A Vindication of the Moral Law and the Covenants, Moral treatise · Lecture 25
LECTVRE XXV.
ROM. 3. 27.
Where is boaſting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay, but of faith.
THe Apoſtle delivered in the words before moſt compendiouſly and fully the whole doctrine of juſtification in the The words opened.ſeverall cauſes of it, from whence in this verſe, he inferreth a concluſion againſt all boaſting in a mans ſelf; which he manageth by ſhort interrogations, that ſo he might the more ſubdue that ſelfe confidence in us: Where is boasting? ſaith he. This is to be applyed univerſally both to Jew and Gentile; but eſpecially to the Jew, who gloried moſt herein. and Chryſostome makes this the reaſon why Chriſt deferred ſo long, & put off his coming in the fleſh, viz. that our humane pride might be debaſed: for if at firſt he had come unto us, men would not have found ſuch an abſolute neceſſity of a Saviour. The ſecond Queſtion is, by what Law boaſting is excluded; and this is anſwered, firſt negatively, not by the Law of works. Secondly poſitively, by the law of faith.
The Apoſtle, by the law of works, meaneth the doctrine of works, preſcribing them as the condition of our juſtification and ſalvation; and he ſaith works, in the plurall number, becauſe one or two good works, though perfectly done (if that were poſſible) would not ſatisfie the Law for our acceptation, unleſſe there were a continuall and univerſall practiſe of them, both for parts and degrees: and he cals the doctrine of faith, the law of faith, either becauſe (as Chryſostome ſaith) he would ſweeten and indeare the Goſpel to the Jewes, by giving it a name which they loved; or, as Beza, he ſpeaks here mimetically, according to the ſenſe of the Jewes, as when John. 6. he calleth Faith a work, becauſe the Jewes asked, What ſhould they do? Now we have in the Scripture two lively comments upon both theſe parts of the Text. The Phariſee mentioning what he did, reckoning up his works, and never naming the grace of God, is a boaſter by the Law of works, but the Publican, that looketh upon himſelfe only as a ſinner, and ſo judgeth himſelf, he excludeth all boaſting by the law of faith.
The Papiſts they mean by works here in the Text, thoſe The Papiſts corruptly gloſſe upon this Text.which go before faith, and they quote a good rule out of Gregory, though to a foul errour, Non per opera venitur ad fidem, ſed per fidem ad opera: We do not come by works to faith, but by faith to Works. But this gloſſe of theirs corrupts the text, becauſe the Apoſtle in this controverſie inſtanceth in Abraham, ſhewing how he had not wherewith to glory in himſelf, and therefore by beleeving gave glory to God. If you ask why works do imply boaſting, though we be enabled thereunto by the grace of God? The anſwer is ready, becauſe we attribute juſtification to that work of grace within us, which yet is defective, that is, wholly to be given unto Chriſt.Doctr.
The doctrine I ſhall purſue out of theſe words, is, That although the Law, given by God to the Iſraelites, was a Covenant of grace, yet in ſome ſenſe the Law and Gospel do oppoſe and thwart one another, And this matter I undertake, becauſe hereby the nature of the Goſpel and the Law will be much diſcovered. It is an errour, ſaith Calvin lib. 2. Inſtit. cap. 9. in thoſe who do never otherwiſe compare the Goſpel with the Law, then the merit of works with the free imputation of righteouſneſs: and (ſaith he) this Antitheſis or oppoſition is not to be refuſed, becauſe the Apoſtle doth many times make them contrary, meaning by the Law that rule of life, whereby God doth require of us, that which is his own, given us no ground of hope, unleſſe in every reſpect we keep the Law; but, ſaith he, quum de totâ lege agitur, when he ſpeaks of the Law more largely taken, he makes them to differ, only in reſpect of clearer manifeſtation: or, as, Pareus ſaith of the old and new Covenant, they The Law and the Goſpel may be compared one with another in a double reſpect.differ not eſſentially, but, as we ſay, the old and new Moon.
