Defense of the Gospel Truth, Part 3
An Account of some of Mr. C's Principles, which he hath set up in opposition to mine. I shall begin with Three of them, and consider them together.
Mr. C. p. 24. The Essence of the Gospel is altogether Promise and Free Gift. P. 28. The Gospel hath no Law-Sanction of its own, but it only establisheth the Sanction of the Law by way of Promise to all that are saved. P. 33. The Gospel, as such is no Law, hath no Sanction, &c. Which, and many more places, I may contract into this as his
First Principle. That the Gospel is in no sence a Law, nor includes in it asMr. C's first Principle. any part thereof, either any Precept, nor any Promise upon any Condition on our part, nor any Threatning. If thou doubt the word Precept should not be added, know, the words above fully assert it. And p. 23. he tells us, The Precept of Faith is a Precept of the Law of Nature.
Mr. C. affirms, p. 34. Whatsoever befalls Sinners retaining their sinful state, and rejecting Grace, is from the Law, and not from the Gospel: To talk of a Gospel-Threat is a Cata…hresis at best, and nothing else can save it from being a Bull.
His Second Principles is, The Gospel hath no Threatnings.Mr. C's 2d Principle.
When my Question answer'd by him p. 32. was this: Doth God promiscuously dispense these, viz. Forgiveness, Adoption, Glory, or any other promised Benefit given upon God's Terms? (I say) Doth God dispense these, without any regard to our being Believers, or no? Or, whether our Faith be true or no? Mr. C. answers, I would know, whether if God distribute his Free Grace to poor wretched worthless Creatures, according to his Election and distinguishing Mercy, doth he do it blindly because he finds no Reason in them? Whence I may call this
His Third Principle. That God forgives, adopts, and glorifies Sinners, withoutMr. C's 3d Principle. any respect to their being true Believers, or no; and Election and distinguishing Mercy be the only Rule by which he forgives, adopts, and glorifies Sinners, as well as gives the First Grace.
To put the better gloss upon his Principle, he saith, p. 13. Doth God dispense Faith blindly, &c? A. The Question was not, whether God gave Faith absolutely, but whether he gave Forgiveness and Glory promiscuously. Nay, he knows I oft-times affirm the former. And in p. 21. he reviles me for saying, That there must be a Work of the Spirit for conformity to the Rule of the Promise, in the person to be pardoned. Yea, this third Principle must follow, and is but the same as That the Gospel is no Law or stated Rule of Forgiveness, Adoption, and Glory. And he affirms, that Faith is a Precept of the Law, and denies that any Precept of the Law is a Rule of Happiness with a Sanction, p. 22, 23.
Repl. (Not to insist how in the first Point, in what he saith of the Sanction, he excludes Forgiveness of Sin altogether; yea, and as he words it, may bind the penal Curse on us.) He opposeth in these three Principles what he calls my 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 15th Paradoxes; but had he considered the 4th and 13th, he had answered his few seeming Arguments, and prevented his gross misrepresentation of my Principles. There he might have seen, that I assert, 1. There is a Certainty that the Elect shall obey the Terms of the Gospel, and be infallibly saved. 2. That it is Christ's Righteousness which is the alone meritorious Cause of a Believer's Justification and Salvation; and that our complyance with the Terms of the Gospel by the Grace of God, is no more than our answering that Rule by which God bestows on us Justification and Salvation, for the Satisfaction and Merits of Christ. He that cannot distinguish between the Righteousness for which we are saved, and a complyance with that Rectoral Method, wherein God doth save us for that Righteousness, and the Interest arising from that method complied with, had better sit still, than meddle with these Disputes.
Reader, tho' I did not once call the Gospel a Law in all my Book, and only said in my Preface, that the Apostle called it a Law of Faith, with respect to what I had discoursed, yet because the whole of Mr. C's Book runs on this, I shall insist most on this Head, 1. by explaining the word Law; then 2. in what sence it is not a Law; 3. shew in what sence it is a Law, which I shall prove, & c. 4. answer his Objections; 5. produce some Testimonies.
