to this Law but as you do Nor do they hold that we are justified thereby as Adam should have been by perfect Obedience 3. You say Nor do I takâ— it in the Popish Sense which the Socinians and Arminians espouse R. The Popish Sense of Merit is renounced by the Socinians and Arminians as well as by you and as much for ought I can see The Popish Sense is very plain from the Council of Trent Anath 20. Cursed is he that saith the Gospel is a Promise without a Condition of observing the Command And this I am sure is your Sense You proceed 4. It is not a Law that supposeth a moral ability in Sinners to perform its Precepts c. R. It s an unreasonable Law that requires Duty of those that have no ability to perform and that Law that makes a Condition and promiseth Ability concludes not the Subject till the Power is given and when all comes to all 't is but a comprehensive Promise both of the Duty and Benefit to be received by it You say 5. It s not a Law that extinguisheth the Law of Nature which hath its special Precepts R. If the Law of Nature be the Law of Adam you say it vacates it for if it strip it of its Sanction it ceaseth to be a Law for Sanction is the Law 's Ratification as such Again 6. Neither doth this Law require any thing of us as a Condition of Christ's coming into the World nor of the first Grace to the Elect. This the Covenant of Redemption secures to the Catholick Church by Promise R. Whoever talked of our doing any thing as a Condition of Christ's coming into the World as our Redeemer but believe it as weak as you say Mr. C. is â— I le presume to tell you that you are bold to attempt to prove the Gospel to be a Law with Sanction If you allow that the first Grace is absolutely given and what is given by electing Grace is secured by Election to the Elect it s an inconsistent Principle that Redemption secures nothing but conditionally for where the absoluteness of any thing is secured it is secured so as to cease to be conditional 6. Nor is it a Law of Obedience whereto it renders any promised Blessing a Debt all is free though sure its free as to procurement or Price yet it is as sure by Promise as if it were by Debt The Price was Christ's Obedience and Sufferings all comes of Gift yet in that way which God appoints to give it R. This amounts to thus much That now you have dwindled your Law quite away for that Obedience that renders not the Promise a Debt can be no Law with Sanction for by the same Reason that the Punishment is due to me upon Disobedience the Promise is due upon Obedience You say It s sure by Promise so every promissory Covenant makes Blessings sure but that which is sure and free cannot be by Law Conditions P. 20. You give us a very long and confused account of your New Law the sum whereof is That upon Believing and Persevering in sincere Faith and Holiness Life and Salvation is promised and upon non-performance Death and Damnation threatned The Sense is Do and live the very same Essentials as to Matter and Form the Matter the Duties and Promises or Sins and Punishment the Form is the connection of these together by the Sovereign of Authority of a Law giver You say That you mean by saying The Gospel is a Law that God in Christ commands Sinners to receive Christ with a true operative Faith R. We grant the Gospel doth so command but is it a Condition required of the Creature to be performed in and by his present Abilities Must he have this first Grace given before he perform the Condition and by him that commands it Yet must this Command be a Law with Sanction No this Command carries with it to the Elect nothing but a gracious Offer and Invitation and effectual operative Means to bring a poor Sinner from under a Law with Sanction to Life and Salvation Rom. 5.1 The Wages of Sin is Death He lies under this Law-condemnation Joh. 3. He is condemned already The Gospel calls him not to come under another Condemnation but it calls him to the Gift of God What 's that Eternal Life through Jesus Christ besides God's Commands in the Gospel are gracious it s to such Duties which the same Grace promiseth and there 's no middle between being under the Law and under Grace under a gracious Command and a legal they are adversa sine medio You say vpon their believing they shall be united to Christ therefore they must first do something before Union to Christ that they may have the Benefit of Union make the Fruit good and then the Tree afterward contrary to one of the fundamental Maxims of our Lord Jesus Christ You proceed and say it threatens if any dye unbelieving impenitent c. they shall be barred from these Benefits R. The meaning is They shall die under the Condemnation of the Law they are in already as much as to say a Physician offers a Sick Patient a Remedy he refuseth it and dies of his Disease will you say the Physician brought him under a Law with Sanction Many such Instances might be given The King sends a Pardon to all the condemned Prisoners in Newgate suppose it be upon condition of Acceptance some one accept not will the Court now try him upon a new Law No there 's no further Tryal he is executed upon the Sentence before received And so are all those Places to be understood that say He that believes not shall be damned If you say by what Law I say not by a new one but by the Old Law I own as I believe there are degrees of Glory according to the degrees of the Vessels of Honour greater or lesser so there are degrees of Wrath which the Law will execute according to the degree of Sin and the Law will look upon rejection of Christ as the highest degree of Disobedience Therefore are those Expressions It shall be more tolerable for Sodom than for Corazin some shall be beaten with fewer some more Stripes some counted worthy of sorer Punishments than others but all this is by the Law not by the Gospel And Unbelief and Impenitency are Sins Judged and Condemned with all their Aggravations severely enough by that Law you need not doubt there needs no new Law to do it Your referring yourself to the Assembly will cast you for they never intended any such thing that the Gospel is a Law You say 1. Here 's the Essentials of a Law God is our Ruler and we his Subjects R. Are Ruler and Subjects the Essentials of a Law that 's strange Logick The Ruler in his legislative Power is the efficient and so in his executiâ—e in application of it to its Ends and the ruled are therefore called Subj cts because under Subjection to both
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
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
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-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
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
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