Therefore, before I come to ſhew the exact oppoſition, take notice of two things as a foundation: firſt, that the Law and the Goſpel may be compared one with another, either in reſpect of the grace God gave under the Old-Teſtament, & the New, and then they differ onelyonly gradually; for they under the Law did enjoy grace and the Spirit of God, (though Socinians deny it) although indeed in reſpect of the Goſpel, it may comparatively be ſaid, no ſpirit, and, no grace; as when it is ſaid, The holy Ghoſt was not yet given, becauſe it was not ſo plentifully given: Or, ſecondly, the doctrine of the Law in the meere preceptive nature of it, may be compared with the doctrine of the Goſpel, having the grace of God annexed unto it and going along with it. Now this is in ſome reſpects an unequall compariſon; for if you take the doctrine or letter of the Goſpel without the grace of God, that letter may be ſaid to kill as well as the letter of the Law: only this is the reaſon, why we cannot say, The Spirit of God, or grace, or life is by the Law, becauſe whatſoever ſpirituall good was vouchſafed to the Jewes, it is not of the Law, but of the grace of God, or the Goſpel. Therefore, whenſoever we compare Law and Goſpel together, we muſt be ſure to make the parallel equall, and to take them ſo oppoſitely, that we may not give the one more advantage, or leſſe, then the nature of it doth crave and deſire.
In the ſecond place therefore, in this controverſie, ſtill remember to carry along with you the different uſe of the word The different uſe of the word [Law] carefully to be obſerved.[Law] as to this point; for if you take Law ſtrictly, and yet make it a Covenant of grace, you confound the righteouſneſſe of works, and of faith together, as the Papiſts do: but if largely, then there may be an happy reconciliation.
For the better opening of this, conſider, that as the word What meant by Law taken largely and what ſtrictly[Law] ſo the word [Goſpel] may be taken largely, or ſtrictly. We will not trouble you with the many ſignifications of the word (or whether it be uſed any where of a ſorrowfull meſſage, as well as glad newes, as ſome ſay, in two places it is uſed, 1. Sam. 4. 17. 2 Sam. 1. 10. according to that rule of Mercers, Non infrequens eſſe, ſpecialia verba interdum generaliter ſumi.) It is enough to our purpoſe, that in the Scripture it is ſometimes taken more largely, and ſometimes more ſtrictly: when it's taken largely, it ſignifieth the whole doctrine, that the Apoſtles were to preach, Mar. 16. 15. Preach the Goſpel to every creature: & ſo Mar. 1. 1. The beginning of the Goſpel, i. e. the doctrine & preaching of Chriſt. Or elſe it is taken moſt ſtrictly, as when Luke 2. 10. Behold I bring you glad tydings, &c. In which ſtrict ſence it's called the Goſpel of peace, and of the grace of God: So that you ſee, the word [Law] is taken differently, largely and ſtrictly; thus alſo is the word [Goſpel.] Now it's a great diſpute, Whether the command of repentance belong unto the Goſpel, or no? I finde the Lutherans, Antinomians, and Calviniſts to ſpeak differently: but of that, when we take the Law and Goſpel in their moſt ſtrict ſenſe. Bellarmine bringeth it as an argument, that the Proteſtants do deny the neceſſity of good works, becauſe they hold that the Goſpel hath no precepts, or threatnings in it, lib. 4. de Juſtif. cap. 2. And he urgeth againſt them, that Cap. 1. ad Rom. where the wrath of God is ſaid to be revealed from heaven in the Goſpel; but (as is to be ſhewed) he there doth miſtake the ſtate of the controverſie taking the word [Goſpel] in a larger ſenſe then they intended. Thus on the other ſide Iſlebius, the father of the Antinomians, he taught that repentance was not to be preſſed from the Decalogue, but from the Goſpel; & that, to preſerve the purity of doctrine, we ought to reſiſt all thoſe who teach, the Goſpel muſt not be preached but to thoſe who are made contrite by the Law: whereas the right unfolding of the word [Goſpel] would make up quickly thoſe breaches.
The Law therefore and the Goſpel admitting of ſuch a different acception, I ſhall firſt ſhew the oppoſition between the Law and the Goſpel taken in their large ſenſe and then in the limited ſenſe, And this is worth the while, becauſe this is the foundation of all our comfort, if rightly underſtood. Now the Queſtion in this larger ſenſe is the ſame with the difference between the Old and New-Teſtament, or Covenant; wherein the Learned ſpeak very differently, and, as to my apprehenſion, moſt confuſedly. I ſhall not examine whether that be the reaſon of calling it Old and New, which Auſtin Chemnitius, and others urge, becauſe it preſſeth the old man & condemneth that; whereas the new incourageth and comforteth new: I rather take it to be ſo called, becauſe the old was to ceaſe and vaniſh away, being before the other in time. Now in my method I will lay down the falſe differences, and then name the true.
