A Rejoinder to Daniel Williams, Arguments
Arguments that the Goſpel is not a New Law with Sanction.
Arg. 1. If Law and Goſpel are ſpecifically diſtinct, then the Goſpel is not a Law, nor the Law a Goſpel, but Law and Goſpel are ſpecifically diſtinct, therefore the Goſpel is not a Law. The conſequence of the Major is undeniable to any one that underſtands the nature of Genus and Species. The revealed offers of ſalvation were never but by two ways to Man, by Works and by Grace, that is called Law, this Goſpel, and they are contra diſtinct, ſub proximo genere, and adverſa, as much as homo & brutum ſub animali; and the Law can no more be called Goſpel, or the Goſpel a Law, than a Man may be called a Brute, or a Brute a Man.
1. Law and Goſpel-grace are oppoſed expreſly by the Spirit, Joh. 1.17. The law was given by Moſes, but grace and truth came by Jeſus Chriſt. Here is not a Law and a Law oppoſed,Evangelium non eſſe legem, ſed ab ea plurimum diſtinctum tum ipſa arguit appellatio quam ponderat, Theophyl. in Praef. Matth. & Euſeb. l. 1. in praeparatione Evang. c. 1. Tum manifeſta Antitheſis quae eſt, Joh. 1.17. Rom. 10.5, 6. Tum utriuſque diſcrimen ſitum in patefactionis ordine natura, promulgatione, miniſterio in forma ſeu differentia promiſſionum in effectis, adjunctis efficacia, officio utriuſque in applicatione ad objecta: tum conſtitutus Eccleſiae purioris conſenſus quae ſemper Evangelium a lege diſcrevit quemadmodum, Cyril. Alex. but a Law and Grace eſſentially differing; for an old Law and a new do not differ eſſentially, but ſecundum adjuncta only, in the like manner and for the ſame end; Chriſt and Moſes are oppoſed, Chriſt as a Son, to Moſes as a Servant, one being a Miniſter of the Law, the other of the free grace of the Goſpel, Heb. 3.5, 6. As Mediators, one of a legal adminiſtration, that vailed the grace of the Goſpel; Chriſt ſuch a Mediator of the New Teſtament, who brought life and immortality to light through the Goſpel, 2 Tim. 1.10 Upon the account of this ſpecifick difference of Law and Goſpel, it is that Mount Sinai and Mount Zion, or Jeruſalem that is above, the heavenly are oppoſed to the earthly in that Spiritual Allegory of Hagar and Sarah, applied Gal. 4.24, 25. which oppoſition between theſe Mounts is fully and admirably managed by the Apoſtle, Heb. 12.18, 22. To this let me add the ſpecifick difference that is made between thoſe that are under one and under the other, Rom. 6.14. There are ſome under the Law, and ſome under grace; he ſaith not ſome under an old Law, ſome under a new; but what's the condition of them under the Law? ſin reigns unto death; but as to thoſe under Grace, grace reigneth through righteouſneſs [i. e. of Chriſt, not of works of our obedience to any Law] unto eternal life. Laſtly, The oppoſition made between the Works of the Law and the Grace of the Goſpel, is in the point of juſtification; the Works of the Law, or any Law, are peremptorily rejected by the Apoſtle in the point of juſtification; ſo that if Grace juſtified in a way of Works, Grace and Works here could not be oppoſed: See thoſe two famous places that peremptorily reject all Works of what kind ſoever, of what Law ſoever, from Juſtification, Rom. 3.20. Gal. 2.16. where its ſaid by the Works of a Law, foreign. no Fleſh living ſhall be juſtified: It is reaſonable to think, that if the Apoſtle had intended we ſhould be juſtified by any Law,Alexand. in c. 40. Iſa. Hieron. l. 1. Contra Pelagianos & plurimorum ubi opus adduci poſſunt teſtimonia. Chriſtop. Pelargi Jeſuitiſmu, p. 71. Impreſ. An. D. 16…8. that he would not have told us by what Law-Works? Would he have ſpoken ſo univerſally of all Law-Works? Are not all good Works, towards God and Man, commanded in the Law? But are ſome Works of one Law and ſome of another? This Remark of mine, obout leaving out the prepoſitive Article, ſhewing that the Words of all Laws are indefinitely here meant, you would blow away as a Cobweb: Your words are, Ʋpon ſuch Cobwebs, in the face of the plain ſcope of the Bible, doth this Cauſe ſtand. Cobwebs are fit enough to catch Flies in; but I never fear an Adverſary that ſpits at Arguments inſtead of anſwering them. Where's the Argument, you ſay, becauſe in a few places the Article ὼ is not put in? [You ſhould have ſaid foreign.] Therefore the Apoſtle excludes every ſort, when he plainly excludes only one ſort, as appears by the whole Context; nay, when at the ſame time another Species under that general, Rom. 3.27.