1. As to the name or word Law. It hath pleased God to call the way of hisThe word Law of Grace same as the Covenant. application of Grace to fallen Sinners, by various names, and by that variety, to help our Apprehensions, which one name would not so well contribute to. It's called a Law, a Covenant, a Testament, a Promise, a Word, &c. none of them exclude the others, and are easily reduced to each other. A Promise of God, that sets down an Order in conferring Benefits, wherein he enjoins any Duty on Mans part, in that Order, hath the nature of a Law; yea, tho' he engage to enable the Person to do that Duty. We must also consider, that God in some respects varies these Terms from their common use among men, both his Dominion and his Grace abating their rigid Sence. He calls it a Law, but yet his Mercy resolves thereby to confer such Benefits, as brings the Law down to a Promise. He calls it a Promise, but his Dominion renders the Term enjoyned a Duty, and so be raiseth up the Promise to a Law. The word Covenant implies the certain performance on his part, in the way he sets down, and our restipulation to that way. In the very word Testament, as he notes the ratification of the Covenant by Christ's Death, so it excludes not the appointed Condition of the Legatees, to whom he makes a disposition of the Benefits: So that the Word, the Law of Grace, or the Law of Faith, is no other than the Covenant of Grace, the Gospel-Promise of Salvation, the Testament of Christ, or the Word of the Gospel, or the Gospel it self. Whereas Mr. C. exposeth it as a New Gospel and New Law; it's the firstHow for a new Law, and yet no new Gospel. Gospel GOD delivered to Men, for he never promised to give Glory by Christ to any unbelieving impenitent person. A new Law indeed it is, as being a little younger than the Law of Innocency, which condemns for the least Sin, and gives Life to none but the Perfect; by which Law no man but Christ was ever justified, and by whose answering it for us we shall be justified in a Gospel-way.Heb. 11. 4, 6. But yet it is a Law older than Cain or Abel, otherwise Abel's Sacrifice had been no more acceptable than Cain's, which by Faith it was; and which Faith in Christ must have been commanded, as well as the Sacrifice; though the brief account which Moses gives, of above two thousand years, doth not express it, nor was itGen. 4. 7, 11. needful. Yea, God's Words to Cain imply it as Mr. Ball on Covenant, p. 43. saith, These are a Promise of the Covenant, that took place after the Fall.
2. I do not say, the Gospel is a Law in the following sence. 1. I do not say that theHow the Gospel is not a Law. Gospel includes nothing besides this Law; it gives us an account of the Covenant of Redemption, and the absolute Promises: There be many Prophecies the History of our Blessed Lord, & c. Doctrinal Truths, Prophecies, & c. yet these may be called Adjuncts. 2. Nor do I judge it a Law in that sence our Divines fix on the Socinians and Arminians, viz. as if Acts of Obedience to this Law are the Righteousness for which we are justified or saved; as Perfect Obedience was under the Law of Adam. This I deny, for we have no Righteousness for which we are justified or saved, but Christ's, and the Fruits of that are we blessed with, upon complying with the Gospel. Our Faith or inherent Righteousness, & c. are not the paying a Farthing of Debt to the Creditor, but our submitting to that way by which we have Forgiveness of all the Debt, and are Partakers of Glory; both which God had in his Eye, as to be purchased by Christ, before he fixed on this way for our obtaining them. 3. Nor do I take it in the Popish sence, which the Socinians and Arminians espouse, but true Protestants oppose, viz. as if the moral Law were not perfect in its kind, but that the spiritual extensive sence of the Precepts were new Precepts of our Lord; and that the Old Testament did not include the Gospel-Precepts of Faith in Christ, and Repentance for Pardon, as well as the New, though it did not discover the Objects and Motives, & c. so clearly. 4. It is not a Law that supposeth a moral ability in Sinners to perform its Precepts; that was necessary in God's Dealings with Men as his Creatures, just come out of his Hand; but not so, when he deals with Man about his recovery, when he had virtually sinned in Adam, forfeited all, yea, had undone himself. Whatever Mr. C. saith p. 23. I affirm, if the Subject be rational, or have natural Power: If such Ability comes so with this Law, that the Elect are made effectually able, and others are wilfully faulty if they finally rebel, it's enough to justifie the Divine Order. Will not and cannot are distinct things with Mr. Fenner, in his Book of Wilful Impenitency. Yea, with D. Owens on Ps. 130. p. 248. 5. It is not a Law that extinguisheth the Law of Nature which hath its special Precepts, and which in genere upon Gospel Revelation, requires what the Gospel requires, and condemns for Faults against the special Precepts of the Gospel, tho' it condemns not so, as to bar the Relief which the Gospel affords, nor promiseth Life upon those Terms, which the Gospel doth. The Gospel in a large sence takes the Law as subservient to its gracious designs; tho' Mr. C. weakly infers p. 24, 25. that therefore the whole Precept is hereby made the Condition. 6. Neither doth this Law require any thing of us as a Condition of Christ's coming into the World as a Redeemer, it supposeth that, nor yet any Condition of the first Grace to the Elect. This the Covenant of Redemption secures; and it is assured to the Catholick Church by Promise. 8. Nor is it a Law, Obedience whereto renders any promised Blessing a Debt. All is free tho' sure: It's free, as to Man's Procurement or Price, yet it is as sure by Promise, as if it were a Debt; but the Price was Christ's Obedience and Sufferings, and all comes to us of Gift, yet in that way which God appoints to give it.
