A Fresh Antidote Against Neonomian Bane, Chapter 11

A Fresh Antidote Against Neonomian Bane · Chapter 11

p. 81CHAP. XI. Of Iuſtification by Works.

Section 1. The Neonomian Doctrine oppoſed. §. 2. Who it is God juſtifies. §. 3. More fully Anſwer'd. §. 4. Arguments againſt Juſtification by Works. §. 5. Mr. Cl's Propoſition. §. 6. Of the Jews Opinion about Juſtification. §. 7. Whether Paul means only Works of Moſes's Law. §. 8. Whether Paul diſputes only againſt ſome Works. §. 9. Mr. Cl's Denial and Challenge. §. 10. What Law the Apoſtle means. §. 11. How the Jews looked upon the Law. §. 12. Of the Law of Faith. §. 13. What Deeds of the Law. §. 14. What Works to be boaſted of. §. 15. Of meritorious Works. §. 16. Of juſtifying Works. §. 17. Of the Jews Conceit of Perfect Obedience. §. 18. 1 Cor. 4.4. conſidered. §. 19. Mr. Cl. unfair in his Challenge. §. 20. Of Rom. 4.5. §. 21. Of Rom. 2.20.

Sect. 1. OUR Neonomians affirm we are juſtified by works, not of the Old Law (which the Apoſtle Paul every were excludes) but of the New Law, this is that which we oppoſe, and ſay the Apoſtle doth exclude all our works, even in the ſtate of Regeneracy, from Juſtification, and in this Point we ſhall take Mr. Cl. becauſe he ſeems to be moſt full in the handling of it, and take up that Mr. H. ſaith, in a more ſcattered manner here and there.

§. 2. Chap. 10. He tells us who it is that God Juſtifies, not ungodly, foreign according to Rom. 4.5. No ſaith Mr. Cl. the Spirit of God means the godly, and he brings againſt the poſition of the Spirit of God in this place, that of Exod. 23.7. Where the LXX uſeth the ſame words.

Reſp. To which I ſhall anſwer, 1. That Mr. Cl. knows the LXX doth not tranſlate the words according to the Heb. Text; but rather p. 82ſpeaks to the drift of the Text, which is to enjoyn unto Men an impartial Execution of diſtributive Juſtice, and therefore it renders it, Thou ſhalt not juſtifie the wicked for a reward; and that is the plain Drift of the Text by what precedes, v. 6. Thou ſhalt not wreſt judgment, and thou ſhalt take no gift, v. 8. and the Hebrew in the 7th verſe is, I will not juſtifie, i. e. will not have thee to juſtifie, for thou art but my Deputy, and I ſit in the Aſſemblies and Courts of Earthly Judges, and whatever Judgment contrary to Juſtice and Right thou paſſeſt, I will call thee to an account for it. Then 1. This Text ſpeaks of Man's Judgment, not of God's immediately, but as ſuperviſing the actions of men. 2. He might as well, or better alledged Exod. 34.7. where God proclaiming himſelf a ſin-pardoning God, ſaith, he will by no means clear the guilty; but in pardon of ſin God doth clear the guilty, and ſo the ungodly, in Juſtification of them by the imputed righteouſneſs of Chriſt which takes off the ungodlineſs in that kind, tho man cannot provide for the Juſtification of an unrighteous perſon by gifts or partiality in a way of Juſtice, yet God can by gracious and juſt ways and means provide for the acquitting the guilty, and juſtifying the ungodly juſtly. 2. It muſt be underſtood, Rom. 4. according to the words in a ſtrict ſence, God juſtifies the ungodly, while ſuch, not to remain ſuch. For Abraham there ſpoken of, was ſuch an ungodly vile Idolater, Joſh. 24. Had Abraham performed any New-Law righteouſneſs before he came out of Ʋr? Mr. C. will underſtand it, he ſaith, in a ſtrict Law ſence, i. e. that he was a tranſgreſſor of the law of works, ſo will I, and that's therefore to be ungodly, and I know no ungodlineſs but ſuch, and while he was ſuch God juſtified him, and he did no New-Law works before he was juſtified, for Heb. 11.8. for by faith, when he was called of God to go forth he went; ſo that he had faith, and was juſtified before he obey'd the Call. 3. Its moſt conſiſtent with the Grace of God to juſtifie the ungodly, and not in the leaſt derogatory from his Juſtice to juſtifie a ſinner in Gods way of Juſtification 4. As God juſtifies none to be ungodly, nor juſtifies ungodlineſs, but that ſinners may be godly; ſo there's none can be godly before he is juſtified, he cannot perform one godly Act, nor have the Spirit, the natural Man being a ſtranger to God and Enemy to him. 5. Why may not God juſtifie the ungodly, as well as ſanctifie the ungodly, if God may give one gift to the rebellious, why not another? if he may give Grace, why not all Grace? they will have Men juſtified by works; who works in them to will or do? Who gives them this righteouſneſs? Doth not this gift of God find them ungodly? They will ſay, yea undoubtedly, then I will ſay, why may not God give p. 83Chriſt, to an ungodly one the gift of righteouſneſs, and juſtifie him thereby, I hope if God can give one righteouſneſs, he can give another, unleſs they will limit his Sovereign Grace.

§. 3.1. But more fully: And firſt Negatively, not by the Law, Gal. 2.16. viz. the Law of Moſes; and why ſo? is there any the leaſt word of the Law of Moſes, its foreign, by the works of a law, any law; when the Apoſtle ſpeaks of Moſes's law, he annexeth the pre-poſitive Article, So Rom. 3.20. its a law, from the works of a law no fleſh living can be juſtified; now this is not the Ceremonial Law, by v. 19. but that law whereby all the world became guilty, Jews and Gentiles, v. 9, &c. for the Gentiles were not guilty by Moſes Law, neither could the works of the New Law admit of an exception here; for its any law that gives the knowledge of ſin. Now if the New Law gives the knowledge of ſin, the works of it are here excluded, for that is no law that gives no knowledge of ſin. Hence all works of all Laws are here excluded, i. e. ſuch as the righteouſneſs thereof required is our obedience performed by us; whence its plain, that the Law of VVorks, the Ceremonial Law, and the New Law are equally excluded. Now the next Verſe hath it, that the righteouſneſs of God is manifeſted without theſe excluded works, this is no new Notion, but witneſſed foreign, by the law, i. e. of Moſes and the Prophets. VVhat Gal. 3.16. is brought in for I know not, I find it not among the Errata's, but I think it muſt be one, Hitherto alſo do belong theſe places, Job 15.14. chap. 25.4. Pſalm 143.2. which Places plainly and peremptorily deny righteouſneſs in Man to be found unto Juſtification; Mr. Cl. ſays, according to ſtrict Juſtice, according to the law of works, as Paul expounds it, Gal. 2.16.