R. Therefore Ver. 20. We have the general of all Laws, there's no Juſtification by the Works of a Law; and know you not that which is denyed to the Genus as ſuch, is denyed to the Species; and tho' he mentions a Law of Faith, v. 27. in the ſenſe or ſenſes which have been above mentioned, yet it is manifeſt that he abſolutely denies Juſtification to Faith as a Law-Work; for elſe, why had he not excepted Faith as a Law-Work, when he excludes all Works? And when he ſheweth all Works are excluded, he ſaith, where is boaſting then? Saith he, it is excluded by the Nature and Power of true Faith, which will always lay the Creature low, and exclude all matter of Boaſting that may be in us; he ſaith not, we are juſtified by Faith as a Work of the new Law; but ſaith, that Faith ſtands up againſt all ſuch Works, and Law-Juſtification; and this is witneſſed foreign, by the Law and the Prophets, i. e. by the Moſaical Miniſtry, as well as the Prophets, were the prepoſitive Points at Law, in a peculiar ſenſe; but what is it that's witneſſed? It's that the Righteouſneſs of God is manifeſted, foreign, without a Law, any Law for Juſtification by Goſpel grace. You miſtake if you apprehend we make this our great Argument, to prove that the Goſpel in its nature is not a Law with Sanction; it is the plain ſcope and deſign of the Apoſtle, in all thoſe places where he diſputes againſt Juſtification by Works, that we argue from, and make uſe of this obſervation, as a corroborating Argument, that his plain intent is to exclude, not only the Works of the moral Law, but the Works of any Law; for the Apoſtle deals with the Galatians, which hankered after Circumciſion, and under pretence of obſervation of ſome of the Moſaical Ceremonies, would have introduced the Works of the Law to ſhare in the Matter of their Righteouſneſs: And, therefore, by uſing Law in the largeſt and moſt comprehenſive ſenſe, he caſts out all-Law Works as conditions of Juſtification; and this is the ſenſe Mr. Beza hath of the Apoſtle's Scope on Rom. 3.20. St. Paul having proved the World to be guilty before God, and lyable to his Wrath, he concludes that which he undertakes to prove, viz. That no Man could be juſtified by the Works of any Law; for having diſproved one part of the disjunct Propoſition, he eſtabliſheth the other, viz. Seeing we are not juſtified by a Law; therefore, only by Faith in Chriſt alone, Chriſt apprehended by Faith, as the Goſpel teacheth that we are both juſtified and ſaved; therefore, that the Goſpel is the power of God unto Salvation to every Believer; which was the ſtate of the Queſtion, as laid down in the beginning of the Epiſtle. He tells us what doth further ſhew or demonſtrate theſe things duly conſidered; that in this Verſe, by the nameing the Law without an Article, all Doctrin is underſtood, whether Written or not▪ which doth command or forbid any thing, as the ſeries of his Arguments, and th…t effect which he aſcribes to the Law, in diſcovering Sin doth prove; you may ſee much more in him to this purpoſe: The Works of the Law are called the doing of thoſe things,Haec autem diligenter conſiderata manifeſta indicant in hoc ver ſiculo, appellatione legis ſine Articulo, intelligi omnem doctrinam ſcriptam aut non ſcriptam, quae aliquid aut jubeat aut interdicat, &c. which the Law commands, as they are done by us, or not done by us, not as ſimply commanded by the Law. Now I ſuppoſe you will not call this learned Man's arguing here a Cobweb. It were eaſie to ſhew upon what probable Reaſons the Prepoſitive is added or omitted, in other places of the Epiſtles where Law is mentioned, which to avoid prolixity I muſt now omit. It's enough at preſent that it is left out in theſe eminent places, where Juſtification by any Works of any Law, is utterly denyed and condemned. It's frivolouſly objected by you, that the omiſſion of the Article here, argues not; becauſe the Socinians would improve the leaving out of ὸ, Joh. 1.1. againſt the Deity of Chriſt; and ſay the word was a God, not the God; a God by office, (as one preached at P. H.) whereas its in that Text an Argument againſt them, and there is doubtleſs a great force in it; for as Mr. B. ſaith by the firſt words, the word was in the beginning, the eternal Eſſence of the Son is aſſerted. 2. By the next, The Word was with God, foreign (where the Article is expreſt, and the Perſon of the Son is diſtinguiſhed from the Perſon of the Father, God without ſeparation. And in the third Enunciation, he affirms, That the Word was, (i. e. ver. 1. Et eſſentialiter Deus) Patri, foreign, eſſ…ntially God, the ſame in Eſſence with the Father; and if the Article had been added, and it had been foreign, it had affirmed the Son to be the ſame Perſon with the Father. It's no ſmall matter, therefore, in the declaring this divine Myſtery, that the Article is firſt added, and then afterwards omitted, to ſhew Chriſt is God, tho' not God the Father. See what an Argument yours is, becauſe the Socinians will make a falſe Inference from the leaving out ὸ, Joh. 1.1. Therefore it muſt be Socianiſm to argue from Rom. 3.20. becauſe the Prepoſitive is left out, and Law uſed indefinitely, that all Laws are underſtood, and Juſtification by all Law-Works are excluded. And whereas, you ſay, the Text ſpeaks directly of the Law of Moſes; if you mean thereby the moral Law, it was eſſentially the ſame with the Law of Innocency; and the denial of Juſtification by one, is alſo a denial of Juſtification by the other; and ſo by all Doctrins, requiring duty, as Mr. Beza ſaith. What you ſay of Gal. 3.11. militates againſt your ſelf, whereas you ſay, Was every Law given 430 years after Abraham? Is not the Apoſtle expreſs, in the 3 firſt Chapters, that that Law was the Jewiſh Law? [Do you not mean Moral and Ceremonial, and Judicial? For of theſe parts were the Jewiſh Law] or at moſt the Law of Nature together with it.
