A Rejoinder to Daniel Williams, Text

A Rejoinder to Daniel Williams · Text

A REJOYNDER TO Mr. DANIEL WILLIAMS HIS REPLY To the Firſt Part of Neomianiſm Vnmaſkt.

WHEREIN His Defence is Examined, and his Arguments Anſwered; whereby he endeavours to prove the Goſpel to be a New Law with Sanction: And the contrary is proved.

By ISAAC CHAƲNCY, M. A.

LONDON, Printed for H. Barnard, at the Bible in the Poultry. MDCXCIII.

p. 3A REJOYNDER TO Mr. Daniel Williams his REPLY.

Reverend Sir,

YOU ſay you are miſrepreſented, in my ſaying, You hold the Vacating or Abrogating the Old Law.

A. This is no falſe Charge or Miſrepreſentation, for if the Sanction be changed, as you expreſsly ſay, both in the former Book and in this, the Law is vacated, it ceaſeth to be Norma Judicii, and what Paſſage you refer to in p. 198. of your former Book, relieves you not. P. 198. where you ſay, The holieſt Action of the holieſt Saint needs forgiveneſs: For upon your Hypotheſis, there is general Pardon purchaſed conditionally, which Faith and ſincere Holineſs entitleth us to. The old Law itſelf is laid aſide, as that which will never trouble the Believer; Chriſt hath ſatisfied that for him, but it is the new Law which the Believer muſt be tryed by; which is the Goſpel Law, and hath another Sanction to the preceptive part of the Law which the Covenant of Works had preſcribed. P. 6. This new Law, you ſay, fixeth new Terms, viz. True Repentance and Faith unfeigned, to be the Terms of Pardon; which Terms, you ſay, the Covenant of Works admitteth not, ſo that the Terms or Conditions being changed, the Sanction is changed: What remains then but a new Law, the righteouſneſs of which muſt be our juſtifying Righteouſneſs, for there's no Juſtification by any Law without fulfilling it, by performance of that very Righteouſneſs by our ſelves, or another, which that Law requires. And tho' you ſay, we are bound to the Duties of the Moral Law, yet you ſay, the uſe of Faith and Holineſs, in reſpect of the Benefits, is not from their conformity to the Precept [ſo that Conformity to the Precept of the old Law hath nothing to do as Righteouſneſs in the new Law] but their Conformity to the Rule of the Promiſe, which can be no other than the Rule of the new Law. Hence it is manifeſt, That with you this new Law is diſtinct, both in Precept and Sanction; therefore it's out a doors. Laſtly, none can deny, But that how good ſoever the Precept of a Law is, if the ſanction be vacated or changed, ſo that it ceaſeth to be Norma Judicii, it ceaſeth to be a Law; and where a Law ceaſeth to be Norma Judicii, there's no tryal to be made thereby of Men's Actions, no Judicial Proceedings thereby, nor Juſtification or Condemnation by it; whatever we p. 4are, in reſpect of another Law, our Righteouſneſs muſt be judged of and tryed by the Law in Force; and this is your plain Judgment. See p. 131. you ſay, If Men have nothing to do for Salvation, then Chriſt hath no Rule to judge them who lived under the Goſpel. So that Men under the Goſpel are judged by a Rule of doing, which is your Rule of the Promiſe. And again, ibid. Conſider the deſcription of the laſt Day, and you'l find God Saves and Damns with reſpect to Mens Neglects and Compliance with the Goſpel. You ſay, it's true, the Sanction of the Law of Works is removed, p. 135. Your granting, That we deſerve Wrath, in reſpect of the Covenant of Works, and that the Law is a Rule of Duty, &c. is nothing, for 'tis not meer ſatisfying that Law will ſave us, or the Righteouſneſs thereof, but a Compliance with, and obedience to a new Law. You ſay, The Law cannot hinder our Relief by Chriſt, from the Sentence: Chriſt ſtands between us and that Law, that we may be ſaved by another. Forgiveneſs, you ſay, is not by ſinleſs Obedience [we ſay, it is by Chriſt's, which s ſinleſs Obedience] but it is by our imperfect Obedience that muſt follow. You ſay alſo in this Reply, p. 23. Were not the Goſpel to be a Rule of Judgment (norma Judicii,) I cannot ſee how that can be a Judgment Day, it muſt be only an Execution Day; for by the Law of Adam no Believer could be acquitted; that Law muſt be altered by the Law-giver, to admit Satisfaction (which is a ſtrange Expreſſion, as if Chriſt could not ſatisfy Adam's Law, without altering it, the Law muſt be vacated if Chriſt ſatisfied and fulfilled it, cujus contrarium verum eſt) "and it is by the Goſpel only he hath enacted the way how this Satisfaction ſhall be applyed: And that way enacted is your new Law that comes in the room and ſtead of the old Law, vacated. Therefore, I beſeech you, conſider your own Reputation more than to ſay, I miſrepreſent you, in ſaying, You hold that which your Words ſhew, your Scheme muſt contain, and you know in your Conſcience is your Principle.

Again, you charge me for miſrepreſenting you, whenas you ſay; Chriſt's Sufferings are the Foundation of our Pardon; that our Sins are forgiven for Chriſt's Sufferings. By my ſaying, Your Fundamentally is only a remote cauſality Cauſa ſine qua non, by ſomething elſe beſides them.

R. You know, whatever you ſay, to palliate it, that you mean Chriſt's Righteouſneſs is our legal Righteouſneſs; but our Faith and Obedience, our evangelical Righteouſneſs, which you own under the Name of a ſubordinate Righteouſneſs, and is not the Inference of cauſa ſine qua non, p. 20. Very natural, when you ſay, For the Sufferings of Chriſt our Sins are forgiven, and explain it thus: Without them Sin cannot be forgiven. How can a Cauſa ſine qua non be more plainly expreſſed; as thus, The going out of my Door is the Cauſa ſine qua non, of my going into Cheapſide. How ſo? without going out of my Houſe (which is in another Street,) I cannot go into Cheapſide.

You ſay, It's ſtrange that any one ſhould infer, That you deny the Righteouſneſs of Chriſt, to be the ſole meritorious or material Cauſe of our Pardon, which in Judicial Acts are the ſame.

Rej.All this may be, and your contrary Senſe to us ſtill the ſame.

1. It's one thing to be a meritorious cauſe of Pardon, and another thing to be our very ſole juſtifying Righteouſneſs. I can ſay Chriſt's Righteouſneſs is the ſole meritorious Cauſe of Sanctification, for which we are ſanctified, as well as for which we are forgiven; and yet we are ſanctified by the Spirit: and ſo for which we are adopted. Hence you will ſay, Chriſt's Righteouſneſs is the meritorious Cauſe for which we are pardoned and juſtified by the Goſpel-law, the Condition whereof you make Meetneſs (what is required of Sinners is only a meetneſs to receive the Effects) this Meetneſs is the Evangelical Righteouſneſs; this is the Condition we ſhall be tryed by at the laſt Day, and this is the Law Condition upon which we receive the effects of Chriſt's Righteouſneſs; not the righteouſneſs itſelf neither: And is not this Meetneſs a material Cauſe in the Goſpel Law of our receiving theſe Effects? Why then hath it not …he ſame Place in reſpect of the new Law as Chriſt's Righteouſneſs hath, in p. 5repect of the old Law, ſo that there muſt be at leaſt two Righteouſneſſes requiſite to our compleat Juſtification, one Righteouſneſs to anſwer the Old Law, and another to anſwer the New? And indeed here Chriſt's Righteouſneſs is made by you moſt properly the ſubordinate Righteouſneſs, becauſe it is in ordine ad, it's only in order to an…ther Righteouſneſs. In the moſt favoura…le Senſe, you make the Righteouſneſs of Chriſt to merit ex condigno, and Evang…lical to merit ex congruo, for all Law Meetneſs is meriting, either in reſpect of the re…unerative or minatory part of the Law. All that you ſay over and over helps not, nor covers you from thoſe that know your Dialect; nor your ſaying, That Chriſt is the foundation of your Plea: I may found a Plea or Argument upon a thing that is not my Plea, or at leaſt my chief Plea, and how do you found it? Why, for the ſake of Chriſt, accepted againſt excluding bars, you ſay; whereby you have Permiſſion now to come in with your Evangelical Righteouſneſs. You ſpeak here juſt as in your other Book, to this Point, and I underſtand you ſtill as I did then, and you know you mean as I have repreſented your Meaning, but you would not have the People underſtand what you mean; and therefore you throw in an abundance of Expreſſions, thereby to hide your Opinion, but inſtead thereof they lay it open. What is more plain than this? Repl. p. 3.

