are saved Is it the Righteousness of Works or the Righteousness of Christ But it is not how we come to obtain Salvation by Christ's Righteousness Doth God make our Faith or Sincerity to be our Justifying Righteousness If he saith If thou truly believe I will justifie thee by Christ's Righteousness but if thou believe not thou shalt remain condemned something might be said tho' not enough if we were to believe by our own Strength but that is not so More might be said yea enough if our Faith and Sincerity were to be the Righteousness for which we are pardoned or entituled to Life but neither is it any thing like that nor doth the Gospel design it nor its Law-Sanction at all infer it It 's one thing to be justified for Faith as a Work or inherent Qualification though it be such a Qualification it 's another thing to
Mr. Mead who did object nothing against it but a prudential Consideration and the same answer he made to Dr. Bates when he first asked him and before the second Edition came out I telling him what use his Hand might have been of he made the like answer and made then to me no Objection against the Book but that he wished I had left out that of the third to the Phil. All which I mention'd to some with real respect to him and those Brethren But since Mr. C's Book was published Mr. M. tells me and others he is not of my judgment but I know not wherein except in my sence of that Text. Yet there are others that forbare subscribing who declare no disagreement and he must quite alter his useful way of Preaching if he much differ from me Others ask why I raked into Dr. Crisp's Ashes A. It was needful I should instance some Author for they said nobody affirmed those things I mentioned in my Sermon I chose Dr. C. before another not from Prejudice but because he was reprinted with an unhappy Front his Works seemed the Standard of the propagators of these Errors This Book was taking with many recommended to People by Mr. Trayl and others as I can prove and he must never be answer'd if not after his Death and tho' I treat him with all respect yet I wonder his Works should be so applauded now when most of our great Divines opposed them heretofore Yea as Mr. Nesbit from creâ—…lible Hands informs me the Assembly of Divines desir'd to have them burnt Obj. You are said to misquote him A. I cannot find I mistook one word except that once I set Justifie instead of Pardon which is alter'd in the second Edition Obj. You misrepresent his Sence A. Not that I know â—…nd what Mr. C. instanceth I have fully proved it must be his sence tho' I inform you in my Book he oft speaks Contradictions but the most I mention he labours to prove and his Scheme enforceth it Obj. You take Bits of Sentences A. I still give one full period and it 's only to avoid swelling my Book that I mention'd no more in other Clauses yea in what is material I oft set his words at large and if it be needful I shall put him in a fuller light Many Obj. My Book was written against Mr. Cole A. I had no Eye to him at all except in the Digression about Repentance which was much the same as I deliver'd at a third meeting to compose the Debate between Dr. Bates and him tho' since then he broke out against us twice this I preface in my Book with these words Herein I have to do with men of more orthodox Principles than Dr. Crisp. And Mr. Cole must know these words did refer to him yea notwithstanding many strange Passages I hope he doth not hold most of those Opinions nor can he agree with Mr. Chancy unless he disagree with what he hath oft said yea and printed Obj. It 's more than hinted that I intend in that Book to reflect on all them called Congregational A. I am sure I abhor such an Intention nay did not I pitch on Testimonies from among them to oppose these Errors I know many of their Ministers whom I think free from the least disposition towards them the New England Synod effectually oppos'd them Mr. Flavel and Mr. Lob have written well against them I cite Bulkley Dr. Owens c. who are fully for the opposite Truths and tho' I sent Mr. M. word that in the mind I was in I would forbear Testimonies from his Writings but that I would not bind my self for any time yet I have since met with great reason to cite him as one fully for the Truth Yea Mr. N. tho' I never requested it in my House declared That if Mr. M. and three more such had subscribed he would not have been unwilling to do it and he desired me to add Congregational to the Divines in and about this City who forbear to subscribe only from prudential Considerations which I refused He remembreth the latter part and owneth it and he told Mr. Hume