R. Were not theſe all Laws of Duty that God made, and all comprehended in the Law of Nature, requiring univerſal obedience to God in all things, that he ſhould ever Command?
But obſerve that Juſtification by Chriſt, which is the ſame always in the Apoſtle's ſenſe as Juſtification by Faith, is oppoſed to Juſtification by the Law of Moſes, which was the way the Jews looked after, partly by Sacrifice, partly by their Obedience to that Law in the preceptive part; and thus they followed after that Law of Righteouſneſs, Rom. 9.31. and attained it not, becauſe they ſought it not by Faith, ſed foreign quaſi operibus legis, as it were by the Works of the Law, v. 32. Mr. Beza, refuting Eraſmus on that place, ſaith, Eraſmus wrongs the Jews, in that he thinks that they lookt upon the Salvation they had, to have been by Works only, the Grace of God excluded; for the contrary to this Aſſertion appears by the Prayer of the Phariſee, that the Jews had no other Opinion of Merits and Grace, than now our Sophiſts have, which conjoyn Free-will with Grace, and Faith with Works. And indeed this was the Stumbling-block. I might go through Paul's Epiſtles to evince this, That all ſorts of Works are oppoſed to Grace in Juſtification, quaſi e regione perpetuo adverſantur. And this is the Point he deals ſo roundly with the Galatians about, viz. Their Judaizing, in joyning Works with Faith in Juſtification; not ſo much the Ceremony of Circumciſion, which at another time he admitted of, but becauſe of the reaſon why now the Galatians thought Circumciſion ſo neceſſary, viz. as a Work of the Law; therefore he teſtified, That if they were circumciſed, Chriſt would profit them nothing; and thereby they were obliged to keep the whole Law for Juſtification; becauſe obeying it in one point would not ſerve, they could not be juſtified partly by Chriſt, and partly by ſome partial obedience to the Law; and there was as much reaſon to plead for a Moſaical imperfect obedience, to joyn with the Sacrifices in Juſtification, before Chriſt, as there is now for an Evangelical imperfect obedience to conjoyn with Chriſt's Righteouſneſs now, and more.
Laſtly, Grace and Free-gifts is by all Men oppoſed to all conditional claim, upon performance of a Duty required by any Law; and the Apoſtle always makes this Debt, Rom. 4.4. Let the conditional part be never ſo ſmall, it's a Debt ex pacto. Hence the Apoſtle placeth both eternal Life and the Righteouſneſs by which we are juſtified, all in free Gift to us, Rom. 5.15, 16, 22. Yea he directly oppoſeth the Goſpel gift of eternal life (which comprehends Grace and Glory) to any Law with Sanction, v. laſt, i. e. any Law that pays Death as the Wages of Sin; The Wages of Sin is Death, but the gift of God is eternal …ife through Jeſus Chriſt, &c. Now if your new Law makes Death the Wages of any Sin, then the Goſpel gift of eternal Life is oppoſed to it.
You ſay, p. 25. "The Benefits are not given us for our Faith, but upon believing.
R. For and Upon, in a Covenant ſenſe, are the the ſame; to convey an Eſtate upon the payment of 5 Shillings is a Bargain, and good ex pacto, tho' the Eſtate be worth hundreds. You ſay, If a Man ſays, I will give you a thouſand Pound, provided you will come and fetch it; is it not free Gift? I ſuppoſe its reckoned ſo by him that is able and willing to fetch it. But the Caſe may be ſo, that if ſome Men offer me a thouſand Pound, I will not fetch it to have it, and then I may not be able. One may offer a thouſand Pound to a Man that lies with broken Arms and Legs in the bottom of a deep Well, provided he will come and fetch it, eſpecially when he knows no Body can ſet his Limbs and help him out. And how oft do you ſay the firſt Grace is ablolute? And to ſay the ſame thing is abſolute in the power of another, and make it a condition by Law with Sanction unto me, is the greateſt abſurdity in the World. And I tell you, that if a rich Man offers a hundred Pound to a poor Man, Lame and Blind, and in Priſon, and the King makes a Law he ſhould come and fetch it, or elſe be hang'd, it would ceaſe to be a Free-gift.