The Terms of the Goſpel by the Promiſe do make us capable of being juſtified and ſaved for the Merits of Chriſt. Now here's your true ſenſe of being forgiven for the Merits of Chriſt, i. e. when we are made capable by the righteous Meetneſs of another Law, we ſhall be abſolved in the old Law ſenſe, by the righteouſneſs of Chriſt. And mark that all along, its forgiveneſs only comes from Chriſt's Merits; there's no poſitive righteouſneſs of Chriſt, in active Obedience, is reckoned to us; this poſitive righteouſneſs whereby we ſtand juſt in the Eye of the Law, in your ſenſe lies wholy in Conformity to the Rule of that Promiſe, which is the new Law righteouſneſs: And you uſe the word Merits ſtill, in the way of procuration, not ſatisfaction. You ſay we are juſtified only by Chriſt's Merits, as the ſole procuring cauſe or righteouſneſs for which we are juſtified [to which you ſhould add, that the Reader might take your full ſenſe] by the righteouſneſs of the Goſpel Law.

That which you call the fifth Miſrepreſentation, and is your fourth, I am not convinced of, but that my Inferences are truly drawn, according to your natural ſenſe and meaning of what your Expreſſions and what your Principles muſt bear, 1. That you make the great end and uſe of Chriſt's Righteouſneſs to ſecure us from the old Law, Mr. B. calls it our legal Righteouſneſs: and therefore our Juſtification is not an immediate effect of that Righteouſneſs, but of our evangelical Righteouſneſs. 2. That he merited only that we might Merit, i. e. that he procured our Juſtification by evangelical Righteouſneſs; you will not call it Merit; call it what you will, its a Law of Meetneſs; and a Law meetneſs I think, gives a claim and challenge of Pardon; and if we ſhould pray in your Dialect, we ſhould pray thus, Lord, I am meet to be pardoned for the Righteouſneſs of Chriſt. 3. That you make Faith and Repentance the meritorious cauſe of Pardon and Glory by the new Law, and that's true, for all conformity to, and complyance with the conditional Preceptive part of a Law gives right, a legal right to Remuneration, and the benefit becomes a reward of Debt; and if ſo, the meetneſs is a Merit, ex Pacto. All theſe, tho you ſay, you diſown, yet in what you declare, you ſay but what you ſaid before, and from whence the ſame Conſequences will follow, viz. That God requires a meetneſs in a Sinner for Juſtification, and that this meetneſs is a federal condition.

1. You ſay, Chriſt ſatisfied Juſtice and merited Pardon and Glory, i. e. he ſatisfied Juſtice in reſpect of the old Law, and merited Pardon and Glory, to be beſtowed as Rewards of Obedience to another Law: And that

2. The Sinner thus partaking of them, is as Fruits of his Death; and this is all done for his ſake.

p. 63. You ſay, God in Chriſt hath declared a way and order how he will diſpenſe his Benefits; this way is by another Law, in which he acts in a way of diſtribution of Juſtice, upon performance of Law conditions, p. 4. And therefore you ſay, Goſpel conditions have no other uſe to our Intereſt in theſe Benefits, than a complyance with this ſtated Rule of the diſtribution of Pardon and Glory, p. 4. Adam's obedience had no other uſe, than a compliance with the ſtated Rule of Gods diſtribution of Life promiſed, and Pardon and Glory is no other than Life promiſed. So that you make your Law to be every whit the ſame in ſpecie, with a Covenant or Law of Works; the condition works out the reward of Debt; but this is all the difference, that Man fell under the firſt Covenant of Works by Creation, but under the ſecond by Redemption; he was redeemed from the Curſe of the old Law that he might be juſtified by another Law Covenant; and this is your plain meaning, as you ſay: And theſe things you do but ſay over and over again in this Book, as in the former. And what doth this conditional Grant of theſe Effects import, but that we ſhould have Juſtification, Adoption, &c. upon the performance of obedience to another Law? Which is as much as to ſay, Chriſt purchaſed another Law, and Obedience to it muſt let us into Pardon by Chriſt. This purchaſing conditional Grants and Propoſitions, is a new ſort of Divinity, ſuiting the higheſt degree of Arminian Doctrin, and will ſtrike at the nature of abſolute Election, which gives ground of ſuſpecting you alſo in that Point, as well as what you ſay of the ſavability of the none Elect; tho' I acknowledge you often aſſert abſolute Election; but how well that Principle will comport with indefinite Redemption, upon a conditional Grant, let the rational judge. You go on again, and ſay, as from Chap. 10. Pag. 84. of your firſt Book. When Sinners are pardoned, the whole meritorious cauſe of that Pardon, is that attonement; and what is required of Sinners, is only a meetneſs to receive the Effects. You need quote no more, to give us an account of what you mean in theſe things; if the Reader deſires to be further confirmed in the truth of my repreſentation of your Principles, let him read pag. 4, 5. of your Reply.

You quote Paſſages in p. 30, 31. of my Book (for the firſt Head) from whence you ſay, I endeavour to render you one, that thinks Faith or other Graces did merit the pardon of our Sins; which you ſay, is contrary to your declared Judgment.

Rep. I grant you deny Merit; and I profeſs, Sir, I would not willingly wrong you by any falſe Imputation; but this I tell you, it ſignifies not much to deny a Name to a thing whoſe Nature requires that Name if it be named aright; a federal condition performed, doth bring a Man into the claim of the benefits promiſed as Debt, your own word gives the performance of the condition the meritum ex congruo, merit of meetneſs; and you making this meetneſs federal, I know not how it can be avoided but it will be Merit.

You quote Proofs, that you do not call this meetneſs Merit, but you call Chriſt's Righteouſneſs the Merit, as this; there is a Righteouſneſs for which a Man is juſtified, and that is only Chriſts: But you'l ſay, there is a Righteouſneſs of meetneſs upon which a Man is juſtified for Chriſt's Righteouſneſs, i. e. the qualifing condition of the Perſon whom this Mercy is promiſed to, he muſt have a Conformity to the Rule of the Promiſe; and its by this we are juſtified for the righteouſneſs of Chriſt. To what purpoſe is it to deny Repentance and Faith, to be meriting Righteouſneſs; when according to your Scheme, it can be denied in no other ſenſe than in reſpect of the Covenant of Works? The ſatisfaction of the breach whereof, you acknowledge to lie in the Righteouſneſs of Chriſt conditionally, i. e. for all that ſhall conform to the Rule of the Promiſe, which Rule is the preceptive part of the new Law; which Conformity you call, with others, ſubordinate Righteouſneſs, intituling us to another Righteouſneſs; it's this Righteouſneſs, you ſay, we ſhall be judged by at the laſt day. Now Sir, I ſay, that Righteouſneſs which Believers ſhall be acquitted by in the day of Judgment, that is the Righteouſneſs that they were juſtified by, and the Righteouſneſs of that Law which they ſhall p. 7be judged by. Let us but a little conſider how near this ſubordinate Righteouſneſs comes to the Papiſt's Notion of Merit, and if their Merit be not as ſmall a thing as your meetneſs and new Law conditions of Juſtification by Chriſt's Righteouſneſs.

Hear what S. de Clara our Countryman tells us.

Meritum eſt Actio libera acceptata ad aliquod premium.

Meritum de congruo eſt Actio libera ex congruitate quâdam acceptata ad premium.

Meritum de condigno, eſt Actio libera ab Homine in gratiâ elicita qui ex Juſtitia acceptatur ad premium.

Merit is a free Action, accepted to ſome Reward.

Merit of meetneſs is a free Action, which by reaſon of ſome congruity or fitneſs is accepted to a Reward.

Merit of worthineſs is a free Action of a Man performed in Grace, which from Juſtice is accepted to a Reward.

Now the Queſtion is, 1. Whether that perſonal Qualification, which you require of meetneſs for Juſtification by Chriſt's Righteouſneſs, be not exactly the Papiſts Merit of Congruity? Upon which is their firſt Juſtification. 2. And the ſincere imperfect preſevering Obedience be not their Meritum ex condigno, or of Worthineſs? Which is their ſecond Juſtification.

See the firſt Juſtific. the Council of Trent, Decr. 5.

The beginning of Juſtification of the Adult, proceedeth from preventing Grace which inviteth to diſpoſe themſelves, conſenting and co-operating with it freely, &c. The manner of this Preparation is, to believe willingly the divine Revelations and Promiſes, and knowing ones ſelf to be a Sinner, to turn from the fear of God's Juſtice to his Mercy, to hope for Pardon, and to begin to love him, hate Sin, purpoſe to be baptized, &c. Decr. 7. Juſtification followeth this Preparation. Decr. 8. When a Man is juſtified by Faith, and gratis, it ought to be underſtood, becauſe Faith is the beginning, and the things that preceed Juſtification, are not meritorious of Grace, And in another F. they condemn thoſe that ſay, A Man may be juſtified without Grace, by the ſtrength of Human Nature, and the Doctrine of the Law. What is it that you ſay of your Doctrine of Meetneſs, which they will not ſay in behalf of your congruity? And Scotus tells us, That an act is not meritorious preciſely, becauſe it comes from Grace, but becauſe it is accepted of God, as worthy of eternal Life, as you ſay it's the Promiſe made to that meetneſs gives the right.