Reſp. The Apoſtle there doth peremptorily proteſt againſt Juſtification by the works of a Law, any Law whatever; and if he hath an eye upon the Pſalmiſts words, he explains them ſo far as to us, why the Pſalmiſt denies Juſtification to any man living, is, becauſe all works that Man can perform, muſt be referred to ſome law, by the works of a law no fleſh living could be juſtified. Let me add what the Apoſtle ſaith, If righteouſneſs be by a law, then Chriſt died in vain: Its ſtrange the Apoſtle ſhould ſo expreſly and poſitively exclude the works of a Law from Juſtification, and yet all this while intend that we are juſtified by the works of a Law, and that he ſhould never tell us, he doth not mean works of the New Law, nor ſo much as mention it.

§. 4. From the forementioned places, theſe Arguments will ariſe againſt Juſtification by our works. 1. Juſtification of a ſinner or ungodly one as ſuch, cannot be by any works of a Law, p. 84performed by him, but Gods Juſtification of any fallen Man is ſuch, for the Major its plain, againſt Neonomian Juſtification, unleſs they will ſay, that a natural Man may be godly while ſuch, or that which the old law calls ungodlineſs, the new law calls godlineſs; yea, a man muſt be ſanctified in their ſenſe, before juſtified, while under condemnation, and bound over to wrath. Again, the Text is clear, that Abraham was ungodly when juſtified, both by Hiſtory and the Apoſtles, for he could not do any good, and all his obedience was after his Juſtification by Faith. Now the Minor is as Evident, that Gods Juſtification of fallen Man is ſuch, for if we be juſtified by the works of a Law, its not conſiſtent with Grace; for juſtification ſingly conſidered, ſpeaks nothing but Juſtice: And Juſtification by the works of a Law performed by us, ſpeaks nothing but Juſtice; but Juſtification by Grace, is only as the Apoſtle ſaith, when its without the deeds of the Law performed by us.

2. That Doctrine that excludes the works of every Law, by which is the knowledge of Sin, excludes the works of every Law performed by us; but the Apoſtles Doctrine excludes the works of every Law that gives the knowledge of Sin. Ergo the works of every Law, Old, New, and Moral Law, are excluded. This Argument ſtands firm from Rom. 3.20.

3. If the holieſt Men have not expected to be juſtified by their own righteouſneſs, who have lived by Faith, then juſtification is not by works of a Law: But the Antecedent is true, therefore the conſequence. The conſequence appears, in that David had lived long by Faith, and in Holineſs, when he penned, Pſal. 143.2. And if he thought to be juſtified by New Law works, he need not have ſaid, Enter not into Judgment with thy Servant, unleſs he had added, by the Old Law, but, Enter into Judgment with thy Servant by the New Law, for in thy ſight, New-Law works will juſtifie any Fleſh, Minor, David, Job, Paul expected not to be juſtified by New Law Works.

4. Thoſe works that will not make a ſinner clean and pure in the ſight of God, cannot juſtifie him; but no New Law righteouſneſs, will take away Moral Pollution in the ſight of God, ſo as to make him clean. Ergo, the Major is ſo clear as none can deny, for by Juſtification, the juſtified is purged and clean from Sin in the ſight of God; he can Enter into Judgment with God, upon the account of the righteouſneſs he is juſtified by. The Minor is true, 1. From the confeſſion of our Adverſary, that its a ſinful righteouſneſs, its condemned by the Moral Law, its not adequate to exact Juſtice, therefore it will not cover Sin from the Eve of Gods Juſtice. 2. From ſo many expreſs Places of Scripture, p. 85Job. 15.4. He that is righteous before God, muſt be clean before God. Imperfect righteouſneſs, can never make us clean in the ſight of God, Job. 15.4. Its not to be found of man born of a Woman, i. e. meer man, nor in any fleſh living, Believers are fleſh living, and born of women; Job ſaith chap. 9.30. If I waſh my ſelf in ſnow water, and make my ſelf never ſo clean, yet ſhalt thou plunge me in the ditch, and mine own cloaths ſhall abhor me; now will Job's new-law-works juſtifie him; he had been long a holy man, yet he often pleaded his uprightneſs towards God, and his integrity againſt his friends charge, and yet you ſee what his new-law-righteouſneſs amounted to, chap. 40.4. & 42 6.

5. Let me add a Fifth Argument before I leave his Negative: If there was never any Law given to fallen Man that could give Life upon the Terms thereof, then there could be no righteouſneſs to Juſtification by a Law; but the antecedent is true, therefore the conſequent, and both from Gal. 3.1. the Apoſtle's unanſwerable Argument againſt Juſtification by any Law. The words are very plain and full to any one that can conſtrue Greek.

§. 5. He proceeds to his further Proof, in divers Propoſitions, which are many, ſo little to the purpoſe, that it would be loſt time to follow them particularly, but that there's in them many places of Scripture perverted from their true Interpretation.

His firſt Propoſal is, The whole ſcope of the Apoſtle is to aſſert and eſtabliſh Juſtification by faith, as the only way of Salvation to lapſed men.

Reſp. What if ſo? Doth it therefore follow that the Apoſtle teacheth, that Faith is the way of Juſtification by Works? or quite contrary, that Juſtification by Faith is not by the works of righteouſneſs which we have done, but by theſe that Chriſt hath done? This I gather, ſaith he, from that place Rom. 1.17. The righteouſneſs of God is revealed from faith to faith, which words I paraphraſe thus, That the Goſpel alone diſcovers the method and way appointed by God, whereby we may become righteous in his account, viz. by faith in Chriſt, and by continuance, increaſe and exerciſe thereof.

Reſp. Its the Office of the Goſpel, to teach Sinners the way, the truth and life, who is Chriſt; there's no other righteouſneſs that the Goſpel can teach a ſinner to Juſtification, John 14.6. and that Faith lays hold on that way, is the Goſpel; to teach a man that he is to be juſtified by the works of a law, is it Good News to a ſinner? That this Text is groſly abuſed, appears,

1. Becauſe the righteouſneſs of God here ſpoken of, is a righteouſneſs revealed, and therefore not in us; for things already in us, are not ſaid to be revealed to us.

p. 862. Its the righteouſneſs of God, and not of Man.

3. Its an objective righteouſneſs that is here ſpoken of, ſuch as is made known to our Faith by Revelation, therefore not Faith it ſelf.

4. It appears by the Proof, in that the life of a juſt one is by faith feeding upon another's righteouſneſs, not his own. In a word, according to Mr. Cl's ſence, it ſhould be this, The Goſpel is the Method of God unto Salvation, for therein is the righteouſneſs of man revealed from faith to faith, viz. the more a man believes in Chriſt, the more he believes he is juſtified by his own works, and this is that he lives by, he lives by faith, i. e. by believing his faith to be works.

He diſproves Juſtification by works of a law as inconſiſtent therewith, becauſe all are ſinners, and therefore none can be juſtified by their works, and on the other hand, that they muſt be juſtified by faith.

Reſp. One would think this man ſpake now good Divinity, but his meaning is, only that Juſtification of a ſinner by the works of the old law, is inconſiſtent, but not Juſtification by the works of a new law; whereas the deſign of the Apoſtle throughout is to diſprove the Juſtification of a ſinner by the works of a law, any law; he ſpecifies not any one law in particular, unleſs where he led to it, but when he oppoſeth Works to Faith in Juſtification, he ſpeaks of law indefinitely excluding all works of any law whatever, ſignified to us, Gal. 3.2. If there had been any law given, whereby life is given, then righteouſneſs had been by a law, but there was no ſuch law given.