Arg. 2. That which is a Law with Sanction curſeth every one under that Law, with an irretrievable Curſe upon the firſt Tranſgreſſion of the ſaid Law; but the Goſpel doth not bind any one under a Curſe irretrievable, by the Goſpel, upon the firſt Sin, or many Sins committed againſt the Grace of it; therefore the Goſpel is not a Law with Sanction.
The Major is very manifeſt, That there's no Law pardons a Tranſgreſſion of itſelf: It is a univerſal Maxim concerning not only the Law of Creation, but of all Laws, Gal. 3.10. …rom Deut. 27.26. the Apoſtle ſaith, He that is under Law is under a Curſe, provided he doth no… all things that are written in the Book of the ſaid Law that he is under: therefore firſt he ſaith, foreign. in the ſecond place, foreign. Suppoſe you ſpeak of your New Law, the Condition whereof you make Faith and ſincere Obedience; lowered Conditions and imperfect Obedience: And theſe are the all things contained in the Book of this Law; then immediately upon the Publiſhing and Promulgation thereof all Unbelievers are irretrievably condemned by that Law. The Wages due by that Law to every Unbeliever, upon his firſt unbelief▪ is Death: And the ſaid Law cannot relieve him, becauſe he hath not done whatever was writ in the Book of this Law; its true one Law may relieve us in reſpect of another, in ſome ſenſe at leaſt as to the Curſe of it, but no Law relieves from its own Curſe, therefore if the new Law curſeth Unbelief, it curſeth the Unbeliev… irr…treivably, upon the firſt Act of Sin in that kind.
The Minor is plain, becauſe the Goſpel do … reliev… from th… Curſe that lies upon Men for Unbelief (being in its proper Natu …a Tranſg…ſion of, and Diſobedience to the firſt Law) there's no Sin or Curſe but th …oſp…l gives …e…f, though aggravated by the rejection of a Remedy; all Laws with S…ct…on, give the due Recompence (conſtituted by that Law) to the Tranſgreſſor of it in …ny one Point, therefore ſin is always, in reſpect of that Law againſt which it is, unpardon…ble, for therein the nature of that Sin is adjuſted, and the Puniſhment that is made due to it. Hence therefore if the Goſpel be a Law with Sanction, every one that appears upon Tryal to have tranſgreſſed it after its Promulgation, leſs or m…re is under the Curſe of it, and that Perſon which any Law hath once curſed, it can never bleſs; therefore this Poſition puts thouſands under a moſt certain, hopeleſs and helpleſs Condition by the Goſpel.
Arg. 3. That which is a Law with Sanction, if it contain a Promiſe of Benefits upon Obedience, is a Covenant of Works; for up…n the ſame Grounds that the Puniſhment is the Wages due in caſe of diſobedience: Upon the ſame is the Benefit due, in caſe of Obedience; the ſame Law make… one a D…bt as well as the other, for whatever is of Law is of Debt, either upon the account of Sin or of Righteouſneſs; the Law was the ſame upon both accounts to Adam, Life had been a Reward, and Wages due as well as Death: Therefore the Apoſtle argues ſo ſtrenuouſly againſt all kind of Works, Rom. 4.4. foreign, to him that worketh there's a Reward; not foreign, not of Grace bu… of D…bt; and he excepteth not him that worketh according to the new, but to him that worketh, whether according to the Old or New Law; the Reward to him that worketh by any Law, is Debt by the ſaid Law.
Arg. 4. If the Goſpel be a Law, its either the ſame Law with t…e Law of Nature, or a diſtinct Law from it: But its neither the ſame Law nor a diſti…ct Law from it, therefore no Law with Sanction. The Neceſſity of the Conſequence in the disjunction cannot be doubted by any Man of Reaſon.
The Minor is thus demonſtrated. 1. Its not the ſame Law with the Law of Nature; this you will not ſay, becauſe you call it a New Law: And if it be the ſame Law, then you have no Pretence to evade all the Conſequences that will be d…awn upon you from the Doctrine and Arguments of the Apoſtle Paul; therefore I doubt not but I am ſecure of you as to this part of the Dilemma.
Therefore I come to the ſecond, That which muſt be eſſentially the ſame Law with the Old Law, is not a diſtinct Law from it, but your New Law muſt be eſſentially the ſame with the Old Law, therefore is not diſtinct from it.