Concerning meritum de congruo, merit of meetneſs, Bellarmine diſputes, lib. 1. c. 21. and concerning that de condigno, lib. 5. de juſtificatione, the merit of Meetneſs he aſcribes to the Works of him that is to be juſtified, a partibus juſtificandi, i. e. that meetneſs for Juſtification by Repentance and Faith, previous to Juſtification and capacitating for it, or diſpoſing to it. The other, viz. Merit of Condignity, is aſcribed operibus juſtificati, to the evangelical ſincere Obedience of one juſtified by the firſt Juſtification, whereby he merits the ſecond Juſtification▪ and though you will not own the Name Merit, yet in your Scheme, your firſt Juſtification by Meetneſs, or upon Meetneſs, and the ſecond upon perſevering imperfect Obedience, is the ſame Juſtifications that Bellarmine means, for the Jeſuite ſaith thus, The perfection of our Righteouſneſs and Juſtification is not from Faith but from Works, for Faith doth but begin Juſtification, and after it hath aſſumed to itſelf Hope and Charity, it doth perfect it. Bellar. de Juſtif. l. 1. c. 20. And again he ſaith, de merit. Good Works merit without all doubt, yet not by any intrinſick Vertue and Worth in them, but by vertue of God's Promiſe, and is not this as much as you ſay again and again, It is the Promiſe that gives Right to Benefits upon our Conformity to the Rule of the Promiſe, p. 104. And Calvin, inſt. l. 3. ſ. 12. They are forced to deny the intrinſick worthineſs of Works, and grant the Righteouſneſs p. 8of Works is always imperfect, while we live here, and wants forgiveneſs whereby our Failure in Works may be made up. He makes it appear, That a Promiſe made with a Condition of a Work, brings this to paſs, that he who performs the Work is ſaid to have merited the thing promiſed, ex pacto, and may challenge his Reward as Debt in Law.

It ſignifi…s not much whether you ſuppoſe the firſt Grace to be ſaving, or meer moral Endowment; the Council of Trent condemns them that ſay, … Man may be juſtified without Grace, by the ſtrength of Human Nature, and the doctrine of the Law: If you make the firſt Grace a qualifying meetneſs for Juſtification, in order thereto, it is the Papiſts Doctrine.

Thus you ſee your ſheltering your ſelf under the abſoluteneſs of the firſt Grace, will not do: And, 1. Doth God give the firſt Grace abſolutely? then all other Graces conditionally, for the firſt Grace comes from the ſame foederal Condition that all doth. 2. The giving the firſt Grace is the giving eternal Life begun. 3. Either the firſt Grace is through Chriſt or not; but 'tis ſtrange to ſay, That Chriſt gives inherent Grace to one that's not united to him (but as his deſigned Head, as you phraſe it) and to one in a State of Condemnation: And ſhould make a change in his Nature before a change of State. 4. Then Sanctification, (if Faith be any part of it) muſt be before Juſtification, contrary to the beſt Proteſtants, and what you have ſaid.

Your 8th Exception is, That I ſay 'tis the Doctrine of Imputation that you banter; and you tell us what you ſay of it in your Book, where, when I come to the Places you quote here, you will ſee my Remarks on your Sayings: And ſo as to the ninth and tenth, it will be ſpoken to in its proper place: And as to the el…v…nth and twelfth, I am of the ſame Mind I was, I ſhall not ſpend Time in Vindication; and I leave the conſiderate Reader, who underſtands himſelf, whether I do not give a very fair account of your Opinion, whereof, by the Quotations of yours, out of your former Book, you give ſufficient Confirmation.

As to the ſtating Queſtions in difference between us, you do it not fair: The firſt you ſay is, Preface 2. l. 1. Whether the elect are required to believe, that they may be juſtified? This, you ſay, I deny.

R. You ſhould have quoted the Place: I ſay there are Commands in the Miniſtry of the Goſpel unto Sinners, to believe and obey the Goſpel, that they may partake of Juſtification by Chriſt's Righteouſneſs, but not to perform it as a moral condition, that ther…by they may be qualified for Juſtification, or made meet for it as you ſay.

2. You ſay it is not whether the Goſpel be ſuch a Law, that the Acts of Obedience to it ſtand in the place of Works, ſo as for them we are ſaved; but whether the Goſpel aſſure Salvation for Chriſt's Merits, to ſuch as obey it, and their active excluſion of Salvation to ſuch as diſobey it?

This you ſay you affirm, and I deny; I'll tell you what I ſay: The Goſpel can't be a Law commanding Obedience as a federal condition of the Promiſe, but upon performance of it the Promiſe muſt be a reward of Debt; and if the Promiſe be Juſtification for the Merits of Chriſt, then its due as Debt upon the ſaid Obedience; and tho' you ſay, Juſtification for the Righteouſneſs of Chriſt, yet that Juſtification muſt be the reward of Obedience required in that Law.

3. It is not whether we are juſtified by our Faith as an Act of ours, as if they [you mean Repentance too] as Works or Qualifications, were a Jot of that Righouſneſs for which, or by which, we are juſtified: This I deny.

Rep.Who ſays you ſay its that Righteouſneſs of Chriſt, to which you annex your for, or by? but for and by this Righteouſneſs we come to be juſtified by our Faith and Repentance, the Duties required in another Law, which you tells us is the Goſpel Rule [i. e. your Law] That a Man muſt be a penitent Believer whom God will juſtify, for the righteouſneſs of Chriſt: This you ſay you affirm and I deny, and that with good reaſon, that our Faith and Repentance muſt be previous, qualifying Duties to p. 9our Juſtification. So that a Sinner muſt repent and believe in a ſtate of Condemnation, before he is juſtified: and its no more than this, that for Chriſt's Righteouſneſs which is our legal Righteouſneſs, we ſhall be juſtified by or according to our Evangelical.

4. Your next Particular is the ſame; and I ſay as before, God doth not juſtifie us as a judicial Act for any Duty or Act, tho' wrought by the Spirit.

5. You ſay, It's not whether we are juſtified upon believing before any Works, which follow the firſt Act of ſaving Faith.

R. No, for the Papiſts own their firſt Juſtification to be ſo; but you ſay,

If Faith ſhould be ineffectual to Acts of ſincere Holineſs, and to prevent Apoſtacy and utter Ungodlineſs, would we not be ſubject to condemnation by Goſpel Rule? This you ſay you affirm, and I deny.

R. Let us examin this then, and ſee what you affirm.

1. That there's a poſſibility true juſtifying Faith may be ineffectual, and ſo there may be a falling away.

2. That till Faith hath brought forth ſincere perſevering Obedience we are not fully and certainly juſtified; we muſt be juſtified by the ſecond Juſtification, before we be ſecure.

3. That Apoſtacy and utter Ungodlineſs is prevented by a Goſpel Rule of Condemnation that we are made ſubject to; its a fine way to prevent Apoſtacy to lay us under a Rule of Condemnation, you mean a Sentence: For my part I can t ſee theſe things hang together, nor know what you mean by a Rule of Condemnation, but in the ſenſe of the Law working Wrath, which is quite contrary to the nature of a Goſpel.

6. You ſay and we ſay, That Holineſs and good Works are neceſſary to Salvation; but that I deny they are indiſpenſable means of obtaining the Poſſeſſion of Salvation through Chriſt.

R. If I ſay they are neceſſary, it is enough, tho' I may not own them to be indiſpenſible means in your ſenſe, as a Law condition is an indiſpenſible means of the Reward; and if they be indiſpenſible means, the Thief upon the Croſs could not have been ſaved, and hundreds more, that I doubt not, but God ſaves in the like manner.

7. It is not whether Juſtification, Adoption and Glorification be Acts of Gods free Grace, which I affirm.

R.But you ſaid otherwiſe, That forgiving, adopting and glorifying, and the conveyance of every promiſed Benefit, given on Gods Terms, are judicial Acts of God as a Rector, i. e. As you after ſay, That Grace is ſo diſpenſed, by way of judicial rectoral Diſtribution of Rewards, &c. Pref. of the 1ſt Book.

But the Queſtion is, you ſay, Whether it pleaſed God to leave himſelf at liberty to juſtifie the Unbeliever, while ſuch, and glorifie the Unbeliever and Wicked, and al…o to damn the penitent godly Believer; this Mr. C. affirms, and I deny.

R.You ſhould have ſhewed the place where I ſaid it, that your Charge might have faſtned by a Demonſtration. I marvel you bluſh not at ſuch things as theſe.

1. Where have I that Expreſſion, of Gods leaving himſelf at liberty? Its one of your Terms of Art, not mine.

2. That he juſtifies the Ungodly, is what the Spirit of God ſaith; and therefore I may.

3. But I ſay in juſtifiing him, he ſanctifieth him; and whatever a Sinner is, he is juſtified as ſuch, not as made holy and ſanctified, unleſs you'l confound Juſtification and Sanctification as the Papiſts and Quakers do.

4. But when did I ſay, That God doth glorifie an Unbeliever, and a wicked Man; or damn the penitent and godly Believer? Or that in the Covenant of Grace he hath made any ſuch Exception, that he may or will do ſo? I ſuppoſe that you muſt mean by leaving himſelf at liberty.

p. 10"This, you ſay, is theſe Mens free Grace, while they deny the Goſpel Rule or Law. Theſe Taunts and Falſhoods are well enough, it ſeems, in your Mouth; its ſuitable to the reſt of the Prittle Prattle in this Preface.