The falſe differences are firſt of the Anabaptiſts and Socinians, Falſe differences between the Law and the Goſpel: 1. Of Anabaptiſts, and Socinians, affirming, That they under the Law in the Old Teſtament enioyed only temporall bleſſings.who make all that lived under the Law to have nothing but temporall earthly bleſſings in their knowledge and affections. And for this they are very reſolute, granting indeed that Chriſt and eternall things were promiſed in the Old Teſtament but they were not enjoyed by any till the New Teſtament, whereupon they ſay, that grace and ſalvation was not till Chriſt came. And the places which the Antinomians bring for beleevers under the New Teſtament, they take rigidly and univerſally, as if there had been no eternall life, nor nothing of the Spirit of God till Chriſt came. Hence they ſay, the Goſpel began with Chriſt, and deny that the promiſe of a Chriſt, or Meſſias to come is ever called the Goſpel, but the reall exhibition of him only. This is falſe; for, although this promiſe be ſometimes called Act. 7. 17. Act. 13. 32. the promiſe made to the fathers, yet it is ſometimes alſo called the Goſpel, Rom. 1. 2. Rom. 10. 14, 15. And there are cleare places to confute this wicked errour, as the Apoſtle inſtancing in Abraham and David, for juſtification, and remiſſion of ſinnes, which were ſpirituall mercies; and that eternall life was not unknown to them, appeareth by our Saviours injunction, commanding them to ſearch the Scriptures, for in them they hope for eternall life, John 11. 39. Thus alſo they had hope and knowledge of a reſurrection, as appeareth, Act. 24. 14. therefore our Saviour proved the reſurrection out of a ſpeech of Gods to Moſes. And howſoever Mercer (as I take it) thinke that expoſition probable about Jobs profeſſion of his knowledge [That his Redeemer liveth, and that he ſhall ſee him at the laſt day] which make his meaning to be of Jobs perſwaſion of his reſtitution unto outward peace and health again; yet there are ſome paſſages, in his expreſſion, that ſeem plainly to hold out the contrary. Though therefore we grant that that ſtate, was the ſtate of children, and ſo carried by ſenſible objects very much; yet there was under theſe temporall good things, ſpiritual held forth. Hence the Apoſtle, 1 Cor. 10. maketh the Jewes to have the ſame ſpirituall matter and benefit in their Sacraments 2. Of Papiſts.which we partake of.
In the next place, let us conſider the falſe difference of the Papiſts; and they have the Socinians alſo agreeing with them in ſome things.
Firſt, they make this a great difference, that Chriſt, under the 1. That Chriſt hath added more perfect Laws under the New Teſtament.New Teſtament, hath added more perfect Laws, and ſound counſells then were before, as, Wilfull poverty, Vowed chaſtity: and the Socinians, they labour to ſhew how Chriſt hath added to every precept of the Decalogue; and they begin with the firſt, that he hath added to it theſe things: 1. A command to prayer, whereas in the Old Teſtament, though Godly men did pray, yet (ſay they impudently) there was no command: and then Chriſt (ſay they) did not only command to pray, but gave a preſcript form of prayer. The ſecond thing added (ſay they) is to call upon Chriſt, as a Mediatour in our prayers, which they in the Old Teſtament did not. And thus they go on over all the Commandements, ſhewing what new things Chriſt hath added, Smal. refut. Theſ. pag. 228. But I have already ſhewed that Chriſt never added any morall duty which was not commanded before.
The ſecond difference of the Papiſts, is, to make the Law and 2. That the Law and Goſpel are capable of no opoſite conſideration.the Goſpel capable of no oppoſite conſiderarion, no not in any ſtrict ſenſe, but to hold both a Covenant of works, and that the Fathers under the Old Teſtament, and thoſe under the New, were both juſtified by fulfilling the Law of God. And herein lyeth that groſſe errour, whereby Chriſt and grace are evacuated. But the falſhood of this ſhall be evinced (God willing) when we ſpeak of the Law and Goſpelſtrictly, which the Papiſts, upon a dangerous errour, call the Old Law, and the New.3. That the Fathers that died under the Old Teſtament, went not immedatly to heaven.