Your new Law can have no Eſſentials diſtinct from t…e Old Law, for if it have the ſame Eſſentials its the ſame, the ſame Matter and Form, and the ſame integral Parts wherein they conſiſt. The parts of a Law are Condition and Promiſe, in caſe of Obedience, and Threat in caſe of Diſobedience, the connexion of theſe makes the Form; all this you'll allow. Hence there's the ſame Law-Nature in one as in the other, and therefore its a Law in the ſame way and manner, and a Man under it muſt be dealt with in a Law way and manner: Obedience to God was commanded there, and ſo here; Diſobedience to God forbidden there, and ſo here; Life promiſed there upon Obedience, and Death threatned there upon Diſobedience, and ſo here: And what Obedience is there which is not commanded in the Old Law? And what Diſobedience that is not forbidden there? But you will ſay the Old Law commanded perfect Obedience, and the new imperfect. A. The New Law would not certainly command what the Old Law forbad; but the Old Law forbad all Imperfection in Obedience, and curſed it. 2. Whatever the degree of Obedience is that any Law requires, its perfect, in regard of that Law that requires it. 3. It ſhould be ſtrange if God ſhould make that which is imperfect, ſinful, condemned Obedience by one Law, to be perfect Obedience, and juſtifying by a New, and ſo ſet Law againſt Law. Laſtly, as to the Promiſe, its the ſame, for it was everlaſting Life, both in the old Covenant and the new; the manner of having it by Works or by Grace, alters not the nature of the thing itſelf. A Houſe in itſelf is the ſame whether I purchaſe it or it be given. From all which I conclude, This pretended New Law is no other than the Old Law furbiſhed up again, that in itſelf it muſt be eſſentially t… …ame, the Works and Juſtification by them, that if there be ſome little difference i… …odalities it makes no eſſential Change, than is in a Man that wears one coloured Suit of Cloaths one day, and another on another Day. I argue, That Covenant that beſtows the Grace of the Promiſe without a previous Condition, is not a new Law; but the Covenant of Grace beſtows the Grace of it without previous Conditions performed by us. Therefore it beſtows eternal Life unconditionally; ergo, for it beſtows the firſt Grace (according to yours) unconditionally, which is Eternal Life, Joh. 17.3.
Arg. 5. If there be no need of a New Law, God is ſo wiſe he will not make a New Law, if there be no need of it or uſe for it, then the Goſpel is no New Law: But there's no need or uſe of a New Law.
Minor, There's no need or uſe for it, neither in reſpect of Law or Goſpel Diſpenſation of Juſtice or of Grace. 1. There is no need or uſe in reſpect of Law or Juſtice, becauſe the old Law is a ſufficient Rule for diſtributive and commutative Juſtice, it condemns every Tranſgreſſion and Diſobedience eternally, it hath provided Curſe and Condemnation enough for the greateſt and moſt aggravated Sin, for unbelief in the leaſt and higheſt degree; and ſo for Impenitency: All the World is guilty by this Law, God rules the World by it, and will judge it by it, there's not the leaſt or greateſt Duty but is here commanded, which is or ſhall be the Will of God, not only in way of moral Duty, but in all Matters of inſtituted Worſhip under the Old and New Teſtament. Laſtly, in reſpect of Juſtification and Reward, if God had intended to have given Life as a Reward of the Works of any Law, he could as eaſily have done it by the Old Law, and ſure would never have made a new one to have done it by. 2. There is no need of a new Law in regard of the Diſpenſation of the Grace of the Goſpel: Becauſe what the Goſpel doth its in way of delivery of Man from the Curſe of the Law that they lye already under; and here there is no need of Law, becauſe its done all in a way of free Grace, Pardon of a condemned Priſoner muſt come meerly from the good will of the Prince, its inconſiſtent with his Prerogative to be bound to it by a Law; therefore God reſerves this Prerogative, he will have Mercy on whom he will have Mercy. And its needleſs in reſpect of the condemned p…rſon, becauſe there's need of nothing but a free Off…r of Grace and Mercy to a condemned Priſoner, if he refuſes it its at his own peril, its his chooſing; but to remain in ſtatu quo, under the Law, that he was condemned by, and to be executed according to it. You'll ſay, there's need of a new Law in reſpect of new Obedience. A. I ſay no; for God's Law is ſtill perfect in reſpect of the Rule of Obedience. 2. The Goſpel requires no other Obedience materially than what the Law required. 3. The Goſpel makes proviſion in the diſpenſation of free Grace for all Obedience the Law requires, for the perfection of it in Chriſt, for our Conformity to it through its Promiſe, teaching and new creating, and writing that Law anew in our Hearts which the Fall had blotted out. Well, to conclude this Argument, the Apoſtle expreſsly ſaith, Rom. 3.21. Now without Law, foreign, the Righteouſneſs of God is made manifeſt, being witneſſed by the Law and the Prophets, i. e. by the whole Old Teſtament, as the Jews were wont to divide it; and therefore ſaith foreign, &c. for Diſtinction from Law, in the Senſe that he took it in, when he ſaith, without Law: new Obedience is obedience to the Law, from a new Life, P…inciples, Strength, and for new Ends.