8. You ſay the Queſtion is not, Whether God hath not as to us abſolutely promiſed and covenanted with Chriſt, that the Elect ſhall believe, and all Men believing be pardoned, and ſo perſevere in Faith and Holineſs to eternal Life; which I affirm, Pref. p. 5.

R. Here then you allow that there is an abſolute Covenant of Grace (for whatever diſtinction you would make between the Covenant of Redemption and the Covenant of Grace, there's no Man of ſenſe can deny, that the Covenant of Redemption is a Covenant of Grace) and if God hath abſolutely promiſed to, and covenanted with Chriſt, that the Elect ſhall believe and be pardoned, this muſt ſtand abſolute to the end of the World. But by your favour, tho' I am for the abſoluteneſs of the Covenant of Grace, yet it was not abſolute but conditional to Chriſt; that Faith and Pardon and Perſeverance, as promiſed to Chriſt for the Elect were conditional, and the condition was, that he ſhould make himſelf an Offering for Sin, bear it, and make full ſatisfaction to the Law by his Righteouſneſs Active and Paſſive, and make Interceſſion for Tranſgreſſors, and therefore tho' you affirm here, yet I deny.

But the Queſtion is (you ſay) whether there is a Covenant which requires our true believing conſent to the Terms of it, to the condition of Pardon and Glory, and ſuppoſeth this true conſent in the actual beſtowing theſe Benefits? This Mr. C denies, and I affirm.

Reſ. 1. I deny that there is any more Covenants of Grace than one, and ſay, That the Covenant between the Father and the Son, was that original Contract which was diſplayed and made manifeſt in the Goſpel of the old and new Teſtament, and in whatever is required in this Diſplay is abſolutely promiſed. For if there be two Covenants wherein the ſame things are promiſed, and to the ſame Perſons, the firſt abſolute and the ſecond conditional, the one muſt certainly be vacated by the other. For if I promiſe to a Perſon, or to another for him, to give him a Houſe freely, and afterward make a covenant Bargain with him, that he muſt pay me 20 l. or 20 s. per annum, the firſt Covenant is vacated; or if I am bound to ſtand to my firſt Promiſe, the ſecond Agreement falls to the Ground. 2. Likewiſe obſerve what you affirm, That God hath made Terms as a Condition, i. e, federal of Pardon and Glory. So that here is brought in a Covenant of Works, to intervene betwixt the abſolute Covenant, and beſtowing the Benefits, abſolutely at firſt promiſed. Now Men may ſee plainly what you mean when you talk ſo much of Pardon for and by Jeſus Chriſt; this Pardon is one of the Benefits beſtowed in your new Law judicially, by way of remuneration to the performance of the Terms of Duty required.

9. It is not whether Faith be the only Grace by which we receive and reſt on Chriſt for Juſtification, and that it is Chriſt received by Faith doth juſtifie, which is the ſenſe of the Proteſtants, when they ſay we are juſtified by Faith alone; this I affirm.

R. Yes you do in your ſenſe, i. e. That Chriſt juſtifies here, as much as is needful as to legal Righteouſneſs; but there is another Righteouſneſs, viz. Evangelical, that puts in for a ſnack, viz. that of the new Law. And you do much miſrepreſent the Proteſtants, for they ſay, Chriſt's Righteouſneſs is all our Righteouſneſs, of one kind and another that we are juſtified by, a Righteouſneſs without us, and not by any within us, any Act or qualification whatever. But the Papiſts ſay with you, the Council of Trent doth anathematize

Thoſe that ſay a Man is juſtified without the Merit of Chriſt, by which Chriſt did merit for us, or is formally juſt by that, Anath. 10. And they curſe alſo any one that ſaith, that he is juſtified only by the Imputation of the Righteouſneſs of Chriſt, or only by Remiſſion of Sins, without inherent Grace, Anath. 11.

p. 11But let's have the Query then; It is, you ſay, Whether he that can truly believe to Juſtification, muſt be in part a convinced, penitent, humbled Sinner; and this you affirm, and ſay I deny.

R. You ſhould have told the Place and my Words. Its poſſible I may deny it in your ſenſe, and I will prove how that you muſt deny it in my ſenſe, i. e. that legal Convictions and Humiliations are no federal conditions of Faith; for you ſay, That the firſt Grace is abſolutely given; and if ſo, there's no federal conditions of it. Why do you not bring in hearing the Word, as a federal condition of Faith, for it comes by Hearing? Why do you not bring in a Mans having his Senſes and Underſtanding, and many more things?

And now you talk of Humblings, let me mind you what you ſay, Page 15. You tell us of the Sum of the Popiſh Principles our Divines oppoſe. 1. They think that by Attrition (or a ſelfiſh legal fear of Puniſhment) Men do, ex congruo (or meetneſs) merit Charity and Faith, which be the beginning of Sanctification; and that this begun Sanctification is all our firſt Juſtification.

1. What do you ſay leſs than they, ſetting aſide the word Merit, and they ſay as to that de congruo its ſcarcely ſo? Nay ſome are againſt Meritum de congruo, as being any Merit but only a diſpoſition and meetneſs of the Subject, ſuch as you would have, and we may put their Attrition to your Humblings, as a meetneſs for Faith. See what the Council of Trent ſaith, Can. 8. When Paul ſaith, a Man is juſtified by Faith and gratis, it is to be underſtood becauſe Faith is the beginning, and the things that precede Juſtification are not meritorious of Grace: See now how you abuſe the Papiſts. Nay I'l tell you more, for I would give the Devil his due; you abuſe the Papiſts in charging them for making this begun Sanctification all their Juſtification. The words of the 7th Canon of the Council of Trent are, That Juſtification followeth Preparation, which is not only remiſſion of Sins, but Sanctification: And therefore they make not only Sanctification begun to be our firſt Juſtification. And in the 10th Anathema, they curſe them that ſay, A Man is juſtified without the Righteouſneſs by which Chriſt did merit for us. Now I think you ought to ask the Papiſts forgiveneſs for ſlandering of them.

Rhemiſts on Rom. 2.3. they grant, That the beginning of our Juſtification, which they call the firſt, is meerly of Grace; neither can we do acceptable Works before we be juſtified, but in the ſecond Juſtification, which is, the encreaſe of former Juſtice a Man may merit by good Works. So again they ſay, Works done of Nature before or without Faith, can't merit; but Works done by God's Grace, may and are joyned with it, as Cauſes of Salvation; and in theſe Points the Proteſtants oppoſe them. I could fill a Volume with it if need were, but its enough to ſay, you are miſtaken in telling us what the Proteſtants oppoſe them in.

You ſay alſo that I ſay, That Pardon is rather the condition of Faith, nay Pardon is the cauſe of Faith.

R. I ſay rather, for if a federal condition muſt lye between giving and receiving, giving is the cauſal condition of receiving, and not receiving of giving.

2. The Object muſt be before the Act of the Organ, Pardon is the Object applyed by Faith; Application before there is an Object, is contradictio in adjecto.

3. The Promiſe of Pardon is the Ground and Reaſon of our believing, therein is the Grace brought, therein doth the Truth and faithfulneſs of God appear; and the Apoſtle ſaith, Faith comes by hearing this Word of Promiſe, i. e. is wrought by it, Rom. 10. And he oppoſeth the Works of the Law, and the hearing of Faith in Juſtification Gal. 3.2, 5. And what is that acceptation but of Faith, which the Apoſtle ſpeaks of, 1 Tim. 1.15? And what doth it accept, but that faithful Goſpel ſaying there mentioned, That Chriſt came into the World to ſave Sinners, and the chiefeſt? Its the Grace of God working in this Promiſe, that hath wrought Faith in the hearts of thouſands

p. 124. We ſay with all ſoundeſt Proteſtants, That Juſtification in Nature is before Sanctification and the Cauſe of it, and therefore of Faith, becauſe Faith as a Grace wrought, is a part of Sanctification. Its enough for you, to hold up that you call Error, and give it Name, and ſo let it go.

10. It is not whether Sanctification taken ſtrictly do follow Juſtification; this I affirm.

R. If you affirm this, you ſhould not make ſo ſtrange of my ſaying, Pardon is the condition of believing. What you hide under ſtrictly I concern not my ſelf; Sanctification is Sanctification, and if Juſtification goes before it, you allow it to be conditio ordinis at leaſt. Therefore I conclude, Pardon is rather a condition, yea I ſay not meerly of Order, but ſuch a condition as is an influential Cauſe. But go on, ſtating your difference.

But whether effectual Vocation make a real habitual change in the Soul, and that this Vocation is in order of Nature before Juſtification: This Mr. C. and the Letter, and I affirm, with the Aſſembly.

