A Rejoinder to Daniel Williams, Part 2
The Queſtion ſtated.
Scrip. G. Juſtific. Contr. 17. My true Senſe is, That the Covenant of Grace is ſuch a Law, as that the ſincere Acts of Faith and Obedience, and perſeverance therein are the Conditions upon which eternal Life and Salvation is promiſed, with a Penalty of eternal Death, threatned upon the non-performance; only I ſay that ſincere Faith and Repentance are the moral qualifying Conditions of the Continuance of our juſtification and enjoyment of Heaven. And this is a true Account of the Notion how yourſelf underſtands the Goſpel to be a new Law; as I could prove from your own Expreſſions, even to every word here in this Account, you might therefore have ſpared yourſelf and me the labour about your confuſed ſtating the Queſtion.
R. Before I anſwer your Arguments, I ſhall promiſe a few things:
1. It being a great End of our Lord Jeſus Chriſt, in the Covenant of Grace, to reſtore fallen Man, and in ſo doing to magnifie the Law, he makes full atonement for the breach of it, brings in Everlaſting Righteouſneſs, procures New Obedience to the perceptive part of it, teacheth it by his Grace, and works it by his Spirit; and whereas in the Covenant of Works, Obedience was the Way to, and Condition of the Promiſe, he makes the Promiſe the Way to, and Condition of Obedience, commanding no more than what he hath promiſed.
2. When we ſay the Goſpel is not a New Law with Sanction, we deny it not to be a Teſtament that hath its ratification in the Death of Chriſt the Teſtator, wherein alſo the Law of Works had its Sanction, in reſpect of Penalty, for all thoſe that ſhall be ſaved by him, as to ſatisfaction for their ſins.
3. That Rule and Government which Chriſt exerciſeth over his Church, as it comes to him by right of Redemption, ſo that Obedience we give to him is part of that Eternal Life which he hath purchaſed and reſtored to us, and both his government and our ſubjection thereto is of Promiſe, and none of the leaſt Bleſſings and Priviledges of the Covenant of Grace.
4. As the Matter of all Precepts, requiring Sanctity and Obedience of Heart and Life, moral and inſtituted, abſolutely conſidered, primarily belong to the firſt Law of Works, and ſo are binding in a natural relation unto Unregenerate and Regenerate, as they are the Commands of God the Creator, and the leaſt Tranſgreſſion requires a Puniſhment due to the Breach of the whole Law; So our Obedience becomes Goſpel-Obedience, 1. From our being reſtored to it in Chriſt, the ſecond Adam. 2 In that it flows from a new Life given, we muſt live before we can do. 3. From the end of performance, it's not for Life, as a Law-Reward of it, but for the ſake, honour, duty to, and enjoyment of Chriſt, and in the moſt grateful returns of his grace and love to us. 4. It's performed from higher Motives and Obligations, viz. that great Love wherewith God hath loved us, conſtraining us to the higheſt love and expreſſions thereof to him.
5. As for all Sin and Diſobedience (even Impenitence and Unbelief) to any Commands of the Goſpel, it's condemned by the Law; and every one under the condemnations of Impenitence, Unbelief, rejection of Chriſt, or diſobedience in a Natural Eſtate, are therein under the Law; but there is no condemnation to them that are in Chriſt Jeſus, I… mean to their Perſons, tho' all their Sins alſo are condemned by the Law.
2dly. I proceed now to your Arguments.
Mr. W.'s Arg 1. The Goſpel is called a Law, by the Spirit of God, Iſa. 42.4. Mic. 4.2. Rom. 3.27. Ch. 10.31. Jam. 1.25. and 2.12. Pſal. 19.7. Gal. 6.2. Rom. 8.2.