that if one Passage or two were rectified he would subscribe my Book It 's true some clamorous People that cry up these Opinions happen to be of that Perswasion but I hope far the greater part are better principl'd and many seem on the wrong side only from Misrepresentations Obj. Why do you use the word Rector A. It 's a proper word used by Dr. Owens Mr. Charnock and most This Book hath met with various entertainment with many it hath pleas'd God to grant it acceptance and many Ministers out of the Country offered their Subscriptions but of the four seeming Answers to it I 'll give these hints To Mr. B. I am obliged for his Christian usage and while he allows that I speak the Language of Time and of the Dispensation I am under I will comply with his Proposal not to enter the Lists unless I have occasion to prove my Sence of Phil. 3. which I find patroniz'd by Augustin Of Mr. Keach I would but ask 1. Doth not he believe that persons are bound to agree to the Covenant of Grace and thereby engaged to love God and sincerely obey him and is not refusing to agree to this Covenant the damning Sin yea is not this Refusal the Heart of Unbelief And that 's all I there affirm 2. Is his Spirit in a right frame when he shall bring these words in my Catechism to prove that we are not justified upon believing till we do Good Works when in that short Catechism there is this Q. Is not a Believer pardoned before he can put forth any other Act of Obedience A. Thô true Faith is a certain Principle of Obedience yet so soon as we believe we are pardoned even before there can be time to put forth any other Acts of Obedience Yea how oft do I say in my Book that no Act of ours is a jot of the Righteousness for or by which we are justified but that is Christ's alone and yet this person fixeth the quite contrary on me and so batters in the dark and warneth all from hearing me The Lord humble and forgive such The Letter from the City c. seems rather to design a Turn than argue a Truth for as it weakly saith some things true and others erroneous so throughout he belies their Principles whom he exposeth if it be wilfully let his own serious Reviews give him his Character if ignorantly why should he intermeddle There are few Books written that pretend so much which may be so easily and much exposed Mr. C. is the Author I here deal with I have long read Books and from five years old have had no Employment besides my Studies yea before nineteen I was regularly admitted a Preacher yet I never met with a Tract parallel to his for abusive Language violent Rage and uncharitable Censures Many great Divines
we our selves as Elect did legally by Christ as our Proxy satisfie and merit all and without the interposal of the Gospel-Rule we have a legal Title to Glory by Adam's Covenant This I deny as what excludes Forgiveness makes Christ's Sufferings needless denies any proper Satisfaction and destroys Christianity 5. Nor whether we all sinned and died in Adam and in Christ are all made alive which I affirm owning Christ's Influence as both real yea and publick as before explained but whether we were in Christ before Faith as we were seminally in Adam before we were born which his foederal Headship did suppose The being thus in Christ before Faith I deny These express my Thoughts which I doubt not by Christ's help to maintain against all these Opposers while I expect nothing but a gross exposal of themselves when their Conceits are forced out of their cloudy Expressions Reader I had reason to instance some minute things though with men of Wisdom and Fairness a Cause depâ—…nds on Arguments and not personal Respects Ioyn with me in earnest Prayer that Truth and Love may flourish and that Christ's Cause may be managed with a Christian Spirit which I have endeavour'd and not exposed nor reviled my Adversary I am thy Servant in the Kingdom and Gospel of our Blessed Lord DANIEL WILLIAMS ERRATA P. 1. l. 8. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 P. 14. l. 18. dele for A DEFENCE OF Gospel-Truth THE Reverend Opposer of my Book having as yet offer'd so little of Argument against my Assertions my Reply must be short to what he hath said and shall therefore chuse another method than what his Book prescribes His unusual Reflections I dare not return being awed by Him who chargeth me not to render railing for railing 1 Pet. iii. 9. and hath declared that the Wrath of Man worketh not the Righteousness of God Happy they and likely to arrive at Truth that are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Eph. iv 15. truthing it in love The weight of the Points in debate will not allow