§. 6. The Apoſtle inſiſts largely on this Diſpute againſt Juſtification by works, becauſe it was a received Opinion among the Jews, that a man might be juſtified by the works of the law, and it was retained by many of them, even after they were converted to the faith of Chriſt, as appears. Acts 21.20.

Reſp. The Apoſtle inſiſted largely and ſtrenuouſly on this Diſpute, in making and proving the direct oppoſition between Juſtification by the works of any law performed by us, and Juſtification by faith in the righteouſneſs of another, 1. Becauſe the Jews were generally bigotted to a righteouſneſs of ſome law to be performed by them for Juſtification. 2. Becauſe they were generally ignorant of the righteouſneſs of Chriſt, which made them go about to eſtabliſh their own righteouſneſs in Point of Juſtification. 3. What he writes to the converted Jews, he doth, 1. In order to convince them of the danger of joining their own righteouſneſs in obedience to any law in Juſtification, with the righteouſneſs of Chriſt, and this was the danger of the Galatians. 2. He warns them of the vanity of the continuance of the works of Moſes's p. 87law in order to Salvation. Now Mr. Cl. brings the words of James to Paul, Acts 21.20. to prove that the converted Jews ſought Juſtification by the works of the Law of works: To which I anſwer.

1. That the unconverted Jews did none of them expect Juſtification by the works of the law of works, for 1. They did not look upon their works as perfect works (though they took the external obedience to be what the law mainly looked for which Chriſt refutes) for they owned that their external works were mixed with much imperfection and ſin. Elſe 2dly. They could not own the Doctrine of Sacrifices for ſin, wherein they ſaw the ſinfulneſs of their works, and were convinced at leaſt thereof, whether they ſaw by faith the Antitype ſignified by them or no, and therefore could ſtand upon their works in themſelves perfect, in anſwer to the righteouſneſs of that law, but the Juſtification by works which they looked for, was by an imperfect righteouſneſs (as the Neonomians do) in obedience to the law of Moſes, which they made their new law, as the Neonomians do the Goſpel, and therefore the Apoſtle ſaith, that they ſought it as it were by the works of the law, it was Juſtification by works in their ſence, the Apoſtle preacheth accordingly againſt works, as taken by themſelves, Rom. 9.

Anſ. 2. As for the converted Jews, ſpoken of, Acts 21. they where for the obſervations of ſome things in the Obedience of Moſes his Law, as neceſſary means of Salvation, not aboliſh'd by Chriſts coming in the Fleſh; and as the Apoſtles did not preſs harder upon them in that Point, than only to leave them under an indifferency of uſing them or not, provided they laid not the ſtreſs of their Juſtification thereon, as appears by Acts 15. So here the charge againſt Paul, which the Apoſtle James would have him clear himſelf of, was, that he contradicted the Apoſtles at Jeruſalem in permitting the uſe of ſome Jewiſh Ceremonies as indifferent for the preſent, by reaſon of the Jews weakneſs, thou teacheſt the Gentiles to forſake Moſes: Now he ſhewed by his complying with James, that whatever he taught the Gentiles, yet he was not againſt complying with the Jews, ſo far as to uſe yet ſome of Moſes his appointment, provided they made not ſuch Actions of theirs the righteouſneſs of Juſtification, therefore tells the Galatians running on that Point, that if they were circumciſed, Chriſt could profit them nothing. Now this is clearly the Point he withſtands Peter in, and oppoſeth the Galatians, in that he made his Saviour a Tranſgreſſor by his practice in judaizing contrary to the Doctrine he had preached in Juſtification, by Chriſts righteouſneſs alone: As for the others, they brought in p. 88another Goſpel, not one, whatever they called it. Hence the complaint againſt ſome believing Phariſees, Acts 15.5. was that they taught the neceſſity of keeping Moſes's Law unto full juſtification, the conjoining our righteouſneſs with his, or that his righteouſneſs meritted ours; and therefore they were to obſerve Moſes his Law as their own righteouſneſs (the New Law with them) this Doctrine Peter oppoſeth in his ſpeech unto ver. 11. to which James agrees, and propoſeth an expedient, ver. 19, 20. ſo that what the Phariſees attempted at Antioch, and what the Galatians were ſeduced to, was only the neceſſity of the works of a New Law, as a ſole or ſocial righteouſneſs with Chriſts for Juſtification, Pro. 9.3.

§. 7. When he diſputes againſt Juſtification by Works, he means only the Works of the Law.

Reſp. He ſhould have told us what Law the Apoſtles means, Moral, or Ceremonial, or New Law; or whether works of any Law whatever, which we confidently affirm, and if he make Goſpel works, Law works, he diſputes againſt them. And this propoſition of his, he is large in proving with little Proof. 1 It appears, he ſaith, by the Apoſtles, wary, cloſe and reſtrictive way of ſpeaking, Rom. 3.20. The reſtrictiveneſs of that place, we have ſpoken to; and ſhewed the place is poſitively againſt all works of any Law. Again, we have ſhewed that Gal. 2.20. Is an abſolute excluſion of the works of a Law, any Law, for as Mr. C. obſerves che works of a Law, are three times excluded; we ſhall not actum agere as near as may be. Gal. 3. The deſign of the Apoſtle in that Chapter, is to ſhew, 1. That a believer of the Gentiles is bleſſed, i. e. Juſtified by Faith with faithful Abraham, ver. 9. to prove this, he argues thus; either by Faith, or by Works, not by works of a Law, any Law, for (ſaith he) he that is a ſinner, and under a Law for Juſtification, is under a Curſe, nor cannot come from under it by the works of it: And that you may take an inſtance of the Voice of any Law, take that of Moſes, ver. 10. curſed is every one that abideth not in all things written in the book of the law to do them, i. e. foreign, Moſes his Law. Becauſe by a Law, any Law, no fleſh living is juſtified with God, or before God, manifeſt, becauſe the juſt ſhall live by faith, and ſhall draw the firſt breath of the life of Juſtification by faith, and live that life always by it, which is not to get life by our own works, but living by and upon the righteouſneſs of another by faith, and thus he argues from Moſes's Law to every Law, that works of neither cannot juſtifie; and when he ſpeaks of Moſes his law, he ſeldom underſtands the meer Ceremonial Law, but the Moral alſo, as recognized under Moſes, and that of Gal. 5.4. foreign, p. 89ye are abdicated from Chriſt whoever of you are juſtified by the works of a law; in Mr. Cl's. ſence it is whoever of you are juſtified by the works of ſome law only; ſo Paul oppoſeth Chriſt himſelf to the works that are of a Law, Phil. 3.9. His own righteouſneſs, he ſaith, is ſuch, viz. this he deſires to be found out of, but in Chriſt, viz. his righteouſneſs by Faith, which he oppoſeth to his own, as that which he calls the righteouſneſs of God, in oppoſition to the righteouſneſs of Man. He ſaith indeed in one place, Works are mentioned in general, Rom. 4.2. Its true, but he takes not Notice how often Law is mentioned in general, and ſo the works of a Law are general where-ever ſpoken ſo of. But he ſaith, theſe words muſt be underſtood with a limitation too, and be meant of the ſame kind of works.