R. As to the places quoted out of the Old Teſtament, as Iſa. 42.4. Mic. 4.2. Pſ. 19 7. I have ſhewn, that foreign ſignifies Doctrin, and Inſtruction, and ſometimes is taken for the whole revealed Mind and Will of God in the Word, and it's called by the Name of Law, as a part for the whole, both Law and Goſpel, in that place, Iſa. 42.4. a Prophecy of Chriſt; it's a Promiſe, that the Iſles ſhall wait for Chriſt's Doctrin, and receive all Commands from Chriſt, whoſe Precepts may be called Laws, tho' of another nature than a Law with Sanction; the preceptive parts of the Goſpel are often called Laws, eſpecially in the Old Teſtament; but this makes not the Goſpel itſelf a Law, tho' it contain many Precepts. That of Mic. 4.2. Pſal. 19.7. hath the ſame anſwer; thoſe places explicate themſelves by the Word of the Lord: The law ſhall go forth of Zion, and the word of God from Jeruſalem. So that Law ſignifies no more than the Word preached, both Law and Goſpel; it were eaſie to ſhew how it's uſed at large in the Proverbs and Pſalms, and elſewhere, not under any diſtinct conſideration of Law or Goſpel. We have ſhewed the Covenant of Grace is exhibited only in a way of promiſe and free-gift unto ſinners, as ſuch, takes them into Covenant with God, not upon any terms of their doing, perfect or imperfect, performed in their own or another's ſtrength, tho' it takes them into the Kingdom where Chriſt: rules and governs them, and from which Kingdom goes forth all the Word of the Lord, both Law and Goſpel. Laſtly, The Old Teſtament ſpeaks often prophetically of the Goſpel in its own Terms and Dialect, as by Prieſts, Sacrifices, &c. Iſa. 66.21. c. 56.7. c. 6.7. Ezek. 40. c. 41, 42.
That of Rom. 3.27. where the Apoſtle ſaith, that boaſting is excluded; by what Law? By the Law of Faith, it may be taken for an ordinary rhetorical figura dictionis, called Anadiploſis; and Beza ſaith, the Apoſtle doth here, de induſtria foreign, ſay, the Law of Faith, inſtead of Faith, becauſe the adverſaries of Grace were always wont to have the Name of the Law in their mouths, for which reaſon our Lord calls Faith, a Work, Joh. 6.29. and on which place he ſaith, they are plainly ridiculous, who from hence will argue, that Faith is a Wo k, and that therefore we are juſtified by Works. But if any that contend for a further account of the meaning of this Expreſſion, 1. It is the Doctrin of Juſtification by Faith in Chriſt's Righteouſneſs which he oppoſeth to all Law-Righteouſneſs, as Rom. 4. or other Doctrin that teacheth contrary. 2. It may be taken for the nature of Faith, the power and efficacy of it; the nature of it and its power in the Soul, is to make a Man renounce all inherent righteouſneſs; in the ſame ſenſe is Law taken, Rom. 8.2. the Law of the Spirit of Life that is in Chriſt Jeſus, viz. i. e. the nature, power, and efficacy of it. So Rom. 7. The Law of Sin is no more than the power and prevalency of it, whereby it captivates us. Jam. 1.25. The Law of Liberty is no other than the Goſpel-Doctrin of Freedom by Jeſus Chriſt, (Joh. 8.36.) from the Law Moral and Ceremonial for juſtificaion, yea, he ſpeaks to them as ſuch (ſaith Beza) on whom no Yoak of Ceremonial Bondage was laid, (as Peter, Acts 15.10.) yea, ſuch as the Moral Law could not retain as Servants under fear, but the Spirit of God forms them into free and voluntary Obedience. Hence it's plain enough, that the Apoſtle oppoſeth the Goſpel to a Law with Sanction, which enforceth obedience from the threats thereof. So Beza carries, c. 2.12. This Epithite of Liberty, ſaith he, is very fitly added, [Having ſhewed he ſpake of the Moral Law before, which he called the Royal Law in its full Sanction, as appears from v. 8, 9, 10.] for ſeeing we are made free by the Son, by a much better right the Lord requires of us the Fruits of Righteouſneſs, rather than of thoſe who remain under the Tyranny of the Law of Sin, &c. So that from theſe Expreſſions of James, here is ſo little pretence for a Plea to make the Goſpel a Law with Sanction, that the Apoſtle ſeems ſtrenuouſly to argue againſt it.
I wonder that place is mentioned, Rom. 9.31. the Law of Righteouſneſs, is plainly the Law of Works; for it was Righteouſneſs by this Law they ſought after, but loſt their labour, not ſeeking after a Righteouſneſs to ſatisfie the Law by Faith in Chriſt.
