Gods Effectual Calling, Treatise · Chapter 5
CHAP. V. A compariſon of our iudgment and of the Aduerſaries, concerning both theſe Couenants.
NOw we be to compare a little our aſſertion with the aduerſaries, and to conſider which of both ſides is of ſoundeſt iudgment touching both theſe couenants of works and of grace. A rule to trie the opinion of the aduerſaries & ours by, can none better be found, thē the doctrine of Paul, ſpeciallie that in the Epiſtle to the Romans, and namely, in that diſputation which he hath of iuſtification in the 3. firſt Chapters, againſt the Iewes of that time. If after conference we ſhall find that our aſſertiō doth conſent with Paules mind and doctrine, and that the aduerſaries are of the ſame minde and iudgment with the Iewes which liued in Pauls time; then it ſhall plainly appeare, that our iudgement is better then the aduerſaries concerning the couenant of God.
Wherefore in this diſputation of Paul, we are to conſider firſt the mind & purpoſe of ye Apoſtle; next by Pauls doctrine we ſhall gather what the opinion was of thoſe Iewes, againſt whom hee diſputed: this done we will applie both his and their aſſertion, to our ſelues which liue in this age, and to the doctrine & concluſions which we maintaine concerning both theſe couenants. By this means if it ſhall appeare that our doctrine is agreeable to Pauls minde, and that our aduerſaries follow the Iewes; themſelues being witneſſes, it ſhal (I ſay) be manifeſt, that our iudgement is better then theirs in this argument.
To come then to the point: Paul in that place to the Romans, diſputeth againſt thoſe Iewes which were obſtinate and peruerſe, defending firſt Chriſt and his merit, which is the firſt ground of the couenant of grace; next he diſputeth for grace or the merciemercy of God, which is the Paules diſputation. Rom. 1. 2. & 3. Chap.ſecond ground of the free couenant; thirdly, he auoucheth againſt thoſe aduerſaries, that the couenant of grace was founded in Chriſt, and in the grace of God; fourthly, he proueth the iuſtification of man, and ſo conſequently the ſaluation▪ which is according to the couenant of grace: he diſputeth, I ſay, for theſe things, firſt againſt nature, which is the grounde of the couenant of workes; next againſt the very couenant of works it ſelfe founded on nature; thirdly, againſt the iuſtification of man, and ſaluation which is by it, ariſing of the iuſt and good works of nature, according to that couenant of works. I graunt he doth expreſſely fight againſt that iuſtification and ſaluation, which is by the works of nature, required in the couenant of works; and for the iuſtification of faith, which is required in the couenant of grace: but by one and the ſelfe ſame diſputation he concludes both againſt nature and the couenant of works, and for Chriſt, and for Gods grace in him, that is, for the couenant of grace. For the doctrine of antecedents muſt neceſſarilie be included in the doctrine of the conſequent.
By this purpoſe of Paul, we may ſee what was the drift of thoſe aduerſarie Iewes, and what was their iudgment againſt whom he diſputeth in the Epiſtle to the Rom. Thoſe Iewes, they on the contrarie part did ſtriue for nature, as being the ground of the couenant of works; as alſo for the very couenant of works or of nature; for iuſtification and ſaluation by works, and according to the forme of the couenant of works: They did (I ſay) contend for theſe things, againſt Chriſt, againſt the grace of God in Chriſt, and againſt the couenant of grace, and againſt iuſtification and ſaluation of men, which is according to the couenant of grace. Igraunt, that (as is aforeſaid) the queſtion was of this laſt point, which is iuſtification: but this queſtion includes al the former branches, as is before ſhewed. Wherefore let vsus conſider againe that old controuerſie, and the very ground thereof.