Reſp. And therefore the words import thus, if Abraham were juſtified by ſome kind of works he hath wherein to Glory, but why ſhould ſome kind of works give Abraham more cauſe of boaſting than others? He will ſay, becauſe ſome are great and perfect, others little and imperfect, but I ſay there's no ſpecifick difference between great and little of the ſame kind; beſides he that attains a great End by a ſmall work, hath more cauſe of boaſting than he that attains it by great work and Labour; therefore a Man may rather boaſt of the works of the New Law, than of the Old, and then they are all works oppoſed by him to Faith, for he ſaith, the reward is to him that worketh, not that that Expreſſion excludes all works, for Paul could not be ſo abſurd to expreſs works by not working.

§. 8. If Paul underſtood himſelf, &c. We muſt grant and conclude that Paul diſputes only againſt the works of the Law.

Reſp. No doubt he knew his own Mind, and was conſiſtent with himſelf, and if ſuch plain Expreſſions are intelligible, he excludes all works of any Law what ever, but he gives his reaſon why he means we are juſtified by works, when he ſaith poſitively, we are not juſtified by works, and that, he that worketh not, but is ungodly. Becauſe they were ſuch works as did fruſtrate and evacuate the undertakings of Chriſt, Rom. 4.14. Gal. 5.4.

Reſp. So do all works of a Law brought in for righteouſneſs, for if the great End of Chriſt's undertaking, was to be our Juſtifying-righteouſneſs, then any works brought into the room thereof fruſtrate Chriſt's righteouſneſs, but that was the chief End of Chriſt's undertaking, Rom. 4.25, 2 Cor. 5.21. The words of Rom. 4.14. are, if they that be of a Law be Heirs, i. e. ſuch as claim by the works of a Law performed by them, Faith is made Void, i. e. its to no purpoſe to believe on another for righteouſneſs, Faith is made empty of the righteouſneſs of another, foreign, p. 90and the Promiſe or Goſpel is abdicated, for the ſame thing cannot be Law and Promiſe, or Goſpel, and the reaſon is given, becauſe you ſee the law of Moſes worketh wrath, and where there's no law there's no tranſgreſſion, the law determines the tranſgreſſion, and the ſinner to wrath for it, and this doth every law whatever. The other Scriptures were ſpoken to before.

2d Reaſon, They are ſuch works as he oppoſeth every way to faith, and alſo to Grace, Gal. 4.4. therefore they are not faith, or any inherent grace, Gal. 5.4. But he never oppoſeth faith and Goſpel-Works.

Reſp. He always oppoſeth Faith and all Works, in the Point of Juſtification, becauſe Works juſtifie by themſelves, but Faith by its Object only.

Becauſe Goſpel-works ſuppoſe Faith, or Grace, being the fruit of Faith, and product of Grace.

Reſp. A pitiful Reaſon, becauſe a man that runs apace is ſuppoſed to ſee, therefore a man runs by his eyes, and after this manner he applies, 1 Cor. 15.10. by the Grace of God I am what I am— and laboured more abundantly than they all; ergo, Paul was juſtified by works, is not this a very learned conſequence?

I grant, ſaith he, faith and works of the law are frequently oppoſed by the Apoſtle.

Reſp. Then faith and works of a law are not the ſame, in this he gives us the Cauſe. Let us ſee his Conceſſions further:

I grant, ſaith he, a meer profeſſion of faith is oppoſed to works, James 2.14.

Reſp. True Faith, fruitful in good works, is oppoſed to falſe faith that has no fruits.

3. I grant that even Goſpel-works are oppoſed to Grace, (tho not to faith) both in Election, Rom. 11.5, 6. and in Vocation, 2 Tim. 1.9.

Reſp. Works of a law, by which a man claims Juſtification, are not Goſpel-works, but Legal, and they are oppoſed to Grace, both in Election, Vocation and Juſtification; but as Election is not on the foreſight of any works or righteouſneſs, no not of Chriſt's, and Vocation is not upon our performance of any works, no more is Juſtification.

I grant, God chooſeth not upon foreſight of good works, or faith in us, neither call any becauſe they have faith or good works, but that they may have them, his Grace is antecedent to any good in us; but now the caſe is otherwiſe in reference to thoſe priviledges which follow Vocation, for God juſtifies and glorifies us, yet not as the meritorious cauſe thereof, but only as a way, means and qualification, &c.

Reſp. Well now the Caſe is altered, Grace goes no further than p. 91Vocation, there it makes a ſtand, and man does the reſt himſelf; but let us enquire a little into this Myſtery: Is a man effectually called and made holy, and yet not juſtified? for he that is made holy in order to Juſtification, ſuppoſe qualified and conditionated for it, is in order of Nature, holy before juſtified, i. e. hath the Spirit of Holineſs, the Gift of Grace, and inherent righteouſneſs, whilſt a child of wrath, and actually under the curſe of the law. 2. All Juſtification for Holineſs, becauſe it is the work of a law, is meritorious righteouſneſs; for there's no law juſtifies but becauſe the performance of the condition deſerves it in Juſtice. Hence all Qualifications and Means made legally, conditionally to the remunerative part of the Law are deſerving thereof, and meritorious, and undeniably ſo; for if the abſence of the Qualification and the Means, or Non-performance of the Condition, doth merit or deſerve the Wages of the Sin from the Law, enjoyning the ſaid Qualifications or Conditions, then having, and performance thereof, doth upon the ſame Reaſon merit and deſerve the Reward of Righteouſneſs; but the Antecedent is true, therefore the Conſequent.

§. 9. He proceeds with Confidence. 2dly. I do abſolutely deny, that a true, Goſpel juſtifying Faith, and Goſpel-Works, are ever oppoſed to one another, and do confidently affirm the contrary, becauſe I have examined all Places where Faith and Works are mentioned, and do not find them, if any affirm, let him prove it.

R. Mr. Cl's Confidence is no Proof, and his ſearching the Scriptures, and not finding ſo plain a Truth, as that Juſtification by Faith, is oppoſed to Juſtification by Works; argues, but judicial blindneſs, whereby God hath hardned his Heart, and blinded his Eyes.

1. As was ſaid before all Goſpel-works (as he calls his New Law Works) brought into Juſtification by a Law are legal not Goſpel, not accepted of God but leaves a Man under a Curſe.

2. Thoſe that are Goſpel-works are Fruits of the Spirit, thro' the Gift of Grace, and Fruits of Faith, as they are Fruits of Chriſt's Righteouſneſs, believed in to Juſtification; and no cauſe of Juſtification in the leaſt, neither doth the Believer claim Juſtification thereby, and hence called Goſpel-Works; but if he claim Juſtification by them, they are Works and oppoſed to Faith, but looſe the Name of Goſpel, are Legal, droſs and dung, and ſtink in the Noſtrils of God, neither are any ſuch Works the gracious Gifts of the Spirit, or true Faith or the good Fruit of it. For ſuch ſeek Righteouſneſs as it were, by the Works of the Law, and obtain it not.