Laſtly, the Papiſts make a third difference, that under the Old Teſtament, the Fathers that dyed went not immediatly to heaven; therefore (ſay they) we do not ſay, Saint Jeremiah, or, Saint Iſaiah, but after Chriſts death then a way was opened for them and us: Hence is that ſaying, Sanguis Chriſti, eſt clavis Paradiſi, The blood of Chriſt, is the key of paradiſe: but this is ſufficiently confuted in the Popiſh controverſies.
I come therefore to the Antinomian difference, and there I 3. Of Antinomians. That God ſaw ſin in the beleevers of the Old Teſtament, not of the New.finde ſuch an one, that I am confident was never heard of before in the world; It is in the Honey-comb of Juſtification, pag. 117. God (ſaith he) ſaw ſin in the beleevers of the Old Teſtament, but not in theſe of the New; And his Reaſon is, becauſe the glory of free Juſtification was not ſo much revealed, the vaile was not removed. What a weak reaſon is this? Did the leſſe, or more revelation of free Juſtification make God juſtifie the leſſe freely? It had been a good argument to prove that the people of God in the Old Teſtament did not know this doctrine ſo clearly as thoſe in the New, but that God ſhould ſee the more or leſſe, becauſe of this, is a ſtrange Conſequence. The places of Scripture which he brings, Zech. 13. 1. Dan. 9. 14. would make more to the purpoſe of a Socinian, (that there is no pardon of ſin, and eternall life but under the Goſpel) rather then for the Antinomian: and one of his places he brings, Jer. 5. ver. 20. maketh the contrary true; for there God promiſeth pardon of ſin, not to the beleevers under the Goſpel but to that reſidue of the Jews which God would bring back from captivity, as the context evidently ſheweth: ſo the place Heb. 10. 17. how groſly is it applyed unto the beleevers of the Goſpel only? for, had not the Godly under the Old Teſtament the Law written in their hearts? and had they not the ſame cauſe to take away their ſins (viz. Chriſts blood) as well as we under the Goſpel?
His ſecond reaſon is, God ſaw ſin in them, becauſe they were children, that had need of a rod; but he ſees none in us, becauſe full grown heirs. What a ſtrange reaſon is this? for parents commonly ſee leſs ſin in their children, while young, then when grown up: and their childiſhneſs doth more excuſe them. And although children only have a rod for their faults, yet men grown up they have more terrible puniſhments. Hence the Apoſtle threatens beleevers that deſpiſe Chriſt, with puniſhment above thoſe that deſpiſed Moſes.
His third Reaſon is, becauſe they under the Law were under a School-maſter, therfore he ſeeth ſin in them, but none in us, being no longer under a School-maſter. But here is no ſolidity in this Reaſon: for firſt, the chiefeſt work of a School-maſter is to teach and guide; and ſo they are ſaid to be under the Law as a School-maſter, that ſo they may be prepared for Chriſt: and thus it is a good argument to Chriſtians under the Goſpel, that their lives ſhould be fuller of wiſdome and grown graces, then the Jewes; becauſe they are not under a School-maſter as children: As if one ſhould ſay to a young man, that is taken from the Grammar ſchool, and tranſplanted in the Univerſity, that he ſhould take heed he doth not ſpeak falſe Latine now, for he is not in a Grammar ſchoole now, but in an Univerſity. Thus you ſee, the chief notion of a School-maſter is to prepare and guide, his correcting is accidentall; yea, if we may believe Qintilian a maſter in this kinde, he is againſt the School-maſters beating of boyes, as that which would make them of a ſervile diſpoſition. But Solomon giveth better rules. Grant therefore that this is to be underſtood of knocks and blows which they had, what can we ſay under the Goſpel, that we are children freed from the rod? Though we have not a Shoolmaſter, yet we have a father to correct us. Heb. 12. 5, 6, 7, 8. Do we not in that place finde a plain contradiction of this doctrine? For the Apoſtle doth there alleadge a place of the Old Teſtament, to us now under the Goſpel: And, certainly, afflictions are as neceſſary to the godly now, as fire to the droſſy veſſell and filing to the ruſty iron. As the ſcourging and beating of the garment with a ſtick, beateth out the mothes and the duſt; ſo do troubles and adverſities corruptions from the children of God.