me to be Pedantick nor can I bid at childish Jests without suspecting my Mind in a Case unfit for Serious Thoughts or the Aids of the Spirit in search for Truth neither is it allow'd Tit. ii 7. in Doctrine shewing Gravity c. I shall therefore proceed in this method 1. Shew how he mistakes and misrepresents my Principles against the plain Words of my Book even where I mention them as my positive Judgment 2. I shall endeavour to make the most material things more evident to the ordinary Reader 3. I shall instance some of Mr. Chancy's Principles which he asserts and labour to let thee see where we differ and what 's the Judgment of others in these things 4. I shall briefly reply to what else is material in his Book that falls not under the former Heads Some Instances wherein Mr. C. misrepresents my Principles against my plainest words in my Book I. Mr. C. saith of the Athenian Society I doubt not but they are of your Opinion in Doctrinals and then chargeth them as being against an election of a determinate number of men to Eternal Life and adds I doubt not you will be found to do so Repl. These Gentlemen were pleased in answer to a kind Letter of Mr. Crisp's to give their Thoughts of my Book and your Reply to what they have said of Election affecteth not their Assertion But by what words can I express my own Judgment more fully then P. 66. I affirm There is a â—…romise of the first Grace made to Christ for the Elect and by vertue of that Promise they consent P. 3. ch 1. I affirm That certain Persons freely-elected by him shall certainly be justified and adopted and that these persons are the Objects of God's Love of Good-will even while they are Siâ—…hers 〈◊〉 that God continues his Purpose of doing them good notwithstanding their Provocations and Christ hath made full aâ—…onement for Sin and merited Eternal Life for the Elect which shall be in God's time and way applied There is a great difference between an Elect Sinner and others As to what they shall be in time chap. 20. p. 210. God hath elected a certain number c. and so the Gospel shall not be in vain to all See the same oft repeated p. 66 16 210 105. II. Mr. C. represents â—…e 〈◊〉 p. 3. The 〈◊〉 of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is abrogated transiit in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. 〈◊〉 aside â—…he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and of no use to us at all So p. 21. We have nothing to do with it it 's out of doors Repl. He would insinuate that I say That the preceptive part of the Law is not a Rule of Manners nor that the transgression of it makes us guilty nor that men whilst they reject the Gospel are not at all under the Curse of the Law All which I abhor And though this Point fell not in my way to handle yet there wants not Passages to this purpose P. 198. The holiest Action of the holiest Saint needs Forgiveness Chap. 21. p. 225. It 's legal Preaching to be always pressing the Duties of the Law of Nature but neglect preaching Christ c. where I allow it sometimes Again in the same Page I condemn saying That our best Obedience doth not deserve Wrath by the Law as a Rule of Misery and Happiness or that it doth not need forgiveness P. 125. I affirm the Law to be a Rule of Duty Cap. 12. p. 107. the Gospel declareth all condemned till they do believe it declares they are so and denounceth they shall be so c. And again They that believe their Condemnation is reversed See p. 57. Reader thou mayest read me still affirming the Misery even of the Elect by the Law till they are justified by Christ. It 's true I do think that 1. The Sentence of the Law cannot hinder the relief of any Soul by Christ who complieth with the Gospel 2. Nor that it is possible for any man to be saved by the Law of Innocency By Forgiveness is our Blessedness and not by our sinless Obedience And so far I 'll own it but not in the three former senses III. Mr. C. tells me p. 20. That when I said Christ's Sufferings were the Foundation of our Pardon that our Sins are forgiven for Christ's Sufferings and without them Sin cannot be forgiven Your Fundamentally is only a remote Causality c. all that we have of your meaning is a poor causa sine qua non And within a few lines you mean By something else besides them not by the immediate application of them but mediate and remote à causa sine qua non Repl. The plain meaning of what he thus exposeth is that the Elect were not discharged and actually justified at the time when Christ suffered Which is proved p. 17. c. But it 's strange that any one that read this or the following Passages should infer either 1. That Christ