3. Now whereas Mr. Cl. here throws down his Gantlet in an p. 92Ambiguous manner, we take it up in the true State of the Difference, and confidently affirm, that Juſtification by Faith is poſitively oppoſed by the Apoſtle Paul to Juſtification by any Works of a Law whatever performed by us, the proving of which is the drift of this whole Diſpute as now managed.

4. He ſaith, there was no Coutroverſie about any other Works, but the Works of the Law.

Reſp. There was no Controverſie about any Works, but the Works of a Law, no more is there now, Gal. 5.4. The Apoſtle ſaith, They are abdicated from Chriſt, and fallen from Grace, that are juſtified by a Law; ſo ſay we.

§. 10. Propoſition 4. This Law was the whole Body of the Moſaical Law, conſiſting of precepts Moral, Ceremonial, and Judicial; what he ſaith, under this propoſition, about the acceptation of the term Law, I think will not hold all of it with his other Doctrine, for he ſaith its taken. 1. For any written Declaration or Revelation of the Will of God concerning our Duty. 2. Its frequently taken for the Moral Law, as Rom. 7.12. and Ch. 3.31. Mat. 5.17. Luke 16.17. 3. Its uſed Indefinitely, for the whole Body of the Law given to Moſes, and therefore he mentions it in ſuch general Terms.

R. Becauſe Law is uſed in ſo many Senſes in Scripture, and thoſe that would introduce Juſtification by Works are apt to ſlip from one Law to another, and ſay, as Mr. Cl. doth, that though the Apoſtle deny Juſtification by one Law, yet he intends Juſtification by Works of another Law; therefore the Apoſtle excludes our Works of any Law whatever, as frequently in his Epiſtles as hath been ſhewed, ſo in that expreſs and plain Place, Gal. 3.21. If there had been a Law given which could have given Life, verily Righteouſneſs ſhould have been by the Law? And why is it ſpoken? It's ſpoken as a Reaſon, that the Law of Moſes, foreign, was not againſt the Promiſe; i. e. againſt Juſtification by the Promiſe and Gift of Righteouſneſs, no, the Law of Moſes taken together was ſo far from being againſt this way of Juſtification without the Works of a Law, that it witneſſed to it, as the Apoſtle expreſly ſpeaks, Rom. 3.21. It did not appropriate the Grace of the Promiſe to it ſelf, but by the whole Tenor of it witneſſed to the Promiſe and Righteouſneſs. The Law of Moſes taken as a Law, did juſtifie none, Gal. 3.11. For ſaith the Apoſtle, the Law (i. e. as ſuch) is not of Faith, ver. 12. The Condition of it being Works, and therefore Juſtification by the Law is not Juſtification by Faith, the Apoſtle ſaying further, ver. 18. If the Inheritance be of a Law, than no more of Promiſe. ver. 19. For what end ſerved the Law given by Moſes? Anſw. It was added, becauſe of Tranſgreſſion, till the Seed ſhould come to whom the Promiſe p. 93was made, i. e. Chriſt, but why? added for two Ends. 1. That Sin might be diſtinctly known by the Moral Part, as the Apoſtle by the Knowledge of Sin. 2. That by the Ceremonial Law there might be a Typical Redemption and Satisfaction held forth unto them, through which they might have a ſight of Faith, and of the true Sacrifice held forth unto them.

§. 11. Propoſition 5. The Law was looked upon by the Carnal Jews as a Covenant of Werks, Mat. 19.16. Granting that it was; yet not to be fulfill'd by a perfect Obedience, but by imperfect, as appears by his Words, What good thing ſhall I do that I may inherit Eternal Life? As much as to ſay, I have done Good and Evil, I would know what that good thing is whereby I may be righteous to Life Eternal. He depreciates the Law calling it a Miniſtration of Death and Condemnation, 2 Cor. 3.7, 9. It was the true Senſe of the Apoſtle, that the Law of Moſes or any other Commands of God, underſtood uſed, and applied as a Law for Juſtification by the Works of it, is a Miniſtration of Death, and not of Faith, and as a Ceremonial Law, which Heb. 6.19. is made nothing and by it ſelf perfect, it being Typical, and the Type abſolutely conſidered, could not purifie them as to Conſcience. The Apoſtle ſaith, it was weak through our weakneſs, Rom. 8.3. We being not able to come to the Terms of this, nor of any other; and Rom. 6.14. ſaith we, i. e. Believers are not under a Law, but under Grace for Juſtification, as much as to ſay, you take the Doctrine of Grace to be a licentious Doctrine but believe it, its the legal Doctrine that leads to Sin, not the Doctrine of Grace; beſides the Apoſtle ſhews plainly, that to look for Juſtification by the Law of Moſes, or of any other is to be Married to it, which he ſhews Rom. 7. is quite contrary to our Marriage to Chriſt, by Faith, while we are in expectation of Juſtification by a Law, we are held in Bondage, but being by the true Sence of the Nature of it Dead to it, it becomes Dead to us; Now we are delivered from the Law, that being Dead wherein we were held, and there's no other Husband comes in the room of the Dead Law, no new Law, but Chriſt only. And the Oppoſition (ſaith Mr. Cl.) is only between the Law of Works and the Law of Faith, if he make the Law of Faith to be a Law of Works then its no Oppoſition at all, becauſe both are a Law of Works; and why I pray is Juſtification by Faith, Juſtification by Works, doth the Apoſtle ſpeak any where of a new Law or the Works of it? No he ſpeaks of the Law of Faith. Let us ſee then what is in that Expreſſion, Rom. 3.27, 28.

§. 12. The Apoſtle having told us, how we are Juſtified freely by Grace, who are Sinners in all reſpects, ver. 24, 25, 26. Infers, p. 94elegantly where is boaſting then? i. e. Of our own Righteouſneſs, ſaith its ſhut quite out a Doors. By what Law? doth any Law ſhut out boaſting? No ſaith the Apoſtle, doth not Works? Nay, they cauſe boaſting what Law then? Such a Law, if you will have a Law, as the Nature of Faith, its in the very Nature of Faith to ſhut out Works; therefore we conclude, that we are juſtified by Faith without the Works of a Law; is not Juſtification by Faith and Works here plainly oppoſed? Now that Law is taken for the Nature of a Thing, many Inſtances might be given, but for the preſent take Rom. 7.23. ſo Rom. 8.2. The Law, is the Nature of the Spirit of Life that is in Chriſt. Let us ſee what Senſe it will be in the Neonomian Interpretation, where is boaſting then? it is excluded, by what Law? Works, i. e. the Old Law of Works, nay; but by the Works of the New Law Work, excludes boaſting of Works, boaſting is excluded not by the Law of Works, but by the Law of Works; therefore we conclude, that a Man is juſtified by Works without Works, not by ſome, but by other Works.

§. 13. Propoſition 6. The Works or Deeds of this Law are ſuch as are performed by our own Strength in Obedience thereto, ſuch as Adam had in the State of Innocency, hence called their own Righteouſneſs, Rom. 10.3.