The fourth reaſon why God ſaw ſin in them, war, Becauſe they were not made perfect according to the conſcience, Heb. 9. 13, 14. Who would not think that the author were ſome Papiſt, or Socinians? for if the text prove any thing to his purpoſe, it will evince that the godly then were made partakers of no more then a legall bodily cleanſing. But as for the place, that is miſerably arreſted; for the Apoſtle, his intent is to ſhew, that the godly then could not obtain righteouſneſs by any of thoſe ſacrifices, and therefore the good they enjoyed was from Chriſt the true ſacrifice: ſo that unleſs he will deny Chriſts blood to be effectuall and operative in the Old Teſtament, this reaſon muſt fall to the ground. Other reaſons he brings, which are to the ſame purpoſe, and therefore may eaſily be overthrown; as, that God ſaw no ſin in them, becauſe their preachers did not open the kingdome of heaven, but he ſeeth none in us, becauſe the leaſt of our Miniſters do bring us, into this Kingdome. Every-one may ſee the weakneſs here; for it ſuppoſeth that God did not ſo fully pardon and forgive, becauſe the doctrine of theſe things was not ſo clearly preached. If the Authors arguments had been, that Chriſt died not ſo fully for them, or that Chriſt his righteouſneſs was not ſo fully imputed unto them, then there had been ſome probability. Thus you ſee this falſe difference alſo. I do not medle with that opinion, Of ſeeing ſin in the beleevers, becauſe it is not the proper place.
I find other differences between the Law and the Goſpel, made by another Antinomian, and they are in a Sermon upon the two Covenants of grace, where the Authour, hauing truely aſſerted, that God did tranſact with the Jewes in a Covenant of 2. That the Covenant God made with the Iews & this under the Goſpel are two diſtinct Covenants.grace; yet he makes that Covenant, and this under the Goſpel, to be two diſtinct Covenants: They are not (ſaith hee, pag. 45.) one and the ſame Covenant diverſly adminiſtred, but they are two diſtinct Covenants: His arguments are, becauſe they are called Old and New: But thoſe names inforce no eſſentiall difference. The Commandment of love is called an old Commandment, and a new; yet it is the ſame for eſſence: ſo likewiſe the termes of a 3. That Plenary remiſſion of ſins under the Goſpel, not ſo under the law, becauſe no ſacrifice ſave for ſins of ignorance.good, and better, do imply no more then a graduall difference in their excellency. But that which I ſhall eſpecially animadvert upon, is, the differences he giveth between theſe two Covenants of grace ſo really diſtinguiſhed, as he ſuppoſeth, and in this matter, the Authour ſpeaketh much error in a few lines.
The firſt difference aſſigned by him is in reſpect of remiſſion of ſinnes; but he goeth on other grounds then the Hony-combe Confut. 1. All Sacrifices were not only for ſins of ignorance.doth. They had not (ſaith he) a plenary remiſſion of all ſorts of ſinnes: There were ſacrifices for ſinnes of ignorance, but notfor other ſinnes that were done preſumptuouſly: and if no ſacrifices were admitted, then conſequently no pardon obtained: but under the Goſpel, Chriſts blood cleanſeth from all ſin, pag. 54. Now here is an heape of falſhoods:
Firſt, that all the legall ſacrifices were only for ſinnes of meer ignorance; (This is alſo an errour among Socinians) but Levit. 6. 2, 3. there is a ſacrifice appointed for him that ſhall lye, and ſweare falſly in detaining of his neighbours goods, and this could not be but a ſinne of knowledge. This is alſo aboundantly confirmed in Levit. 16. where the feaſt of expiation and atonement is made for all the ſinnes of the people, ver. 16. He ſhall make an atonement, becauſe of the uncleaneſs of the children of Iſrael, and becauſe of their tranſgreſſions in all their ſinnes. So ver. 21. He ſhall confeſs over the live goat all the iniquities of the children of Iſrael, and all their tranſgreſſions in all their ſinnes. Thus ver. 30. that ye may be cleane from all your ſinnes before the Lord; & ver. 34. This ſhall be an atonement for the children of Iſrael once a yeare for all their ſinns. Thus you ſee the Scripture ſpeakes plainly for all their ſinnes; yet the Antinomian ſpeakes as boldly, as if nothing were true; that there were ſacrifices for ſome ſorts of ſinnes only. So that you are wiſely to judge of ſuch books, and not beleeve every confident expreſſion. It's true the Apoſtle calls theſe ſinnes foreign, Heb. 9. 7. we tranſlate it errours; for the Apoſtle doth not meaneſinnes, as appeareth Levit. 16. but therefore are all ſinnes called, ſo becauſe omnis malus ignorat: There being no ſinne which doth not proceede from ſome errour in the practicall judgment? for although a man ſin wilfully and adviſedly, ſo that there is Nulla alia cauſa malitae niſi malitia, (as Auſtin ſpeakes of ſome of his ſinnes) yet there is even an errour in that mans conſcience.