Arg. 6. That which is inconſiſtent with the Grace of God in the Goſpel, is not to be admitted; but that the Goſpel ſhould be a Law with Sanction, is inconſiſtent with the Grace of God in the Goſpel. Ergo, The Minor is eaſily made manifeſt, 1. From the Nature of a Law, that's to enforce's Obedience; where a thing is freely given, its expected it ſhould be freely received and not enforced. 2. Its inconſiſtent with ſhewing Mercy to poor, lame, blind Cripples, to offer them Relief upon unperformable Conditions. Yea, its alſo an abuſe of Juſtice to make a Law, That lame Men ſhould walk before their Limbs be reſtored: I pray did Chriſt heal the Diſeaſed, reſtore the Lunaticks, raiſe the Dead, caſt out Devils, by a Law? 3. If it be conſiſtent with the Grace of the Goſpel to act by a Law in ſaving Sinners, it muſt be before Regeneration or after; not before, for then they will come under no Law, they are out in Rebellion againſt all Law, nay they are already in the Cuſtody of the Law, and therefore not capable of coming under the Terms of another. 2. Their Salvation muſt lye in Delivery of them from the Cuſtody and Curſe of that they are under; which cannot be by making Terms with them, but with the Law offended that detains them; therefore it muſt be mere Grace without a Law, that muſt open the Priſon Doors to them. 3. You ſay the firſt Grace is abſolutely and freely given, therefore the Sinner can come under no terms of Law in order to the bringing him into a ſtate of Grace, for terms of a Law laid upon any ſuppoſeth a Power and Ability in them to perform the ſaid terms, if they will, and that they can both will and do if they will. It is not a new Law after Regeneracy, for then Grace begun would ceaſe to be free Grace afterward: Chriſt is not only the Author, but the Finiſher of our Faith and Obedience, our perſeverance and ſtanding in Grace would not be ſo ſecure as its beginning, the Grace of the Covenant would not be homogeneous, one part would be free and abſolute, the o…her conditional and upon Terms; but the Operation of the Spirit and Promiſes of after-grace, they are all of the ſame nature from firſt to laſt, as God begins ſo he perfects and compleats the new Man; he works all our Works in us, all-a-long, in the ſame way and manner as they are begun.
Arg. 7. If the Goſpel be a new Law, it was made as ſoon as the old Law was broken: And, as new as it is, it muſt be that Law by which the Patriarchs antidiluvian and poſtdiluvians were ſaved. This conſequence, I ſuppoſe, cannot be denied, becauſe we are ſaved even as they, and the Goſpel was preached unto them. But there was no ſuch new Law from Adam to Paul's time: 1. The Goſpel was not delivered to our firſt Parents in the terms of a Law, but abſolutely ſo to Abraham. The Apoſtle is moſt expreſs in it, That there was no Law given to his time, that could be a Goſpel, i. e. that could give Life to Sinners, Gal. 3.21. If there had a Law been given which could have given life, verily Righteouſneſs had been by a Law: And now I pray except not at my reading foreign a Law, indefinitely underſtanding any Law, for our Tranſlators render it ſo; and I muſt tell you they ſhould by the ſame reaſon have rendred foreign in the ſame manner, and then the Text had been uniform in the Tranſlation as in the Original, if there had been a Law (any Law) given, which could have given Life, verily Righteouſneſs had been by a Law: Therefore your new Law was not g…ven before Paul's Time, but the Goſpel was, therefore the Goſpel is no Law with Sanction.
Luther on this place ſaith thus. Though thoſe Words of Paul be never ſo p…ain, yet the Papiſts have this wicked Gloſs always ready, That he ſpeaketh only of the Ceremonial Law: But Paul ſpeaketh plainly, and excepteth no Law, whether Moral or Ceremonial, or any other: Wherefore their Gloſs is not worth a Ruſh. And contrariwiſe we affirm, That there is no Law, whether Man's Law or God's Law that giveth Life; therefore we put as great a difference between the Law and Righteouſneſs as between Life and Death, between Heaven and Hell; and the Cauſe that moveth us ſo to affirm, is, That the Apoſtle ſaith, The Law is not given to juſtifie, to give Life and to ſave, but only to kill and to deſtroy, contrary to the Opinion of all Men naturally, &c. This Difference of the Offices of the Law and the Goſpel keepeth all Chriſtian Doctrin in its true and proper uſe.
This Witneſs of Luther I can ſet againſt all the Teſtimonies you bring from any whatever, who hold or have held the Goſpel a Law with Sanction, as you do; divers may ſpeak of it under the term of a Law of Faith, or underſtanding by Law the Precepts of the Goſpel; but if they plead, that the true and proper nature of the Goſpel is a Law with Sanction, as you do, I do renounce their Opinion, and do oppoſe them therein, as I do you, it being as ſuch fundamentally deſtructive to the Goſpel, and the whole nature of the Grace of it.