R. I enquire whether giving Strength and Power to perform Works hinders them from being Works of the Law, or would it have hindred Adams had he ſtood, and I marvel that any Man will ſay, that Adam in innocency had not Strength given him by God, but whether he had or had not, it makes nothing to the Point in Hand, which is the Conſideration of the Reſpect or Relation that Works have to the Law, which enquire not how a Man came by his Money, but whether it be Good and Current, Rom. 10.3. is falſly explained, as we ſhall ſhew anon; neither doth the Spirit of God ſavingly ſtrengthen us to the performance of any Works of our own for Juſtification, and ſuch as any Man claims by, are not Goſpel-Obedience nor performed by the Spirit.

§. 14. Propoſition 7. They were ſuch Works as did admit of boaſting, Rom. 3.27. Eph. 2.9. Rom. 4.2. For what we do of our ſelves without the help of another we may boaſt of?

R. Can it be ſuppoſed that any underſtanding Jews or Gentile, do think they can do good upon a meer natural or moral Conſideration without Help and Strength from God. 2. How ſhall Men know they have ſupernatural Aſſiſtance, its certain they have it not graciouſly, when they aim by their Duties to ſet up themſelves for juſtifying Righteouſneſs. 3. The boaſting ſpoken of in the Places mentioned, is glorying before God ſitting on a Throne p. 95of Juſtice diſpenſing it by a Law, now that Perſon that doth come with his own Righteouſneſs in his own Hand, and will ſay here are my Works, Faith, Obedience, Repentance, Sincerity performed by me, juſtifie me for them, or by them, this is the glorying the Apoſtle excludes, and Faith always excludes, and the Apoſtle ſaith, Gods giving the Reward upon theſe Terms is paying of a Debt, and not of Grace, for whatever is demandable upon our own Performances in a way of Juſtice is not of Grace. The Apoſtle to Eph. 2. ſpeaks v. 7. of God ſhewing forth the Riches of his Grace in Juſtification (as appears by foregoing Context) of vile miſerable Sinners, and ſaith, its in his kindneſs to us thro' Chriſt, and then v. 8. gives the Reaſon, For by Grace are we ſaved (Juſtification being an eminent part of Salvation) through Faith (receiving that Juſtification and Salvation) now leaſt any one ſhould call this Faith, Works, as the Neonomians do, he poſitively excludes all Works, and not of Works, not through Faith as a Work, and leaſt any one ſhould ſay, he is beholding only to himſelf for his Faith; he tells us, its a Gift of God, and its a Gift of Sanctification not of Juſtification as appears by the Text, that's only the Object of Faith, the Righteouſneſs of Chriſt.

§. 15. Propoſition 8. Theſe Works [viz. of the Old Law] are meritorious, implied in that Deſcription, Rom. 10.5.

Reſp. The Deſcription the Apoſtle gives there of Legal Works is ſuch as belongs to all Law-works, for there's no Law that enjoins perſonal Obedience for the Condition, let it be more or leſs, but it makes the ſaid Obedience meritorious, and the promiſed Reward a Debt, Rom. 4.4. and this Merit belongs not only to the Law of Works at firſt, but to all Works of any Law for Juſtification, theſe are the Works a Man may boaſt of, tho' he receive them as Gift from another, for if a Man gives the Grace of God in Works, in payment to the Law of God, he paies God you will ſay in his own Coyn, but yet his preſenting them to God for Juſtification, in Satisfaction to a Law, is high abuſe of the Grace of God perverting to an end that God never intended. The Law of Faith, which he tells of was never intended to be a Law of Works, for the Apoſtle uſeth it in Oppoſition to Works, and to prevent the Miſtake theſe Men are run upon, viz. that they ſhould underſtand the Work of Faith to be meant by him, where he ſaith, it is of Faith that it may be of Grace, becauſe Faith aſcribes nothing to it ſelf as fulfilling to any Law, it is ſaid by the Law of Faith, either according to the nature of true Faith, as hath been ſaid, or elſe according to the Ordination of God, that we ſhould be juſtified by Faith without Works, Gods Ordination of thing as to the End, and Means, doth not always make p. 96it a Law of Sanction, God hath ordained to give Faith, to give the Spirit, to give the Relation of Children. Doth God give them in a Law, Do this and live?

§. 16. Propoſition 9. Theſe Works are perfect and unſinning Works.

Reſp. This is a great Miſtake, that God hath brought in ſinning VVorks for Juſtification, inſtead of perfect VVorks. 1. God never made a Law where ſinning VVorks, were the Condition of the Law, this would be contrary to his Holineſs and Juſtice. But if God makes a Law wherein he ſaith do and live, let the doing be more or leſs, perfect or imperfect, yet a Man doing the thing commanded, his VVork is rewarded as meritorious, and its perfect as to the Law, that it is to be righteous in the Sence of the Law, and to be meritorious. He that performs the Condition of a Law, and he never ſins at all in the Eye of the Law, therefore all juſtifying Righteouſneſs in any Law is unſinning, therefore this Plea will ſerve no more for Ejection of the VVorks of the Old Law, than for the Ejection of the VVorks of the New Law out of Juſtification. Hence we ſee the pretence of caſting out the VVorks of the Old Law is frivolous and vain, becauſe they are performed by our Strength, which none can pretend to, no not Adam in Innocency, or becauſe they introduce boaſting when the VVorks of any Law do, when Juſtification is pleaded for thereby, they are meritorious, when the VVorks of any Law are ſo, or they are unſinning and perfect, when the VVorks, of any Law muſt be ſo, or elſe it juſtifies not.

§. 17. Prop. 10. The Jews many of them did Conceit and Fancy that they could yield perfect Obedience to this Law ſo as to need no Pardon. This he would prove from, Luke 16.15. and Luke 18.9.

Reſp. It is not to be granted, that a People that offered ſo many Sacrifices for Sin, ſhould think they could yield perfect Obedience to the Law of God. That of Luke 16. proves not his Aſſertion, for Chriſt ſpeaks only of the Juſtification before Men by their external Actions, and he ſhews that neither their external nor internal would juſtifie them before God, and beſides, he tells them that which Men account Righteouſneſs, God looks upon as an Abomination. Nor that Chap. 18.9. for he there condemns, plainly looking for Juſtification by Mens own Righteouſneſs, and truſting to it. VVhat doth a Neonomian do leſs then they, when he looks upon himſelf as Righteous to Juſtification by his own Righteouſneſs? thence he gives the Inſtance of the proud Phariſee, and poor Publican, he ſaith, the Publican of the two lookt more like a Juſtified Perſon, becauſe he renounced his own Righteouſneſs, and applied himſelf wholly to the Mercy of God, as a poor p. 97Sinner not pleading any works at all of any kind. 2. It is to be ſuppoſed the carnal Jews did look for Juſtification by their own Righteouſneſs, tho' they looked not at themſelves as Righteous in perfect performance of the Moral Law; for if ſo, they could not have been ſo Zealous for Moſes his ceremonial Law, the chiefeſt part whereof, was the Levitical Prieſthood and Sacrifices, they could not but know that the very High-Prieſt ſinned, and offered firſt for his own Sins, and then for the Sins of the People; yea, that Sin polluted their holieſt things, and therefore Sacrifices for Sin were offered for them, yea, all ſprinkled with Blood. But they having ſuch apprehenſions of their Juſtification, as the Neonomians have of theirs; they fall under the ſevere remarks of the Lord Chriſt and his Apoſtles.