But in the ſecond place, grant, that there were no legall ſacrifices 2. No legall ſ…crifice, therefore no remiſſion o… ſin, in conſequent.appointed for ſome ſins, (as indeed particular ſacrifices were commonly for ſins, either of ignorance, or if wilfull, not of ſuch an high and mortall guilt; particular (I ſay) for that feaſt of expiation was generall) yet there is no conſequence in the world, that therefore there was no pardon to be ſued out. How fooliſh then were David and Manaſſes, in ſuing out pardon for their blood-guiltineſs, if there were no ſuch thing allowed by God? How groſs is this errour? If this doctrine were true, then moſt of thoſe that are reckoned as godly in the Old Teſtament could have no pardon, becauſe many of them did fall into ſuch groſs ſins, for which there was no particular ſacrifice appointed.
3. Again under the New Teſtament, is there not the ſin 3. The ſin againſt the holy Ghoſt under the Goſpel not cleanſed by Chriſts bloud.againſt the holy Ghoſt for which no pardon is promiſed? Not indeed but that Chriſts bloud is ſufficient to take away the guilt of it? and Gods mercy is able to pardon it, and to give repentance to thoſe that have committed it; but he hath declared he will not.
But, ſaith the Author, under the Goſpel it is ſaid, the bloud of Chriſt cleanſeth us from all ſin. Now, if the Jews would have brought all their eſtates to have been admitted, to bring a ſacrifice for ſuch or ſuch a ſin, they could not have done it. I reply what and if they could bring no ſacrifice, could they not therefore have pardon? Why then doth God proclaime himſelf to them, a God gracious, forgiving iniquity, tranſgreſſion and ſin? Why doth he, Iſa. 1. call upon Ieruſalem to repent of her whoredoms, murders, ſaying, If their ſins were as ſcarlet, they ſhould be made as white as ſnow. This errour is ſuch a dead fly, that it is enough to ſpoile the Authors whole box of ointment. Beſides, was not that true ever ſince Adams fall, as well as under the Goſpel [Chriſts blood cleanſing from all ſin] I cannot ſee how any but a Socinian will deny it.
4. Another difference that the Author makes about remiſſion 4. That under the old Covenant, God gave not remiſſion of ſins to any, but upon antecedent conditions; not ſo under the Goſpel.of ſinnes to them, and us under the Goſpel, is as ſtrange, and falſe as the former: It is this, God did not give the grace of remiſſion of ſinnes to any under the old Covenant, but upon antecedent conditions; they were to be at coſt for ſacrifices. (How doth this agree with his former reaſon, if he mean it univerſaly?) They were to confeſs their ſinnes to the Prieſts, yea, in ſome caſes to faſt: but now under the Goſpel there is no antecedent doing of any thing to the participation of the Covenant. But in this difference alſo there is much abſurd falſhood, and contradiction to himſelfe: Contradiction (I ſay) for he bringeth Ezech. 16. where God ſpeaks to the Church, that while ſhe was in her blood, he ſaid to her, Live; therefore there was no antecedent condition. But what man of reaſon doth not ſee that God ſpeaks there of the Church of the Iews, as appeareth through the whole Chapter? Therefore it makes ſtrongly againſt the Author, that ſhe had no preparations; ſo that other place, Iſa. 65. 1. I am found of them that ſought not for me; grant that it be a propheſie of the Gentiles, yet was it not alſo true of the Iews, before God called them? Did the Iews firſt ſeek God, or God them? How often doth God tell them, that the good he did to them, was for his own names ſake, and not any thing in them?