In this controuerſie, by the way note how great the The ſtate and blindneſſe of the Iewes in Pauls time.blindneſſe was of the Iewes of thoſe times: firſt they did not vnderſtand, that mans nature after the fall was loſt, as touching goodnes: they ſaw not their own corruption, neither were they touched with any ſenſe of ſinne or of their owne miſerie. Next, they knew not Chriſt the mediator, and the mercies of God in him. Thirdly, beeing ſo blinde in the premiſſes, they could not conceiue alſo how that couenant of works was aboliſhed in Chriſt. Fourthly, they vnderſtood not that there was any couenant of made with man in Chriſt Ieſus. Fiftly, they did not conſider that thoſe works of nature (whereby they would be iuſtified, according to the preſcript forme of the couenant of works) they did not conſider, I ſay, that they were but duties only, and teſtimonies of thankfulnes, according to the firſt inſtitution of that couenant; but they did aſcribe ſome meritorious vertue vntounto them: for which cauſe the Apoſtle diſputeth againſt the workes of nature, as againſt merits, becauſe of this blinde conceite of the Iewes. And that they were of iudgement that theſe works were meritorious, may appeare by their glorying in workes, againſt which the Apoſtle ſpeaketh often. Where is then the glorying or reioicing? it is excluded, Ro. 3. 27. If Abraham were iuſtified by works, he hath wherein to glory, Rom. 4. 2. Not by works, leaſt any ſhould glory, Eph. 2. 9. For he which glorieth, doth not deeme that he hath receiued that of God, for which he glorieth; and therefore he iudgeth it to be meritorious: What haſt thou, that thou haſt not receiued? And if thou haſt receiued it, wherefore boaſteſt thou, as if thou haddeſt not receiued it? 1. Cor. 4. 7.
Thus farre of the queſtion in controuerſie, which was betweene Paul and the old Iewes of his time, concerning the couenant of God. How like to this is that, which at this day is controuerſed betweene vsus and the Papiſts? We in this age conclude wholy for the onelyonly merit of Our defence at this daie againſt the Papiſts.Chriſt, for the ſole and meere grace and merciemercy of God in Chriſt, for the couenant of grace, for iuſtification and ſaluation by Chriſt only, by grace only, by faith only (for all theſe Phraſes ſerue to one effect) we diſpute, I ſay, for theſe things againſt the ſtrength of nature, the liberty of free-will, that is, the goodneſſe and holineſſe of nature, againſt the couenant of works, againſt iuſtification by works, euen that which is according to the rule of the couenant of works. The Romaniſts of this age defend that nature is holy in it ſelfe; yet hurt, impoueriſhed, and weakened (for this is their freedome of wil) they defend, I ſay, the couenant of works, and the works which proceed Free-will.from free-will, Iuſtification by works of free-will, meritorious alſo according to the couenant of workes; for they ſay, the ground of eueryevery merit, whether it be of congruitie or condignitie (to vſe their owne tearmes) is free-will: Theſe things, I ſay, they ſtriue to defend, againſt Chriſt only, and his merit, againſt the only grace of God and merciemercy in Chriſt, againſt the only couenant of grace, againſt iuſtification which is by Chriſt onelyonly, by the grace of God only, by faith only: for al theſe hauehave one reſpect and purpoſe.
Obſerue then here by the way, what the palpable blindneſſe of the Papiſts is, in this cleere light of the Goſpell. Popiſh blindnes.Firſt they ſee not how nature is plainlie loſt, as touching ſanctitie. Secondly, they know not the ſole grace and merciemercy of God, neither do they vnderſtand what the excellency is of Chriſts merit. Thirdly, they perceiue not how that couenant of works is aboliſhed to them which are in Chriſt, as touching iuſtification. Fourthly, they conceiue not, that the only couenant of grace is made with mankinde after the fall, ſpeciallie now after the incarnation of Chriſt, in the Goſpell, and that vntounto iuſtification and life eternall. Fiftly, they ſee not that the works of free will; as they call them, if there were any ſuch, to be duties only and teſtimonies of thankefulneſſe, according to the firſt inſtitution of the couenant of works, which be done by the ſtrength of nature: but aſcribe ſome ſpeciall meritorious vertue vntounto them. Wherefore we conclude concerning theſe men, that albeit they be not iuſt of one minde with thoſe old Iewes, againſt whom the Apoſtle diſputed in the Epiſtle to the Romans; yet they hold much on their ſide, ſtriuing to defend that nature is in part good and holy, ſo contending againſt the pure and only grace of God, and to diuide iuſtification and The popiſh iuſtification.mans ſaluation, betweene Chriſt and Gods free grace & the vertues and workes of nature: whereas notwithſtanding theſe two, nature and grace, can neuer ſtand together in the worke of our ſaluation. For whoſoeuer ſhall conioine or make a mixture of grace and nature in this matter, ſhall quite ouerthrow and extinguiſh grace, which either is alone, or not at all, as Rom. 11. 6. If it be of grace, it is no more of works; for otherwiſe grace were no more grace. And in the Epiſtle to the Galathians, he doth purpoſelie diſpute againſt thoſe Iewes, which did couple together in the matter of iuſtification, the guifts and works of nature, with Chriſt, with the grace of God, and with the Goſpell: And theſe Iewes (as I iudge) the Papiſts ſeeme moſt to reſemble; I meane thoſe Iewes, againſt whom he wrote in the Epiſtle to the Galathians. For in that other epiſtle to the Romans, he diſputeth againſt ſuch Iewes, as did openly deny Chriſt, and reiect him: but to the Galathians his diſputation is againſt ſuch Iewes as were not content with Chriſt only, but would hauehave Chriſt and the law ioined together. Thus far of the compariſon betweene Paul and vsus on the one ſide, the old Iewes and the Papiſts on the other.