You argue alſo from Gal. 6.2. This is ſpoken of a particular Precept, [which are frequently termed Laws or Inſtructions] Bear one anothers burdens, and ſo fulfil the law of Christ, or his Command, yea, from an Obligation ſo to do (an Obligation to Obedience and Thankfulneſs is ſometimes called a Law of Love.) And what was the obligation? Chriſt bore our burdens. Iſa. 53. Therefore we ſhould bear one anothers burdens, as he carried our griefs and ſorrows: Be followers of Christ as dear children. Beza and others refer it to John 13.34, 35. A new commandment give I unto you, that you love one another as I have loved you, i. e. I give you a new Motive and Principle to act Obedience from: and this is contrary to a Principle and Spirit of Bondage and Fear from a Law with Sanction; and this New Commandment is called the Old, as to the Matter of it.
Mr. W.'s Arg. 2. Mens behaviour towards the Goſpel is expreſſed by words that denote it to be a Law. Rom. 10.16. 2 Cor. 9.13. 2 Theſſ. 1.8. 1 Pet. 4.17.
R. You ſaid, tho' the Goſpel be a Law with Sanction, yet it contains in it abſolute Promiſes. This I deny, as a contradiction. But I affirm, that an abſolute Promiſe may contain in it Law-Precepts, as that Promiſe, I will w ite my laws in your hearts; the Goſpel ſets up the Law-Precepts as Rules of Sanctity and Obedience, and calls for a conformity to them from better Motives and Principles; yet upon bette… Promiſes, not ſuch as provoked to obedience, by rewarding the work performed in our own ſtrength, but ſuch as promiſed the very obedience it ſelf. Therefore no body denies obedience to the Goſpel, and ſubjection to it from the grace of Adoption, as Children, not as Slaves under the rigour of a Law. Thoſe places that ſpeak of taking vengeance on them that obey not the Goſpel, 2 Theſſ. 1.8. 1 Pet. 4.17. they ſhew only that the curſe of the Law will fall more heavily upon them for diſobedience to God in the Goſpel, Impenitency and Infidelity being Sins the Law of God doth condemn and judge; and Chriſt will come at the laſt day clothed with Law-Vengeance, which is called flaming fire, and will proceed againſt all ſinners, thoſe that are ignorant of God, and thoſe that are diſobedient to the Goſpel, and judge them by one and the ſame Law, tho' ſome that have added to their other ſins the rejection of Chriſt, and ſo lye under aggravations of their ſins, and are become more inexcuſable, may be accounted worthy of ſorer degrees of puniſhment, and judged thereto by the ſame Law.
Mr. W.'s Arg. 3. Juſtification is a Judicial Act, therefore it muſt be by a Law.
R. You ſhould have formed your Argument, and then it would have run thus: It Juſtification be a Judicial Act, then the Goſpel muſt be Law; but Juſtification is a Judicial Act: Therefore, 1. I deny the Conſequence of the Major; for it may be a Judicial Act in reſpect of the firſt violated Law; firſt a gracious Act of imputing Chriſt's righteouſneſs to us that may anſwer the demands of that Law, and then a Judicial Act of acquitting us from the condemnation of it, accounting us in this manner righteous by this Law; and therefore there's no need of another Law for our juſtification, tho' it be a Judicial Act. You ſay in Juſtification is a right to Impunity: and can any thing but a Law give this? but I tell you, it muſt be the Law that's offended, muſt diſcharge in a way of juſtice from puniſhment, and not another Law, unleſs the Pardon be by prerogative or repeal
Mr. W.'s Arg. 4. The Goſpel gives a right to its Benefits upon believing.
R. The Goſpel gives nothing but benefits to ſinners; Faith is one of the great benefits, and there's a connexion of benefits of different nature in the Goſpel-gifts, but our right to all as a federal condition is in Chriſt, and it's ſafe enough to ſpeak of Goſpel-Worthineſs and Rewards, but they are founded in Chriſt, not in any Law-Righteouſneſs of ours.