1. They looked upon Moſes his Law, as that which was their New Law for Juſtification by imperfect Righteouſneſs, in oppoſition to the Old Law, as firſt given to Adam in Innocency.

2. They looked upon the Sanction of the Law of Works as to perfection, to be abrogated or relaxed, that God would accept them for their ſincerity in Imperfect works; ſo Paul in his unregeneracy.

3. They looked to the Opus operatum in all Obedience to Moſes his Law, for becauſe, 1. They looked for forgiveneſs by the Offering up of Sin Offering, meerly without looking to the Antitype by Faith. 2. They looked upon the moſt material part of the Law of Works to be taken up into Moſes his Law, their New Law, now its Impoſſible but the New Law to them (if ever any ſuch thing was Exhibited and diſpenſed by Moſes his Law, which indeed (being ſpiritually underſtood, was the Jews Goſpel) therefore ſaith the Apoſtle, they ſought Righteouſneſs, Rom. 9. As it were, by the Works of a Law, tho' it was imperſeſt, yet the works of a Law, and never attained to a law of Righteouſneſs, and why? Becauſe they went to Eſtabliſh their own impertect Righteouſneſs, but ſought not after a true perfect Righteouſneſs which was not their own, but Chriſts, Rom. 10.3.4. Now ſaith the Apoſtle, theſe are engaged in a great miſtake, for they think to have a Juſtification by an impepfect partial Obedience, but they become hereby Debtors to keep the whole Law of Moſes, Moral and Ceremonial, but ſuch as ſeek ſuch Juſtification by Law-Works, either Legal or Evangelical, (for the New-Law muſt be ſuch, elſe they were not ſaved even as we) are abdicated from Chriſt, and fallen from Grace, Gal. 3.3, 4. As for the words of the rich Man, Luke 11.21. And as to Paul's ſentiments in his unregeneracy, Phil. 3.6. They are to be underſtood only as to common account, and groſs Actions, not that Paul thought he p. 98was perfect as to Moral-Obedience, but that he was imperfectly righteous, by ſome degrees of moral obedience, together with his Moſaical Expiation for Sin, and this is no other than his New-Law righteouſneſs, hence Rom. 7.9. he was alive without the law once, i. e. he once laid aſide the thoughts of the ſpirituality and exactneſs of the righteouſneſs of the true law of God, and therefore caſt it off, but was wholly taken up with a New-Law righteouſneſs, imperfect, and that God would accept this to Juſtification; but when he came to ſee the true law, and what righteouſneſs he muſt be juſtified by, or periſh eternally, then ſin revived, then he could ſee ſin with a vengeance in himſelf, and died to all Juſtification by his works, or by a law, of what kind ſoever it was.

§. 18. There's one place yet behind under the branch of Negative, 1 Cor. 4.4. I know nothing by my ſelf, yet am I not hereby juſtified.

Reſp. This place is againſt Mr. Cl. for here are two things in it: He tells us of a twofold Judgment of God that he looked for. 1. That of his Perſon. 2. The regularity and ſincerity of his Actions and Deportment. Whatever Cenſures Men were ready to paſs upon him, yet he had the teſtimony of a good conſcience, as chap. 1. but whatever his ſimplicity and godly ſincerity was, he expected not to be juſtified by it; but it might be ſaid, your actions are condemned by men, and there's none that doeth good and ſinneth not, and ſo may you in diſcharge of your Apoſtleſhip: He ſaith, as to my actions, God knows what they are, and he will teſtifie to them before the World that condemns them, when he ſhall come and lay open the ſecret and hidden things of darkneſs; therefore he diſowns plainly Juſtification by New-law-works, and he appeals plainly to the Judgment of God, as to his ways and works, to be ſuch wherein he is Evangelically, thro Chriſt, approved of God, as ſuch as are regular, ſincere, and from a true Principle, renouncing Juſtification thereby, but deſiring to walk in all well-pleaſing to God in Sanctification.

§. 19. It is now time to look back a little, and take notice of the great Challenge Mr. Cl. makes, I do abſolutely deny true Goſpel works and juſtifying faith are oppoſed one to another; which is very unfairly made as to the Terms, whereas, Juſtifying-Faith and Goſpel-Works, as the fruits of juſtifying are conſentaneous, as Cauſe and Effects, and therefore as ſuch, in their due place, they are not oppoſite one to another; but let the Queſtion be ſtated right, and we will receive the Challenge, Whether the Scripture doth not oppoſe faith and works, as ſuch, of all ſorts in the point of Juſtification? We affirm that it doth, and a little Logick-Light here is not amiſs, to conſider that diſtinguiſhing Properties of Oppoſites for diſſentaneous p. 99Arguments are diverſa vel oppoſita, diverſa's diſſent only in a certain reſpect, may be in the ſame ſubject at the ſame time; a man may be rich and wiſe too, in a different reſpect, at the ſame time. But as for oppoſites, they do diſagree both in reſpect, and indeed really in their nature, and muſt have their proper diſtinguiſhing Properties, which are, that they cannot be attributed to the ſame thing, to the ſame place, and in the ſame reſpect, nor at the ſame time; ſo that one of the oppoſites being affirmed, the other muſt be denied. Now then, according to the true logical acceptation of faith and works in Juſtification, they are oppoſed expreſly, and they are contraria oppoſita unum uni & adverſa contraria affirmantia quae inter ſe velut è regione perpetuò adverſantur. Now then,

Arg. 1. If Faith and Works of a Law are not oppoſed in Juſtification, then a Man may be juſtified by Faith and Works in the ſenſe of the Apoſtle, and in the ſame reſpect: But the conſequence is not true, the minor is proved, that Paul doth not intend that any Man is juſtified at the ſame time, and in the ſame reſpect, by Faith and Works too; for then all his diſpute againſt one and for the other, would be very unfair, to ſay a Man is not juſtified by the Works of a Law, and yet that he is juſtified by the Works of a Law, let us take Rom. 3.28. a concluſion drawn from the Excluſion of the deeds of a Law from Juſtification, therefore we conclude that a Man is juſtified by Faith, without the deeds of a Law. Let Mr. Cl. conſtrue it better if he can: yes, ſaith he, his meaning is without the deeds of the Law of Innocency, but not without the deeds of the New Law; i. e. the Law of Faith: Its ſtrange the Apoſtle ſhould ſpeak then Excluſively, of all works indefinitely; the Apoſtle might as well have ſaid, therefore we conclude a Man is juſtified by the deeds of a Law, and it had been a more probable concluſion, ſeeing he juſt before had mentioned the Law of Faith, by which might be underſtood only the Nature and Ordination of Faith, as a receptive Grace of the objective Grace of Juſtification: It is plain, the Apoſtle hath not the leaſt intention to underſtand the Fruit of Faith, nor Faith as a Work of a Law, for if he had, he would not have ſaid ſo poſitively, therefore we conclude that a Man is juſtified by Faith, without the deeds of a Law; and its impoſſible to ſpeak any thing as oppoſites, if theſe are not ſo ſpoken, they are not ſpoken as diverſa, but one is affirmed of the Subject, and the other abſolutely denyed, a Man cannot be juſtified by Faith in the Apoſtles ſence, and by Works at once; but if Faith juſtifie as works, then Works and Faith are the ſame in the Apoſtles ſenſe, and to be juſtified by Faith and by Works the ſame, and ſo the Apoſtle ſpeaks non-ſenſe.