And on Gal. 4.4. — Chriſt being made under the Law, is not a Law-giver, or a Judge after the Law, but in that he made himſelf ſubject to the Law, he delivered us from the Curſe thereof. Now whereas Chriſt under the Goſpel giveth Commandments, and teacheth the Law, or expoundeth it rather, this pertaineth not to the Doctrin of Juſtification, but of good Works. Moreover, It is not the proper Office of Chriſt (for which he came into the World) to teach the Law, but accidental, as it was to heal the weak, &c. — Wherefore the true proper Office of Chriſt is to wreſtle with the Law, — to conquer and aboliſh Sin and Death, — to deliver the faithful from the Law and all Evils — Let us learn to put a difference between Chriſt and a Law-giver, — that when the Devil goes about to trouble us under his Name, we may know him to be a very Fiend. — Chriſt is no Moſes, he is nothing elſe but Infinite Mercy, freely giving. On Gal. 2.20. Now as it is the greateſt knowledge and cunning that Chriſtians have thus to define Chriſt, ſo of all things it is hardeſt. I my ſelf in this great light of the Goſpel, wherein I have been ſo long exerciſed, to hold the diſtinction of Chriſt which Paul giveth ſo deeply, hath the Doctrin and peſtilent Opinion, that Chriſt is a Law-giver, entred into my Bones. You young Men therefore are in a far happier condition, for you are not inſected with thoſe pernicious Errours wherein I have been ſo muzled and drowned from my youth, that at my hearing the Name of Chriſt, my Heart hath trembled and quaked for fear, for I was perſwaded, that he was a ſevere Judge; wherefore it is to me a double trouble to correct and reform this Evil: 1. To forget, cond…mn and reſiſt this old-grounded Errour, That Chriſt is a Law-giver and a Judge. 2. To plant in my Heart a new and true perſwaſion of Chriſt, that he is a Juſtifier and a Saviour. Ye that are young may learn with much leſs difficulty to know Chriſt purely and ſincerely, if you will.
Arg. 8. If the Goſpel be a new Law, then we muſt have a double Righteouſneſs for our juſtification; but we have not a double Righteouſneſs for our juſtification, therefore the conſequence is good, 1. From moſt of your Conceſſions, that we have the righteouſneſs of Chriſt, and that which you call ſubordinate. [You ſhould rather have ſaid as Dr. Owen argues, that Chriſt's righteouſneſs is the ſubordinate, it being in ordine ad, in order to our juſtification by a new Law.] Mr. B. and others ſpeak more diſtinctly and ſay, a legal and evangelical righteouſneſs; but, in truth, it muſt be two legal righteouſneſſes: For, 2. There's no Law but muſt have a p…culiar diſtinct righteouſneſs from that of any other Law, whereby a Man under it muſt be juſtified, and all the righteouſneſs that ſerves for juſtification by another Law, hath nothing to do in our juſtification by the ſaid Law; and therefore there muſt be two diſtinct Righteouſneſſes and two diſtinct Juſtifications, as there are two diſtinct Laws. Unleſs you ſay the old Law is vacated, which is a contradiction; if you do but own, that Chriſt is the end of that Law for righteouſneſs to every one that be…ieved, and then it cannot be vacated, for a Law vacated and a Law in force is a contradiction, and a Law fulfilled to every jot and tittle to every believer remains in force. Therefore it remains, that we have two righteouſneſſes for juſtification, and both legal, becauſe all Law-righteouſneſs is legal; Chriſt's ſingle righteouſneſs is indeed legal in reſpect of the Law, and …vangelical in reſpect of ſinners, it being to them the gift of righteouſneſs; ſo with us the ſame thing differs only reſpectively. 3. There muſt be as diſtinct righteouſneſs for juſtification, as there is unrighteouſneſs for condemnation; but each Law hath its diſtinct unrighteouſneſs for condemnation.
The Minor is eaſily proved, that we have not two righteouſneſſes for juſtification, for if we have, 1. Chriſt's righteouſneſs is not enough for our juſtification unto life, contrary to the Scripture. 2. All the Popiſh Doctrin will unavoidably come in at this gate, which is wide enough for it. 3. Our own Works, call them what you will, let them be Faith and ſincere Obedience, imperfect Holineſs, &c. muſt come in for a ſhare in our juſtification, contrary to Tit. 3.4, 5. and an hundred places of Scripture beſides, nay, for the whole of our juſtification by the new Law; for the righteouſneſs that anſwers that, muſt be diſtinct from the righteouſneſs that anſwers the old Law; to enervate this Doctrin, many have wrote to very good purpoſe, in particular that moſt worthy Divine, Mr. Traughton in his Lutherus redivivus, a Book worth every Chriſtian's having.
You ſay, p. 25. Hath the Goſpel-Covenant no Sanction? what think you of Heb. 8.6?
R. You might have ſaid Heb. 9.15, 16. I ſaid not, that the Goſpel-Covenant hath no Sanction: it hath a Sanction, as a Teſtament in the Death of Chriſt, in which the Law is ſatisfied for us, and upon which the better, abſolute and clear Promiſes are founded; and herein was that foreign placed, the eſtabliſhment of the Promiſes of Life and Salvation, on the ſure Conditions of Chriſt's Righteouſneſs, and not of our Performances.