Mr. W.'s Arg. 5. If God have no Goſpel-rule, beſides Election and diſtinguiſhing Mercy, to confer glory by, th…n God will not, nay cannot ſave the non-elect, tho' th y ſhould believe in Chriſt. Say not they will not believe, hath not God declared he will ſave them i… they believe?
R. Firſt, Here you change the terms, putting Rule for Law, and God's Rule for Man's; therefore you conclude not the Queſtion. 2. You make a Pro ſyllogiſm. Your Argument ſhould regularly run thus: If God hath Goſpel-rule, beſides Election and diſtinguiſhing Mercy, to confer glory by, th…n the Goſpel is a Law; but God hath other Goſpel-rules to confer glory by, beſides, &c. Therefore, 1. Your Conſequence is denied; for if you will have God's way of conferring grace or glory to be a rule to him, the particular application thereof depends wholly upon his good will and pleaſure and the manner it ſelf, and that's the rule of all rules; and ſo the rule of conferring grace and glory is all one: But ſuppoſe God's manner of conferring glory be the rule you mean, God never propounded but two ways of doing it, one in a way of free grace and abſolute promiſe, and the other in a way of debt to us by a rule of juſtice; now your Conſequence will ſink, for God's rule in beſtowing grace and glory upon ſinners, is to do it in a way of free grace by promiſe and gift, and not in a way or by the rule of a Law or diſtributive Juſtice. 2. For your Minor it's this, That God hath a Goſpel-rule, beſides Election and diſtinguiſhing Mercy, to confer glory by; which you prove thus, If God hath not, &c. then he cannot nor will not ſave the non-elect if they believe: But he will ſave the non-elect if they believe; therefore, this Argument neceſſarily ſuppoſeth, that God hath a Rule of Salvation altogether independent on Election and diſtinguiſhing Mercy, whereby others may be ſaved if they will; and you take it for granted, that the non-elect will believe, for you ſay, ſay not they will not believe. Your Minor is flatly denied, for that general Propoſition, He that believes ſhall be ſaved, concludes not that a non-elect perſon ſhall believe or be ſaved, it's falſe Logick ſo to do; there's no more in it than in this Propoſition, Every Man is a rational Creature, therefore if a Horſe be a rational Creature, he is a Man. This connex Propoſition hath a verity in the connexion, but determins not any truth in the antecedent or conſequent, that a Horſe will ever be a Man or a rational Creature. So here, he that believes ſhall be ſaved; therefore then, if the non-elect believe they ſhall be ſaved; if Judas believed he ſhould be ſaved, but this ſays not that Judas will believe or be ſaved. Yet you ſay, hath not God declared he will ſave them if they believe? I ſay, no where, he hath not ſaid, I will ſave a non-elect perſon if he believe, more than he hath ſaid a Horſe ſhall be a Man if he can uſe reaſon or ſpeak, or a Man ſhall be a Horſe if he have four feet. There's hundreds of ſuch Inſtances: The fire conſumes all combuſtible matter; if I throw my Coat or Cap in…o the fire it will be burnt; but this doth not determin that I will throw it into the fire, or that it will be burnt, but rather the contrary that there will be neither one nor the other: Therefore how bold and illogical is it for you to conclude, that God will ſave the non-elect upon an imperformable condition? for whatever hath no other foundation than an impoſſible condition, can never be; but the ſalvation of the non-elect can be founded upon nothing but an impoſſible condition; for it can have no other condition, according to you, but believing, and this is impoſſible, becauſe, according to you, alſo Faith is from Election, and therefore it's a contradiction to talk of ſaving non-elect, or God's making a Rule to ſave them upon ſuppoſition of their having that which he never intended to give them. The general Propoſition runs thus, All Men that ſhall believe ſhall be ſaved; a general contradiction here will not divide truth from falſhood, Viz. No Man ſhall believe therefore no Man ſhall be ſaved; but to divide truth from falſhood and fix it on a ſubject, the contradiction muſt be ſpecial or proper, and then that general Axiom and Application, ſpecially or properly, makes this Syllogiſm, All Men that believe ſhall be ſaved; ſome Men ſhall ſhall not believe, as non-elect, or Judas, therefore ſome Men ſhall not be ſaved.