p. 100Arg. 2. That which excludes Works of a Law in Juſtification, is oppoſed to Works of a Law in Juſtification; but Faith excludes Works of a Law in Juſtification: Ergo, and Minor, Its the Law, Nature and Ordination of Faith to exclude Works, or it ſelf as a Work, yea. Faith becomes uſeleſs in Juſtification, its abdicated from Juſtification, if it puts in as a work of a Law, yet it cannot be a Goſpel work, nor can any other work be ſo, that puts in for Juſtification; it is impoſſible any thing ſhould have a jot of Goſpel in it, that is a deed of a Law for Juſtification, it is a legal work, it makes it ſo. It is the greateſt contradiction in the world to ſay, we are juſtified by our Goſpel works.

Again, to prove the Minor further, That which excludes the deeds of a law by an eſſential proparty, is oppoſite to works; but the law, nature or ordination of faith excludes the deeds of a law by an eſſential property, viz. boaſting in claiming the reward for the work done; this faith, or the law of faith doth, it renounceth all ſelf-righteouſneſs, and renounceth it ſelf; as ſuch it comes to Chriſt, and for his righteouſneſs, naked and empty; its not true faith unleſs it be ſo, unleſs it take Chriſt only for himſelf, and his righteouſneſs alone to Juſtification.

§. 20. Arg. 3. Faith alſo is oppoſed to works, Rom. 4.5. where the righteouſneſs of faith is imputed to him that worketh not, but is ungodly; there faith is oppoſed to works, but in the Juſtification of Abraham it was ſo, and is ſo in every Believer, according to the Apoſtle, for Juſtification cannot be there by faith as a work, for then it were falſe to ſay, righteouſneſs is imputed to him that worketh not, viz. for Juſtification; for if faith juſtifieth as a work, then God juſtifieth him that worketh.

Arg. 4. If faith and works in the point of Juſtification evacuate one another, then they are oppoſed, but faith and works do thus evacuate each other, Ergo, &c. The conſequence cannot be denied, where one deſtroys another they cannot be together in the ſame ſubject, therefore contrary; for the Minor the Apoſtle is clear, Rom. 4.14. if they that be of the law be heirs, i. e. thoſe that are of the works of the law for Juſtification, foreign, faith is evacuated, and the promiſe abdicated; for faith making it ſelf a work, is felo de ſe, and throws off the free promiſe, and takes the reward as Debt, and not of Grace.

§. 21. Arg. 5. That which is not of faith in Juſtification, is oppoſed to faith in Juſtification, at leaſt in genere diſparatorum, but the law and deeds of it is not of faith, i. e. he that works for Juſtification on legal terms, is not one that's juſtified by faith: And what's theſe terms, the man that doth them ſhall live in them; now then, if its of faith to ſay, I am of the works of a law, and I ſhall live p. 101in my faith, becauſe its the term of a law, if ſo, the law ſhould be of faith, and faith of the law, contrary to the Apoſtle, Galatians 3.12.

Arg. 6. There's nothing more plain than the oppoſition the Apoſtle makes between Juſtification by faith and works, Gal. 2.16. The Apoſtle ſays it was a known thing to Peter and the Apoſtles, that a man is not juſtified by the works of a law (if he meant an exception of the law of faith, why did he not expreſs it) but by the faith of Jeſus; wherefore is this Antitheſis, if no oppoſition between faith and works in Juſtification? (he ſhould have ſaid in the Neonomian ſenſe, knowing we are not juſtified by the works of a law, but by the works of the law of faith.) we have believed in Jeſus Chriſt, that we might be juſtified by the faith of Chriſt (now leaſt any ſhould ſay, this faith in Chriſt is a work of the new law) he ſaith, and not by the works of a law, for in thy ſight ſhall no fleſh living be juſtified by them. Now I pray, were any ſaved under the Old Teſtament, they will ſay preſently, yes, by the works of the New Law; nay, but the Spirit of God ſaith poſitively, no fleſh living was ever juſtified, no not by a new law. VVill any man dare then to venture his Juſtification upon works of a law old or new? Doth the Apoſtle ſay, we have believed in Jeſus that we may be juſtified by the works of the law of faith? So he ſhould have ſaid to have expreſſed his meaning in theſe mens ſence: No, he ſaith, to prevent all miſtakes in this kind, not by the work of a law, and he proves it: And he adds, for Conviction of Peter of his Error in complying with the Judaizing Chriſtians, if we, i. e. you and I, ſeek to be juſtified by Chriſt, we are worſe, are found tranſgreſſors, by endeavouring by our practice to build People up in Juſtification by their own righteouſneſs, the works of a law, which we have deſtroyed by our Miniſtry.

§. 22. Arg. 7. The oppoſition is full, Rom. 2.20, 21, 22. where the righteouſneſs of a law is directly oppoſed to the righteouſneſs of faith as two righteouſneſſes oppoſite in Juſtification; there is an oppoſition: But in the Juſtification of a ſinner, the righteouſneſs of faith and works are ſo oppoſed in the ſaid place for by the righteouſneſs of a law, he ſaid, ſhall no fleſh living be juſtified in the ſight of God, he ſhould have added his exception, if he had intended men were to be juſtified by the righteouſneſs of the new law, and his reaſon is, that by a law is the knowledge of ſin. i. e. conviction of ſin, but no remedy; for the law only makes a ſinner guilty before God and his own Conſcience; but how then juſtified? Anſw. It is by another righteouſneſs (the gift of God) which we have not performed, but which is received by p. 102faith, therefore called the righteouſneſs of God which is by faith, [without our law-performances] but the righteouſneſs of Chriſt who fulfilled the law, this is that which is in and upon every Believer; But, ſaith Mr. Cl. I infer, we are not juſtified by the active righteouſneſs of Chriſt (p. 46.) or his obedience to the law of works imputed to us— for then we are juſtified by the law or Covenant of works, &c.

Reſp. The ſame inference will hold if only the paſſive obedience of Chriſt be imputed; for what was that but fulfilling the Covenant of Works in Satisfaction. All that Chriſt did or ſuffered was obedience to the Covenant of Works, and his righteouſneſs is juſtifying to us before God in foro legis, the difference of Law and Goſpel lying here, in the Covenant of Grace, That our righteouſneſs for Juſtification is not of our own performance of obedience to the law, for that is legal only; but our Goſpel-righteouſneſs is Chriſt's perfect performance of the moſt legal righteouſneſs, and this freely beſtowed on us, and received by faith.