R. As to the Letter, I muſt tell your Anſwer to it is ſhort and ungenteel; and as he did Bellarmine, who ſaid Bellarmine thou lyeſt; when you ſay, it was rather to ſerve a turn than to argue; it ſpake Truth weakly, and other things erroneouſly and ignorantly, &c. It juſtifies a neceſſity of dealing a little more roughly with Men of your Country and Kidney. But to our Point in hand; it need not be enquired, whether you take effectual Vocation in the active or paſſive Senſe, ſeeing you ſay its ſuch as makes a real habitual change in the Soul: And ſeeing it makes ſuch a change, it muſt be a change of Sanctification, and this, you ſay, is before Juſtification; how can that be, when you had ſaid before, that Juſtification is before Sanctification ſtrictly taken? What kind of Sanctification, I pray, is effectual Calling? Is it not ſo in a ſtrict ſenſe, when you ſay its a real habitual change in the Soul? Is this not turning from Darkneſs to Light, raiſing us together with Chriſt or being born again? But all this muſt be done before the Relative change; a Man muſt be free from the reigning Power of Sin, and alive from the Dead without Jeſus Chriſt our Lord. See what the Aſſembly ſaith in the larger Catech. Q. 67.

That effectual calling is the Work of Gods Almighty Power and Grace, whereby out of his free and eſpecial Love to his Elect, and from nothing in them moving him thereto, he doth in his accepted time, invite and draw them to Jeſus Chriſt, &c. and they are hereby made able and willing freely to anſwer his Call, and to accept and embrace the Grace offered and conveyed therein, i. e. then they are effectually called, when they have embraced the pardoning Grace of God offered and conveyed; which ſhews the previouſneſs of that Grace working the effectual Calling conſummated in believing and embracing the Goſpel offered; the Goſpel Grace in the Promiſe, is always that which works firſt upon the Sinner, moves his Heart, and draws it forth in believing.

11. It is not whether our ſincere Faith and Love, &c. are imperfect, and ſo can be no meriting Righteouſneſs; which I affirm.

R. You affirm they are imperfect, and ſo do I; but not therefore that they can be no meriting Righteouſneſs; for the Merit of Righteouſneſs doth not depend upon the perfection of the Duty or Service in it ſelf, but its perfection in relation to the Law that requireth it; if the Duty required be never ſo weak, little, and lame, if I have ſuch a degree as the Law requires, its perfect as to that Law: The Law requires a poor Man to pay a Shilling to a Tax, its as good obedience as another Mans that's required to pay twenty. Many Inſtances might be given, the Papiſts ſay, Merit lies not in the value of the Action, but in Gods Acceptation. The Council of Trent ſaith, Our Works are meritorious of eternal Life. Quia a patre acceptantur per Chriſtum, yea, ſaith S. de Clara, Actus meus dicitur meritorium quia elicitus ſeu Imperatus a gratia ex pactione divina acceptatur ad premium. Deus ab aeterno ordinavit hujuſmodi actus eſſe dignos vita eterna p. 13quando eliciuntur a gratia habituali; non igitur tota ratio meriti a gratia ipſa. So Scotus, Actus non eſt meritorius praeciſe quia perveniens ex gratia, ſed quia acceptatur a Deo tan que dignus vita aeterna. But where's the Queſtion then?

Whether Faith and Love, &c. are diſobedient even in a Goſpel account, and ſo uncapable of being Conditions of any of its promiſed ſaving Benefits?

R. In the ſenſe of the Papiſts they be not, but be accepted of God for this end, to be federal conditions of a Law Covenant; they are perfect in that kind and relation, and merit the Benefit; but we ſay, tho' any of our Gifts of Grace or Duties are accepted in Chriſt, yet they are not accepted to any Merit or Worthineſs of any other Grace; federal conditions and worthineſs of all Grace and Bleſſings beſtowed on us, are only in Chriſt; and hence Faith and Charity and other Gifts of Grace, tho' they have a conditional connexion one to another, yet they are all of Promiſe, and can't be federal conditions of any promiſed ſaving Benefits.

Mr. C. ſaith, I am againſt the Articles of the Church of England and the Aſſembly; I am ſure he'el never prove it, and I profeſs the contrary; but I am ſure he's againſt all the Confeſſions of Faith that we own as Orthodox.

R. How your Principles agree with the ſaid Articles and Confeſſions, upon Impartial Examination, let others judg; 'tis not your ſaying, your profeſs the contrary, will ſatisfy the World, when res ipſa loquitur; eſpecially when you have the Confidence to ſuggeſ… ſuch a falſe thing of me in the ſame Breath, That you are ſure I am againſt all the Confeſſions of Faith that are orthodox (but indeed you ſay, which we call orthodox) that we, I ſuppoſe, are, you and your Schematiſts; and then what they account orthodox, I ſhall not trouble my ſelf. You go on and ſay, In the Strength of Chriſt you'l ſuſtain the utmoſt Perſecution at the Hands of theſe angry Men; and while God enableth me, they ſhall not overturn the Goſpel by their unſcriptural Abuſe of the bleſſed Names of the Righteouſneſs of Chriſt, and free Grace and the Goſpel way of Application.

R. Enduring Perſecution is no Infallible Argument that a Man's Principles are good; if it were, Papiſts and Quakers then have more to ſay for the juſtification of their Principles than ever you had, or are like to have; and let the wiſe judge, how near akin yours is to theirs: And whereas you inſinuate, as if you had ſuffered Perſecution from the angry Men (as you call them) who have conſcientiouſly contended earneſtly for the Faith. Impartial Men will (if they do weigh and conſider duly what you have done and ſaid in theſe Matters) determine which ſide hath been the Perſecutors, if Reproaches and falſe Imputations be Perſecution, and God will judge one Day whether you be a Champion (as you would be accounted) for Chriſt or againſt him; the Day will reveal it; its not enough to brave it out before the World, a Judgment at Man's Day will not ſerve our Turns; he that judgeth you and I is the Lord, and therefore conſider what you do, while you call ſo much upon the Name of God and Chriſt, to countenance your confident undertakings in this Affair.

You ſay, there's a Myſtery in it that one Explication of a Text ſhould be pretended for a Reaſon againſt my whole Book, and ſo countenance all Dr. Cr. Errors, which they profeſs they diſlike.

Rep. There's no Myſtery in it, that any faithful Miniſter or People ſhould not only be highly jealous of, but exceedingly blame ſuch a Book, and the Author which ſhall rob them of ſo high an Article of their Religion as the true Nature of the Doctrin of Imputation of Chriſt's Righteouſneſs, and for the maintaining himſelf therein, muſt wreſt ſo eminent a Portion of Scripture out of their Hands as to its genuine and plain meaning, upon which thouſands of the moſt eminent Saints in all Ages have lived, and do live; no, be you confident, they will not loſe that ſenſe of that Portion of Scripture (Phil. 3.) which you oppoſe; they'll tug hard for it firſt, and it will ſtand in the Hearts and Prayers of God's Children maugre all Oppoſition. And whereas you ſay, you hear Auguſtine is of your Mind, He tell you what an Author of none of the leaſt Name p. 14tells me, concerning Auſtin's Opinion: Thus Auguſtinus breviter oſtendit ab Apoſtolo, &c. Auſtin briefly ſhews from the Apoſtle Phil. 3.9. that whatſoever is of his own Righteouſneſs is excluded there; and that Paul ſpeaks not of the Law of Circumciſion or Ʋncircumciſion, but of the Precepts in which 'tis ſaid, Thou ſhalt not covet. Lydeker. de diſcr. legis & Evangel.

You proceed to vindicate yourſelf againſt the Charge of not being againſt the Articles and Confeſſion, and pitch upon the Doctrin of Imputation for an inſtance wherein you know you differ from them; and your ſtating your Judgment in that Point ſufficiently evinceth, though you do it after that perverſe manner which is uſual with you, to make your Principles look ſound.

You ſay, You will ſtate that Caſe, viz. of Imputation. 1. It is not whether Chriſt was a publick Perſon, as a Mediator in his Undertakings, and ſo tranſacted all for Sinners, that they might be pardoned and ſaved by his undertaken Satisfaction and Merit: This I affirm; but whether we are ſo repreſented in Chriſt, as that we are in Law Senſe; they that undertook to atone and merit; this I deny.

R. What do you mean by a publick Perſon, as a Mediator? Did he ſtand in ſuch a Capacity as to repreſent, undertake for, and ſtand in ſtead of the Elect? were they federally in him as his Seed? for ſo the Aſſembly ſay they were. See Confeſſ. c. 8. ſect. 1. He was made the Head and Saviour of his Church, the Heir of all things: Unto whom God did from all eternity give a People to be his Seed. So Larg. Cat. The Covenant of Grace was made with Chriſt, the ſecond Adam, and in him with all the elect, as his Seed: But you ſay he only tranſacted for Sinners as a Mediator; but do you mean ſuch a Mediator as is a Surety; if ſo, the Perſons for whom he is a Surety are federally in him, for he takes the Debts upon him, ſtands in their room and ſtead, and they federally in him accounted, and to all Intents and Purpoſes he is entertained, as comprehending all their Debts in him. A Man may be a Mediator, and treat with both Parties at Variance; but not take the whole cauſe upon, ſo as to treat and engage, and make Payment in the Room of the offending Parties. But let us hear what your Queſtion is.

Whether we are ſo repreſented in Chriſt, that we were, in Law Senſe, thoſe that undertook to atone or merit? this I deny.