Now ſee how well you agree with the Aſſembly in this Point, ch. 10. §. iv. they ſay non-elect ones, tho' they may be called by the Miniſtry of the Word, and may have ſome common Operations of the Spirit, yet they never truly come unto Chriſt, and therefore cannot be ſaved.
You ſay Forgiveneſs is an act of Soveraignty, and how you will reconcile that to what you ſay before and after. I know not. 1. That it's a judicial Act by a rule of Judgment; if ſo, it's not in that reſpect a ſoveraign Act, wherein God is free to give faith and forgiveneſs to whom he will. And, 2. You ſay, he hath not left himſelf free to give forgiveneſs to whom he will of the adult, without faith, and therefore God muſt come under a Law to give forgiveneſs in the way of a Law, whereas the ſame ſoveraign grace that enclines him to one doth alſo to the other, and both faith and forgiveneſs are the free gift in the Promiſe, in a way of ſhewing forth his righteouſneſs.
Mr. W.'s Arg. 6. The Apoſtles, with all the Saints, may be arraigned, as fallen from Grace, and turned from the Goſpel, if it be no Rule, according to which God applies Chriſt's Righteouſneſs, How ſhould Peter, ſay, Repent and be baptized?
R. I ſee no Conſequence here at all; the Argument, to me, ſeems to run thus: Either the Goſpel is a new Law with Sanction, or elſe the Apoſtles are fallen from Grace: And what's the reaſon of this forced Argument? The Apoſtles preached, That Men ſhould repent and be baptized. I hope you will make Baptiſm too to belong indiſpenſably to the new Law, as a Condition; but I pray, doth the Goſpel, requiring and calling for Goſpel Duties, make the Goſpel a new Law with Sanction? Are not Goſpel Duties from Goſpel quickning and enlivning a poor dead Sinner to obey, the Goſpel Commands of Chriſt to an Unbeliever? He doth not deal with him as a Perſon under a moral Power to anſwer them, and therefore putting him under tryal by his natural ſtrength, as all Laws do; but Goſpel Commands are as Chriſt's Voice to Lazarus in the Grave, Joh. 5.25. I pray by what Law are dead Men capable of coming to Life? The Goſpel is the power of God to Salvation, not the power of Man. You alledge the Gaoler's words, Act. 16.36. What ſhall I do to be ſaved. I wonder you ſhould inſiſt upon the words of a Man that knew not Chriſt, and knew no other way of Salvation than by doing. Paul indulged him not in this Opinion, but taught contrary, exhorting him to believe in the Lord Jeſus Chriſt, which the Apoſtle always oppoſed to doing; Faith being a Grace that excludes works of any Law, yea, it ſelf as a work; it will aſcribe all to Chriſt and free Grace: It's new Doctrin, that a Command to believe, ſhould be a Command to work for Life, as the obedience to a Law, when it calls Men from under the Law; and it ſaith, That a Believer, is not under the Law, but under Grace: It ſhould have ſaid, you are not under the old Law, but you are under the new Law. You inſtance in Gal. 2.16. foreign there, doth not denote a priority in time of Faith to Juſtification, but of the end of Faith; we ſhould believe, for this end, that the Grace of Juſtification by Chriſt's Righteouſneſs alone may ſhine into our Hearts, by the light of Faith, that we may have Peace with God in our Conſciences through the Lord Jeſus Chriſt; and ſo we do not only in our firſt believing, but in all other Acts. And this hinders not but that God's gracious Acts prevent ours and cauſeth them; God's love let forth to us conſtrains us, and is the reaſon of our loving him. Juſtification may be conſidered as terminating on our Perſons, and terminating on our Conſciences; in this laſt ſenſe the Apoſtle ſpeaks; but note what is the Antitheſis, And not the Works of a Law. If he had not meant the Works of every Law, he ſhould have diſtinguiſhed, and ſaid, Not by the Works of the old Law, but by the Works of the new Law: It's ſtrange he ſhould keep the Galatians in the dark, about the Works of the new Law; it was but Works that they looked for to joyn with Chriſt in Juſtification. I am confident this very diſtinction would have ſatisfied all the Neonomians of his time.