Now becauſe it will be demanded, what Paul thought of the works of regeneration, and what we, and what the aduerſaries thinke alſo; therefore I will touch this queſtion in few wordes. Here then, ſome one will ſay, did Paul then in that diſputation to the Rom. and to the Galathians oppugne the works of grace and regeneration? I anſwer, Paules chiefe purpoſe in that diſputation is againſt the works of nature, which the Iewes thought to be holy and iuſt, and alſo meritorious: he did not reiect the works of regeneration, as they be duties and teſtimonies of thankfulneſſe vntounto God, but in that reſpect commends them, Rom. 6. 7. 8. Chapters, and in other places. But as touching the cauſe of iuſtification, he would not hauehave theſe workes (as we call them) of regeneration, coupled with the grace of God, or with Chriſt, or with faith, as anie cauſe, or as part of anie meritorious cauſe of ſaluation. To this purpoſe he ſaith Rom. 4. that Abraham himſelfe being regenerate, was not iuſtified before God by anie works of his regeneration: And Rom. 6. hauing commended the works of ſanctification, in the end verſ. 23. where he attributeth death to the merit of ſinne, hee doth not there notwithſtanding aſcribe life eternall to the merit of the works, or fruits of ſanctification: but when he had ſaid, that the wages of ſin is death; he doth clearely auouch it, that eternall life is the free gift of God in Chriſt Ieſu. In which place, if the Apoſtle had beene of this iudgement, that the works of regeneration be in anie reſpect meritorious, aſſuredly he would not ſo paſſe ouer the commendation of the works of regeneration, ſpecially for that this heere is principally intended. Wherefore the Apoſtle to the Romans ſo reiecting the works of nature, which the couenant of works requireth: yet hee vnderſtandeth alſo all kinds of workes, morall, and naturall going before grace and faith, as alſo all ceremoniall works, and the very fruits of regeneration which follow grace and faith; that faith onelyonly, Chriſt only, grace only, may herein be all in all. Thus far of S. Paules iudgment.
We at this day are of one and the ſame mind with the Apoſtle concerning works of regeneration. Our aduerſaries, granting there be ſuch works, aſcribe too much vntounto them: for they will not hauehave them to be duties and teſtimonies onelyonly of thankfulneſſe vntounto God, but alſo that they be meritorious cauſes of that iuſtification, which they call the ſecond iuſtification.
Again, we are to remember, that the aduerſaries iudgment concerning works of regeneration is, that they proceed not onelyonly from infuſed grace, and firſt iuſtice (as they ſpeake) but alſo from nature and free-will, which works together with that iuſtice, in reſpect whereof alſo they account good works meritorious (as was before The popiſh opinion of good works.ſhewed) ſo aſcribing their good works in part to that their firſt grace, and in part to free-will. And thus farre of this compariſon: wherby it appeares, whether we or our aduerſaries hauehave the better, or the more ſound iudgment concerning both couenants, of the grounds of both, nature, grace, and Chriſt: as alſo of the effect of both, which we call mans iuſtification. And laſtly, for that this is the moſt fundamentall point of true religion, we may hereby diſcerne alſo whether we, or the aduerſaries, hauehave the religion and worſhip of God the more purely & ſoundly eſtabliſhed amongſt vsus.