R. I will appeal to all Men of Senſe in the World, whether they can tell by your ſtating this Queſtion, whether you own or deny Chriſt to be a publick Perſon, repreſenting the Elect. He is a publick Perſon as Mediator, and repreſents ſo as no body ever ſaid any perſon did repreſent another: viz. That we are, in Law Senſe, they that undertook to atone and merit. A perſon comes to be bound, as ſurety, to a Creditor for an hundred Debtors in Ludgate; he becomes Debtor, and is accepted in the room of all and every one, they all pay, and are diſcharged in him: Doth the Law reckon that all theſe Men were Sureties, or that they atoned or merited? but that in the Surety's Atonement and Merit, they being all repreſented by him, their perſons are accepted, and their Debts paid. Doth any Body look upon the Debtor to be the Surety becauſe the Surety ſtands bound? Or becauſe the Surety pays or undertook to atone and merit? I would fain know whether this be not perverſe perplexing a Queſtion inſtead of ſtating of it?

3. You go on, ſtating thus: Nor whether Chriſt was a Surety for us, in a Bond of his own, to pay our Debt to the full (or more) that we might in a due Time and way be releaſed? This I affirm.

Reply. If Chriſt came under Obligation to pay our Debt abſolutely, he repreſented not as if he obtained our releaſe but conditionally, upon future Terms to be performed by us or ſome others; for then his Suretiſhip was not for us, but to purchaſe Conditions for us.

But whether we were joynt Parties in one and the the ſame Bond with him, and ſo we were actually acquitted when he made ſatisfaction? therefore God could enjoyn p. 15no Terms of Application to us for Juſtification and Glory, nor ſuſpend the ſame upon thoſe Terms. This I deny.

R. What mean you by joynt Parties in one and the ſame Bond? do you mean the Bond of Debt to the Law, by reaſon of the Obligation of Doing and Suffering? there we ſtood bound as Principles, and not being able to diſcharge, Chriſt became bound as Surety; we were never bound as Sureties nor Chriſt as the Principle. But if you mean that both were bound to pay the ſame debt, we do affirm it.

2. What do you mean by an actual Acquittance? Is it not meet that he that hath his Debt ſatisfied, ſhould have an actual Acquittance, or their Surety for them? there's no Man pays a Debt, his own or anothers, but he will have an Acquittance, according to the Terms of Payment, if they were ſuch as you ſuppoſe, viz. to purchaſe a Diſcharge upon other Terms. But you ſay, If Chriſt were actually acquitted, and the elect in him, God would not come upon new Terms with the Sinner for Juſtification and Glory; this is as much as to ſay, Chriſt paid a Fine for Sinners, that they might be brought to lower Terms with the Juſtice of God by a milder Law. How falſe are you, when you tell us, Your meaning is, That Chriſt's Righteouſneſs is our only juſtifying Righteouſneſs? whereas here you own, That it obtained not our full Diſcharge, but only the bringing us under new Terms; upon which Juſtification and Glory are ſuſpended; is not the Performance then of thoſe purchaſed Terms, our immediate juſtifying Righteouſneſs?

3. That which you affirm in this firſt part is pretty unintelligible, but according to my Underſtanding it amounts to no more than that Chriſt dyed pro bono noſtro only, which is conſiſtent with all the Socinian Notions of Imputation. But as that which you ſay you deny, I want it to be unriddled; viz. That Chriſt was joynt Covenant Party with all the elect, in Adam's Covenant, ſo that they are legally eſteemed to make Satisfaction, and yield Obedience in his doing thereof.

R. You ſeem here to ſuggeſt as if ſome did hold, That Chriſt was under Adam's Covenant, ſo as the reſt of his Poſterity was, and conſequently fell in him, as they did. Or do you mean that all the Elect in Chriſt ſatisfied the Law, as all Adam's Poſterity brake it in him? and this I ſuppoſe you deny. Now, as unto this Point, if I have hit your Meaning, I will tell you what a great Divine ſaith in anſwer to a Socinian: The firſt Adam was by God's Inſtitution a publick Perſon (having ſhewed that God's Pleaſure is the firſt Rule of Righteouſneſs) hence in him ſinning the World ſinned. The ſecond Adam is not only by God's Inſtitution a publick perſon, but alſo an infinite Perſon, becauſe God: This publick Perſon doing and ſuffering was as much as if the World of the Elect had ſuffered. If the firſt Adam, a finite Perſon, was by God's Inſtitution in that Act of Diſobedience, a World of Men, why ſhould it ſeem ſtrange that the ſecond Adam, being an infinite Perſon, ſhould be by God's Inſtitution in the courſe of his Obedience, as the World of the Elect? He being infinite, there needed no more than God's Pleaſure to make him the World of Men, yea ten thouſand Worlds. That which is infinite knoweth no bounds, but God's Will. The kind of his Obedience was legal, the ſame in Nature and Meaſure which we, by the firſt Covenant ſtood bound unto. This his Obedience to the Law was more acceptable to God than the Diſobedience of Adam, was deteſtable; yea more acceptable than the Obedience of Adam (underſtanding both as publick Perſons) had he continued in the firſt Covenant. Nort. againſt Pinch. p. 6.

4. That which you affirm of the Imputation of Chriſt's Righteouſneſs here, is no more than what you ſay every where, importing no more than as to its Effects; but your Expreſſion is ſtrange, in ſaying Chriſt's Righteouſneſs is reputed by God, as that which now plead; for our Impurity, &c. which ſeems to import that it doth not actually plead, but that God is willing to reckon it a kind of Plea: So that the Imputation you here intend of Chriſt's Righteouſneſs is to Chriſt himſelf, and not to the Sinner: But you tell us what you deny,

p. 16You ſay its this, That it is imputed as our formal Righteouſneſs, and ſo we may truly plead, that we our ſelves, as Elect, did legally by Proxy as our Chriſt, ſatiſfie and merit all, and without the Interpoſal of the Goſpel Rule, we have a legal Title to glory by Adam s Covenant: This I deny, as that which exclud…s Forgiveneſs, makes Chriſts Sufferings needleſs, denies any proper ſatisf…ction, and deſtroys Chriſtianity.

Rep. Here 1. You ſeem to deny Chriſt's imputed Righteouſneſs to be our formal Righteouſneſs, for Chriſt's Righteouſneſs we reckon to be, as it were, the Matter of our Juſtification, and being imputed by an Act of Grace, becomes our formal as well as material Righteouſneſs; for if it become not by Imputation our formal Righteouſneſs, its not our perfect Righteouſneſs; for Matter and Form are the eſſential Cauſes of the Effect.

2. That we in Chriſt, ſatisfied the Juſtice of God, I know no ſound Proteſtant but will affirm, and that legally. Mr. B. ſaith over and over, Chriſt's Righteouſneſs was our legal Righteouſneſs, but you will deny, that we legally ſatisfied in Chriſt: May not a Debtor plead that he legally paid the Debt in his Surety, tho' not with his own Mony?

3. You caſt Reproach upon the Suretiſhip and federal Headſhip of Jeſus Chriſt, by calling him a Proxy and Attorny, as our Surety and Repreſentative. A Proxy is Vicarious, an inferior Perſon that's imployed to do Buſineſs in the Name and by the Authority of a Superiour, ſo that he is his Vicar or Subſtitute. But is a Father, that pays a Sons Debts, and purchaſeth an Eſtate for him out of his meer Love, Pity and Compaſſion, the Sons Proxy? Or if a Man purchaſe an Eſtate for his Heirs for ever, is he a Proxy to the Children yet unborn? And yet their Eſtate is bought and paid for in him, the original Right and Title lies in him the Purchaſer. Or a rich Man, who undertakes for the Debts of an hundred poor Priſoners in Ludgate (ſuppoſe the King, or another great Perſon) out of meer Pity and Commiſeration, is he their Proxy? Is he not their Benefactor and Patron? I wonder how you can ſpeak theſe things without ſuſpecting your own Spirit, when you do ſo manifeſtly caſt Dirt upon Jeſus Chriſt; may not I juſtly ſay you banter the Doctrin of Imputation?

3. But you ſay Chriſt can't ſatisfie and merit for us, without the Interpoſal of a Goſpel Rule; the meaning whereof is, That Chriſt hath not legally ſatisfied for us till we have done ſomething in conformity to the ſaid Rule, that may give validity to the ſatisfaction of Chriſt, and make it pleadable as ſuch; ſo that Chriſt hath neither ſatisfied nor merited, till we make up the Complement whereby it becomes legal.

4. What mean you by a legal Right to Glory by Adam's Covenant? If you mean by Chriſts ſatisfaction and obedience to Adam's Covenant, we have our legal Right to Glory, we ſay it; for Chriſt is the end of the Law for Righteouſneſs to every one that believes, and through his Righteouſneſs we have a Right to Glory by Adam's Covenant; Chriſt's Righteouſneſs is our legal Righteouſneſs, as it reſpects the Perfection and Juſtice of God in that Covenant; and its our Evangelical Righteouſneſs, as its in the behalf of, and beſtowed upon undone Sinners.