Again, if theſe things were required as antecedent qualifications in them for the remiſſion of ſins, then all thoſe argumments will hold true upon them, which they would faſten, as injuries to Chriſt and grace, upon us. If (ſay they) we muſt repent, and humble our ſelves, and ſo have pardon, this is to caſt off Chriſt, this is to make an idoll of our owne righteouſneſs, &c. It ſeemeth the Jews under the Old Teſtament might do all theſe things without blame: A Iew might ſay, My ſervices, my ſacrifices, my prayers will do ſomething to the remiſſion of my ſinnes: but a Chriſtian may not. The Author urgeth alſo that place, While we were enemies, we were reconciled to God: but doth not this hold true of the Iews? Did they firſt make themſelves friends with God? What is this but to hold the doctrine of free-will and works in the time of the Law; and the doctrine of grace under the new only? As for faith, whether that be a condition or not, I ſhall not here meddle: only this is plain, it was required of them under the old Covenant, in the ſame maner, as it is of us now.
A third difference made as to remiſſion of ſinnes, is this: Their remiſſion of ſinnes was gradatim, ſucceſſively, drops by drops. If a 5 That remiſſion of ſinnes under the Law was ſucceſſively and imperfect, under the Goſpel at once and perfect.man had ſinned, and offered ſacrifice, then that ſinne was pardoned; but this did not extend to future ignorance, that was not pardoned till a new ſacrifice. Therefore the Apoſtle ſaith, there was a remembrance of ſinne; but Chriſt by one ſacrifice once offered, hath perfected for ever them that are ſanctified. To this I anſwer, 1. That this difference grew upon this ſuppoſition, as if the ſacrifice offered did by it's own vertue take away ſinne. For, if we ſuppoſe (as we muſt) that Chriſt the true ſacrifice was repreſented in every ſacrifice, and all the vertue and benefit to come from Chriſts bloud, and not the bloud of the ſacrifices, then could that take away all ſinnes as well as ſome ſinnes: unleſs the Author were a Socinian, denying the efficacy of Chriſts blood, at all, under the Old Teſtament, he can never expedite himſelfe from this.
Again, this contradicts themſelves; for the reaſon why they ſay, faith doth not juſtifie, but evidence and declare it only, is, becauſe Gods love and free grace to juſtifie, is from all eternity, and therefore no ſins paſt, or future, can hinder this. Now I ask, whether God did not juſtifie David, and the ungodly in thoſe dayes from all eternity, (as they ſpeak) and if he did, why ſhould not all their ſins be remitted fully once, as well as the ſins of beleevers under the Goſpel? Certainly, the Apoſtle brings David for an inſtance of juſtification and remiſſion of ſins, as well under the New Teſtament, which doth ſuppoſe that we are juſtified, and have our ſins pardoned in the like manner.
In the mean while, let me ſet one Antinomian to overthrow another, for one of that way brings many arguments to prove that we are juſtified, and ſo have all our ſins done away before we beleeve. Now, if all ſins are done away, then there is no ſucceſſive remiſſion. Well then, you ſhall obſerve moſt of the arguments hold for the beleevers under the old Teſtament, as well as New; for they are elected as well as we, God laid their ſins, upon Chriſt as well as ours: if God love us to day, and hate us to morrow, let Arminians heare and wonder why they ſhould be blamed that ſay, We may love God to day, and hate him to morrow. Now all theſe reaſons will fall foul upon this Antinomian whoſe errour I confute, and he much neceſſarily hold, that the godly had but halfe pardons, yea, that they were loved one day, and hated the next.
Again, conſider that the place of the Apoſtle urged by him for his errour, viz. Chriſt offering himſelfe once for all, to perfect thoſe that are ſanctified, is of a perpetuall truth ever ſince Adams fall: and it was as efficacious to thoſe before his death, as after; therefore he is called a Lamb ſlain from the beginning of the world, although the Socinians would pervert and wreſt that place.
Laſtly, I deny that even under the Goſpel that all ſins are forgiven to the juſtified perſon at once. He is indeed put into a ſtate of juſtification, whereby no condemnation will fall upon him, yet his ſins are not forgiven before they are committed and repented of. And for this purpoſe we pray for the daily pardon of them, which is not to be underſtood of the meer declaration or aſſurance of the pardon, but for the pardon it ſelf. But this ſhall be on purpoſe ſpoken to in the matter of Iuſtification. The forenamed Author hath ſome other differences, but they are confuted already for the ſubſtance of them.