You ſay, What will become of Dr. Owen's Law of Juſtification, p. 167.
R. His Law of Juſtification is the Law that Chriſt came under, in doing and ſuffering, the fulfilling God's Will for the juſtification of a ſinner; this was the Law that was in his heart; for the Doctor's words are, Not that he did as a King conſtitute the the Law of Juſtification, (as you ſay) for it was given and eſtabliſhed in the firſt Promiſe, and he came to put it in execution.
You ſay, It's one thing to be juſtified for Faith, and another to be juſtified by it.
R. I ſay ſo too, if it be in the Apoſtle's ſenſe, by Faith be in oppoſition to by Works; but if you make Faith a Law-condition, then this by becomes for, and it ſignifies juſt as much as being juſtified by Works. And thus Mr. Bulkly in your own Quotation is againſt you, for he ſaith, If we make the Commandment of Believing to be legal, then the Promiſe of Life, upon the Condition of Believing, muſt be legal alſo. And ſo it muſt needs be upon your Hypotheſis, that the Goſpel is a Law. You often ſay, the Goſpel-Law is not a Law of Works, and that Paul ſaith ſo, p. 26. What is ſo ſaid either by the Apoſtle or you, the Goſpel is denied thereby to be a Law with Sanction or Law-Covenant, for if there be no Works as Condition of it, there's nothing but Promiſe; but where is your ſincere, conditional, imperfect Obedience, if there be no Works? It's abſurd to ſay the firſt Grace is a Condition required of us, becauſe you grant it abſolute.
You tell us what Dr. O. ſaith on Pſ. 130 p. 230. This is the inviolable Law of the Goſpel; i. e. believing and forgiveneſs are inſeparably conjoyned, which hath nothing of your ſenſe in it. Concerning Faith's being the Condition of a Law with Sanction, he ſaith nothing; he means no more but that they are connexed by God's conſtitution. So there are many things connexed in the Promiſe, as Faith and Forgiveneſs, Faith and Repentance, Faith and Love, Juſtification and Sanctification and Glorification. I could quote you a hundred places out of Dr. O. where he militates againſt this very Principle of yours: See Dr. O. of Juſtifie. p. 407. The Apoſtle ſpeaks not one word of the Excluſion of the Merit of Works, only he excludes all Works whatſoever. — Some think they are injuriouſly dealt withal, when they are charged with maintaining Merit— Yet thoſe that beſt underſtand themſelves and the Controverſie, are not ſo averſe to any kind of merits, knowing that it's inſeparable from Works.— Thoſe among us who plead for Works in our Juſtification, as they uſe many diſtinctions to explain their minds and free themſelves from a co-incidence with that of the Papiſts, they deny the name of Merit in the ſenſe of the Church of Rome, and ſo do the Socinians. See more, p. 408, 409. where he ſhews all Works before and after Grace are excluded.
What you quote out of my honoured Father's Book, I ſee nothing contradicts me, if rightly underſtood; had not your Doctrin been contrary to his, (tho' I hope I ſhould defend the truth, according to my light and conſcience, tho' againſt my own Father) I ſhould never have given you the leaſt oppoſition; but it's not Human Authority muſt turn the Scales in theſe Matters. You quote Mens tranſient Expreſſions that ſpeak of a Goſpel-law and Conditions in a ſenſe that may be born with, when they approve themſelves clear in all main Points: others ſpeaking in ſuch a Dialect in Sermons and Practical Diſcourſes; To ſhew that ſuch things as God hath conjoyned, Man is not to ſever. As for the two great Divines, beſides D. O. I mean Dr. Goodwin and Mr. Clarkſon, I know them to be expreſly againſt your Notion of the conditionality of the Covenant, and by what you quote out of them, it appears to be ſo. See Dr. Goodwin's Judgment about Condition, Whether Faith be a Condition, Sermon XXII. p. 301. I would have this word laid aſide, I ſee both Parties ſpeak faintly on't; Perkins on the Galatians, and another. — There is danger in the uſe of it, a Condition may be pleaded. 2. In thoſe Expreſſions, if a Man believeth he ſhall be ſaved, import, that he that doth ſo, ſhall be ſaved in the event, which the Elect only are, to whom he giveth Faith. — My Beloved, the nature of Faith is modeſt, it never maketh plea for it ſelf; if it were a Condition, a Man might plead it before God; and the making it a Condition, ſeems to me, to import as if there were an univerſal Grace; and that it is the Condition terminateh it to this Man and not to that. What Mr. Clerkſon ſaith, is nothing to your purpoſe; for he ſaith, The firſt Bleſſings of the Covenant are promiſed abſolutely, and ſubſequent Bleſſings, are in ſome ſenſe Conditional.— Not that God makes a conditional Bargain with us, but becauſe divine Wiſdom hath made a connexion between theſe Bleſſings that they ſhall never be ſeparated, &c.