But you ſay this Doctrin excludes Forgiveneſs; Why? Becauſe it brings in Forgivneſs meerly upon Chriſt's Righteouſneſs alone: But how makes it Chriſt's Sufferings needleſs? when it lays all upon the Righteouſneſs of Chriſt, imputed as the Matter and Form of our Juſtification? Or how doth it deny proper ſatisfaction, when it makes Chriſt's Righteouſneſs all the ſatisfaction? And your Doctrin makes it but an improper and remote ſatisfaction, yea and imperfect. And laſtly, you ſay, it deſtroys Chriſtianity: This is ſo groſs a Charge, as that it is to be exploded with Deteſtation; if the Imputation of Chriſt's Righteouſneſs, as our legal and evangelical Right and Title to Life and Salvation, deſtroys Chriſtianity, we may burn our Bibles. But you go on.

p. 175 You affirm, That all ſinned and dyed in Adam, and in Chriſt are all made alive, owning Chriſt's influence, both real and publick, as before explained.

R. All this is nihil ad Rhombum, you own not hereby the Imputation of Adams Sin to his Poſterity; but that Sin and Death are only Effects of Adam's firſt Sin, i. e. influential; you own not that all Men were legally condemned in Adam, as a publick federal Perſon, ſtanding in their ſtead: In the ſame manner you always ſpeak of the Righteouſneſs of Chriſt, as influential to our Forgiveneſs; and that the imputation of it is only beſtowing the Effects. But whether we were in Chriſt before Faith, as we were ſeminally in Adam, before we were born; which his federal Headſhip did ſuppoſe the being thus in Chriſt before Faith; I deny.

R. You here grant our ſeminal being in Adam; and that Adam's federal Headſhip ſuppoſed it, and therefore we were ſeminally and federally in Adam before we were born. Why ſpeak you it not poſitively, whether it was ſo or no? That we were federally and ſeminally in Adam, and that our Sin and Death was in him; there we loſt original Righteouſneſs, and thence the Imputation of his very firſt Sin to all his Poſterity, by vertue of our federal ſtanding in him, and by reaſon of our being ſeminally in him, the corruption of the whole Nature was in him, and naturally deſcended to us? If it be ſo, why are not the Elect as to Righteouſneſs and Life in the ſame manner in the ſecond Adam, federally and ſeminally before they believe, i. e. before they are born again, in him federally, as to Righteouſneſs, and ſeminally as to the new Nature, Chriſt being their Righteouſneſs and Sanctification, whereas the Apoſtle runs the Parallel ſo fully and plainly as he doth, Rom. 5?

But all this is but ſhuffling the Cards to make People believe your Principles are what they are not; moſt of whom cannot tell what you hold, when you have darkened and confounded the Queſtion, by your manner of ſtating it: You ſay, I object againſt you the denying of the Doctrin of Imputation; why do you not deny the Charge, but only diſtinguiſh ſo upon it as to confirm it? If your Principles are Truth why do you not ſpeak them out (but fill us with your cloudy Expreſſions and Diſtinctions, which you charge us for) why ſpeak you not plainly, That you deny the Suretiſhip of Chriſt, as you know you do? That you deny Chriſt to be a publick Perſon, in the Senſe as the ſoundeſt Proteſtants have always held him to be; which laſt you do here in effect poſitively do, That we were neither federally nor ſeminally in Chriſt before Believing: Which, if ſo, I am ſure you muſt deny the whole Doctrine of Imputation, and what you pretend to can be no more than what the Socinians do. And how can you ſay you are not againſt the Confeſſion, and I am, when the Aſſembly ſaith, Confeſſ. c. 8. ſect. 1. That Chriſt is ordained of God the Head and Saviour of his Church,See Pinchin the S…cinian, and Mr. Norton's anſwer, p. 353. Dialo, I grant that all M…nkind are one with Adam, by a natural Union, as proceeding from the ſame Root; but I fear Mr. Forbes doth ſtretch out our natural Union with Ad…m to a perſonal, to the end that he might make Adam's perſonal Action to be ours by imputation. Norton, The ſcope of Mr. Forbes is to prove the Imputation of Chriſt's Paſſive Obedience, and that only in his Dea h, to b… the Matter of our Juſtification, &c. We conſent to Mr. Forbs, as to the Argument taken from the Compariſon, but diſſent from him as concerning the Reſtrictions, the Reaſon of the Compariſon being founded upon the Conditions of the Perſons and Divine Inſtitution, it holds betwixt ſuch Acts a… th… firſt and ſecond Adam acted as publick Perſons: Adom therefore being in that Act of Diſobedience, only a publ ck Perſon, hence that Act only is imputed unto his Seed. But Chriſt b…ing in all his Acts of Obedien… a publick Perſon, hence therefore all the Acts of Chriſt's Obedience are imputed to his Seed. As upon ſuppoſition, Adam's continuing in Obedience (becauſe he had then continued a publick Perſon) all the Acts of his Obedience, even to the finiſhing of perfect Righteouſneſs, had been imputed to his Seed, according to the nature of the Covenant of Works, unto their attaining of Juſ…ification by the Law. The Uni…n between Adam and his Poſterity was not perſonal, nor only natural, but myſtical: It was a Conjunction of the Perſon of Adam, and all contained i… his Loyns, in one Spiritual Body, by the Inſti ution of God, whereby he was as their Head, they as his Members, to ſtand or fall with him ſtanding or falling Mr. Norton ſums up Pinchin's Errors under three Heads. 1. In his denying the Imputation of the Sin, of the Elect unto Chriſt, and his ſuffering the Pun…ſhment due thereunto, contrary to 2 Cor. 5.21. Gal. 3.13. Iſa. 53 5, 6. thereby leaving the Elect to periſh in the…r Sin. 2. Denying that Chriſt, as Go…-Man Mediator, obey…d the Law, and therewith that he obeyed it for us, as our Surety, contrary to Gal. 4.4, 5. Matt. ….17, 18. Heb. 10.7. compared with Pſal. 40.8.7.8. Rom. 3.31. thereby rendring … and inſufficient Saviour, and ſpoiling the Elect of Salvation. 3. Denying …he …ation of Chriſt's Obedience unto Juſtification, contra…y to Rom. 5.19. Phil. 3.11. thereby …avi…g a…l that are ungodly under an impoſſibility of being juſtified. 2. Deſtroying the very being of a Sinn…r'… Ri…ht…n…, by taking away the O…edienc… of Chriſt unto the Law, and Imputation, which are the Matter and Form i. e. the eſſe tial Ca…ſes of Juſtification. 3. Placing a Sinner's Righteouſn…ſs … Atonement or Pardon of Si…, ſuch as in effect doth man f…ſtly not only d…ny itſelf to …e the effect of it, … …enieth, yea defieth the very b…ing of the M…d…ator, by Obdience of Chriſt t… the Law for … ▪ Th… fir…t holdeth u… in a…l o…r Si…, and c…nti…ueth the … Wrath of God abiding upon …s. The … away your Saviour. The …hir … takes away our R … and Juſt ficat…on. W at … the …n…y of J…ſus, Grace and Souls … mor…? And I am ſure thi… … ſp…ak… as … …oly …f theſe Do…t…in…, which he o…poſeth, a… you …; yo… and more.2 Cor 5:21Gal 3:13Isa 53:5Isa 53:6Gal 4:4Gal 4:5Heb 10:7Ps 40:8Ps 40:7Rom 3:31Rom 5:19Phil 3:11 &c. unto whom he did from all eternity give a People to be his Seed, and to be by him in Time redeemed, called Juſtified, Sanctified, Glorified. In the ſame manner they ſpeak in the Larg. Catech. Q. 30, 31, 32. as above rehearſed. And in the ſhort. Q. 18. man's ſinfulneſs conſiſts in the guilt of Adam's firſt Sin.

p. 18In the 39th. Page of your Book, you pretend to ſome Anſwers, to what I affirm in ſome things: As that I deny the Covenant of Redemption to be a diſtinct Covenant from the Covenant of Grace. I own it, and make good my denial elſwhere, therefore will not actum agere.

You blame me, p. 40. for ſaying, p. 29. That Pardon is not promiſed to Faith and Repentance, as things diſtinct from the Promiſe, but Pardon is promiſed together with Faith and Repentance to the Sinner. And herein you ſay, I confound a Promiſe of Grace, and promiſes made to Grace, and affirm the Goſpel Covenant is but one Promiſe.