Mr. W.'s 7th Arg. The Goſpel is at leaſt part of the Rule by which Chriſt will judge the World; this muſt be a Law if it be a Rule of Judgment.
R. Your Argument is, That Rule, by which God will judge the World, is a Law, but the Goſpel is a Rule by which God will judg the World; therefore, I deny the Minor.
1. You ſay, Part of that Rule; I pray what's the other part? Will the Rule of Judgment have two parts? Do you mean the old Law will be another part? Or will God judge ſome by the old Law, ſome by the new?
2. It's not likely that God will judge the World by any more than one Law, and that, the Law of Creation, and that by which he governed the World; that Law which hath been the Standard of Righteouſneſs from the beginning of the World to the end.
3. It's likely to be that Law that all the World are become guilty by; they ſhall not be guilty by one Law and judged by another.
4. It's likely to be that Law that Men's Conſciences accuſe or excuſe by.
5. It's likely to be that Law that will reach Jews, Chriſtians, Infidels, and all that never had the written Law or Goſpel.
6. If the Goſpel be a Law then, to try by, it muſt ceaſe to be a Goſpel, for it will bring execution of Indignation and Wrath, no good Tidings; I ſuppoſe you will not ſay, the Sentence, Go ye curſed, is Goſpel. Well, you ſay,
The Work of that day is not to try Chriſt: No ſure, I believe not; but Chriſt muſt ſit upon his Throne judging the World. Nor whether Chriſt's Righteouſneſs was imputed to all that Believe; but will be to decide the cauſe of all Men, to ſilence all Apologies, &c. 1. I ſuppoſe you mean to decide Believer's ſtate, which hath been undecided till then. 2. To prove that the reſt of the World had not Faith. As for the firſt ſort, I would know whether their Tryal will be before the Reſurrection or after? Before it can't be, they muſt be raiſed firſt; and thoſe that die in Chriſt ſhall riſe firſt. And its ſaid, B…eſſed and happy are they that have part in the firſt Reſurrection; and how ſhall they be raiſed? Incorruptible, in Glory, like to Chriſt at his Appearance immediately carryed up into the …ir to meet the Lord. Is it likely that now they are Clothed with all this Glory, at the Reſurrection, they ſhall come to ſtand a Tryal for Juſtification? Surely their ſtate will be fully decided, before Chriſt will raiſe them in this Glory. But you ſay, their Faith muſt come to tryal whether it hath been ſincere; but undoubtedly that will be fully reſolved before the Reſurrection; or how ſhall the Elect be gathered from all Parts? And how ſhall Chriſt diſtinguiſh the Saints from others to raiſe them in Glory?
But you'l ſa…, this Tryal will be by the new Law at the Reſurrection of the Unjuſt. 1. Shall they not be raiſed in Diſhonour, with their Conſciences accuſing them by the old Law? 2. How few, in compariſon, will there be of the Millions of wicked that can be juſtified by the new Law that never heard a word of it? 3. Thoſe that have heard of it, never owned it, or were under it; they muſt be tryed by a Law that nature hath brought them under. 4. All their Sins againſt God's Offers and Commands are judged by the old Law; for in the moral Law, God is declared a God that ſhews Mercy unto thouſands. 5. The Offers of Mercy rejected, are but Aggravations of the Sins of thoſe that are condemned already, and make them more inexcuſable. In this ſenſe the Men of Nineveh, and the Queen of the South, ſhall riſe up in judgment againſt ſome, and condemn them; not that their Actions ſhall be a Law to try by, but that they will be matter of Aggravation to ſuch as had greater means of Grace than they had. Rejections of Pardon do not bring condemned Perſons to a new Law to Try them by; it leaves them but under the former Law and Co…demnation, with a greater Torment upon their Minds and Conſciences. For my part, I look upon your whole Hypotheſis, about the day of Judgment, to be very raw and indigeſted, in that you ſuppoſe it will be like Man's Aſſizes when all Men ſhall be brought to a perſonal Tryal, good and bad, all in mixture, and Believers as well as Unbelievers muſt be Arraigned, and hold up their Hands at the Bar, and ſtand upon their Delivery; whereof ſome upon a formal Tryal ſhall be juſtified, others condemned.