Repl. 1. I do affirm, That the Promiſe of the Goſpel in its Original Grant and Comprehenſive Nature is but one, as the Promiſe of the Covenant of Works was but one, viz. Life. So in the Covenant of Grace 'tis Life, the Spirit of God is expreſs in it, 1 Joh. 2.25. foreign, This is the Promiſe which he hath promiſed us, even eternal Life. And 1 Joh. 5.11. foreign, This is the Record (or Teſtimony) that he hath given us, Eternal Life, and this Life is in his Son. Now Eternal Life contains all Juſtification, Sanctification, Adoption and Glory. 2. I affirm that in this Promiſe is Juſtification, Faith and Repentance promiſed. 3. That in this Promiſe Juſtification, Faith and Repentance are inſeparably conjoyned. 4. That in and under this Promiſe are multitudes of Gifts beſtowed in a way of connexion one to another, and have their particular Promiſes pointing diſtinctly to them; but theſe Gifts are no federal Conditions one of another. 5. I ſay, If you ſpeak of theſe Gifts of Righteouſneſs and Life, as in a way of conditionality, 'tis Chriſt's Righteouſneſs is the proper federal condition of Life, and Pardon is rather the Condition of Faith and Repentance than they of Pardon. I ſay ſo again, 1. If Giving be the Condition of Receiving, 'tis true; but Giving is the Condition of Receiving, for Faith is but the Sinner's receiving Pardon: Is not the giving of Pardon then rather the Condition of Faith, which is the receiving of it, than Faith of Pardon? Luke 1.77. A…ts 10.43. So for Repentance: The Cauſe is rather the Condition of the Effect than the Effect of the Cauſe; but Forgiveneſs received by Faith is the Cauſe of all true Evangelical Repentance. See this ſaving Repentance and Remiſſion, b…th given by one Hand of Promiſe, Acts 5.31. preached together by Commiſſion, Luke 24.4…. How ſtrange ſoever you make of this Divinity, 'tis built on the Rock Chriſt Jeſus, and you cannot ſhake it, nor all the Devils in Hell. You ſay, I wretchedly miſtake the Nature of the firſt Promiſe, as if it excluded all Terms of our Intereſt in the Bleſſing of it.

p. 19Rep. I know not what the firſt Promiſe is, if it be not a Bleſſing; and if the firſt Promiſe be abſolute to us (as you ſay the firſt Grace is) then it excludeth all Terms to be wrought by us, to intereſt us in the Bleſſings of it, unleſs you intend that a natural Man is to perform theſe Terms in his natural State; and then the firſt Grace is not abſolute: And as for the firſt Promiſe, concerning the Seed of the Woman, it was abſolute, and ſaved our firſt Parents as ſuch, for it was all their Goſpel as I know of, and therefore they by it had Remiſſion, Faith and Repentance, without bringing the two laſt into a federal Condition: For if God had intended to bring them in as ſuch, 'tis moſt likely he would then have mentioned them as ſuch, Adam juſt coming out of a Covenant with federal Conditions.

In anſwer to what I ſay of a Legal Grant, you ſay 'tis out of my Element. Be it ſo, others may not judge it ſo, though you do: Mr. Antinomian ſaith, a Grant may be legal two ways, either by free Gift, from a Perſon's good Will and Pleaſure; and ſo God's giving us, both Grace and Glory is legal, becauſe it gives us an undoubted, unexceptionable Right. And a legal Grant is a Law Covenant Grant, when the Gift is beſtowed upon the performance of federal Conditions, as Grace and Glory is beſtowed in and for Chriſt and his Righteouſneſs; both theſe Grants we have firſt in Election, chuſing us in Chriſt; and in the eternal Compact between the Father and the Son. You ſay what I ſpeak of, Tit. 1.2. will appear not to be eternal, but before many Ages, and not to exclude Goſpel Conditions. If Chriſt be our great Goſpel federal Condition, I ſay it doth not; for God's Purpoſe and Grace was given us in Chriſt, and were to be beſtowed in and through him. But who told you that foreign, was but before many Ages, 'tis ſure before the Times or Ages of the Wo…ld; and what can be ſuppoſed to be ſo but Eternity, when Chriſt rejoyced in the Sons of Men, Prov. 4. And I think I have a good Interpreter on my ſide: Beza ſaith, on Tit. 1.2. In his Judgment the Word foreign cannot be referred to the firſt Promiſe, made to Adam, Cen. 3. much leſs to that of Abraham: But, ſaith he, Ante tempora ſeculorum; before the Ages of the World, doth denote all ſeries of Time or Ages, i. e. before this World was, according to Joh… 17.2, &c. In this Senſe runs the Aſſembly's Notes, Poole's Anot. continued.

What I ſay of the Goſpel's being no Law with Sanction, I ſhall not trouble the Reader with here, but handle it in its proper Place; and therefore paſs by all you ſay, p. 43, 44 and 45.

As for what you ſpeak about that Poſition of Mr. B. I leave the Learned to judge, whether you have ſalved it: I ſhall hardly ſet that and other things in a g…eater L…ght, unleſs you provoke me thereto, as you inſinuate by further Endeavours to ſet other Men in the Light or Dark, to as great Reproach as you can caſt upon them.

You ſay I m…ke Mr. R. B. to ſpeak orthodoxly, by ſaying, p. 22. When once a Tranſgreſſor is ſentenced by a Law, he falls into the Hands of Perogative, and the Prince may do with him what he pleaſeth (i. e. either execute him or pardon him) God a ſo might have put Repentance into the Condition of the Law of Works, and ſaid, If thou doſt not eat, or repent of thy eating, thou ſhalt have thy Reward: You ſhould have added, the Reaſon of my ſo ſaying; it was upon your ſaying, The Law of Works admitted no Repentance: I tell you, If God had intended Salvation by a Law of Works, wherein Repentance ſhould have been a Condition, he might have put it in at firſt; but God never intended to accept Repentance as a federal Condition of any Covenant, nor our imperfect Condition: And ſo I ſay again, with a non obſtante all that you have or can ſay againſt it; And I muſt ſtand to that Rule which Mr. Norton takes from Cham. de deſcenſu, tom. 2. l. 5. c. 12.

This great Principle is all-a-long to be kept in Mind, and occaſionally to be applyed, as in Anſwer to this Queſtion.

Q. What is the ſupreme and firſt Cauſe why Juſtice requireth, That Sin ſhould be rewarded with Puniſhment due thereunto, according to the Law?

p. 20A. The free Conſtitution of God, the principal and whole Reaſon of this Myſtery depends upon the good Pleaſure of God; for who can deny that God could have ſaved Man in another way? But he would ſave him thus, and no otherwiſe than thus. This ſerves not only as a Sword to cut, but as a leading Truth to looſe the Knots of Carnal Reaſon. The good Pleaſure of God is the firſt Rule of Righteouſneſs, the Cauſe of all Cauſes, the Reaſon of all Reaſons: And, in one Word, all Reaſons in one Reaſon.

And how doth this make the following Saying orthodox? viz. Being that Chriſt the Mediator, and Faith in Chriſt are only means of the Reſtauration of Men to God by Holineſs and Love, therefore it muſt be ſaid from the Nature of the thing, Faith, Holineſs and the Love of God, are more neceſſary to Salvation than either Faith in Chriſt or the Sacrifice of Chriſt himſelf.

Now if I had ſaid that this Poſition were God's Conſtitution, viz. that Holineſs and Love to God wrought in us, ſhould be more neceſſary Means of Salvation than Faith in Chriſt, or the Sacrifice of Chriſt, you had ſaid ſomething: Or that it were the Conſtitution of God, That Chriſt in all things ſhould not have the Preheminence, whether in genere cauſarum, mediorum vel finium, Col. 1.18, 19, 20. Therefore to ſay Holineſs in Grace or Glory is more neceſſary than Chriſt Mediator, is to magnifie the Creature above Chriſt, himſelf. But becauſe you ſay you would not have ſpoken the Words yourſelf, but endeavour to explain them as charitably as you can, I do not think it convenient to give you any further trouble about them; but I muſt remark, That it is not ſo fair in you to charge all upon me as my Senſe, which is ſpoken by an Interlocutor in a Dialogue.

p. 21AN ENQUIRY, Whether the Goſpel be a New Law?

SIR,

YOU begin thus. Reader, Though I did not once call the Goſpel a Law in all my Book, only in my Preface called it a Law of Faith; yet becauſe the whole of Mr. C's Book runs on this, I ſhall inſiſt moſt on this Head.

R. Whether you called the Goſpel a Law or no, it matters not; I know you kept your ſelf here, as in many other Points within your Trenches, yet he that reads your Book is very blind, if he ſees not this to be the Corner-ſtone of your whole Scheme: And by your now appearing in a Defence of that Principle, as your profeſſed Opinion: You have not only dealt more candidly with your Reader than in your former Book, but alſo juſtified me to the World, in theſe things. 1. That I endeavoured faithfully to repreſent your Opinions, and did ſo in this Point. 2. That I wronged you not in ſaying, Your Art lay in concealing your Tenents from your leſs intelligent Reader, under Ambiguous and Equivocal Expreſſions, which I called by a plain Engliſh Name that you ſeem to be offended at. 3. In that I treated you under the Appellation of a Neonomian (which is an Antinomian in the trueſt Senſe) in that you have in this Reply profeſſedly owned yourſelf as ſuch, and ſubſcribed to the Truth thereof, which for your own Reputation I would not have had you to have done.

In handling this Queſtion, I ſhall in the firſt Place remark upon your ſtating the Queſtion; and ſhew its true ſtate.

2. I ſhall anſwer your Arguments, to prove the Goſpel a new Law.

3. I ſhall ſhew what Law and Goſpel is?

4. I ſhall give my Arguments to prove, That the Goſpel is no new Law.

5. I ſhall ſhew the Beginning and Progreſs of this great Error; viz. That the Goſpel is a New Law.