2. I mean by the Gospel being a Law, that God in Christ our Redeemer dothHow the Gospel is a Law. by the Gospel expresly command Sinners to receive Christ with a true operative Faith, and promiseth, that tho' they are condemned by Adam's Law, yet upon their so believing, they shall be united to Christ, and justified by his Righteousness; and that persevering in Faith by sincere Holiness, they shall be saved for his sake. He also threatens, that if any shall dye unbelieving, impenitent, ungodly Rejecters of his Grace, they shall be bar'd from these Benefits, and they shall perish without relief, and have sorer Punishments, than if these gracious Offers had not been made to them: This is the Law of Faith. I'll add one Caution to this Account, which is too needful. Give me but the Assemblies Description of Faith, Conf. cap. 14. and I desire to use no word as expressive of the Terms of the Gospel, besides Faith, but men now define Faith by such a small part of it, as requires Caution for the sake of Souls.
1. Here we have all the Essentials of a Law. God is our Ruler, and we his Subjects; 1Iam. 4. 12.his Will is revealed in a way of Government; here's his 21 Ioh. 3. 23Precept which binds us to Duty; here's a 3Mark 16. …5, 16.Promise made to such as do comply; and here's a Threatning denounced against such as finally rebel; Preach the Gospel to every Creature, he that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved, he that believeth not shall be damned. 2. Yet this is a Law of Grace; it's made by our Redeemer for fallen Man, all the Benefits of it are founded on Christ's Righteousness, as the immediate cause of them: Effectual Ability to perform the Duty, is provided for all the Elect, and declared in the Gospel, and God doth not fix on these terms for any Worth in them, or profit to him. 3. The Gospel is the Instrument or Sign by which this Will of God is expressed: This is not the Language of God in Adam's Law; if this were not superadded to that, we had been utterly miserable. 4. This fixeth that Rule of the Promise which Mr. C. p. 33. is at a loss to know. God promiseth he will justifie him that truly believes, and save the upright in Heart: Hereby he that in Truth believes, and is upright, answers that Rule which the Unbelievers and Hypocrites do not, and so God doth not hereby promise to save them; yea, he declares they shall not have an Interest in these Mercies, because they continue such, and condemns them as such at last: It's Faith, not Infidelity; it's Faith in Truth, not Faith in Perfection, nor Hypocrisie.
I shall offer thee some few Reasons why I say this is some part of the Essence of the Gospel, and that God hath fixed this Rule therein.
R. 1. The Gospel is oft called a Law by the Spirit of God, Isa. 42. 4. He Proved that the Gospel is a Law.shall not fall, nor be discouraged, till he have set Judgment in the Earth, and the Isles shall wait for my Law, Mic. 4. 2. Many Nations shall come, &c. for the Law shall go forth of Zion, &c. Rom. 3. 27. The Law of Faith, Rom. 10. 31. The Law of Righteousness, the Law of Liberty, Iam. 1. 25. & 2. 12. A converting Law, Psal. 19. 7. The Law of Christ, Gal. 6. 2. The best Commentators expound these to be the Gospel; yea, many say, this is that Law of the Spirit of Life in Christ, Rom. 8 2. Many more places might be added.
R. 2. Mens Behaviour towards the Gospel is expressed by words that denote it to be a Law, Rom. 10. 16. They have not obeyed the Gospel, 2 Cor. 9. 13. Your professed Subjection to the Gospel. 2 Thess. 1. 8. To take vengeance on them that obey not the Gospel. 1 Pet. 4. 17. What will the end of them be that obey not the Gospel?
R. 3. Justification is a judicial Act, and therefore it must be by a Law, if we allow God to be a Ruler when He doth it. We dispute this against the Papists, who deny it to be a forensick Term. It's true, the Righteousness for which we are justified, is Christ's, which answer'd the Law of Innocency, but the application of it to one man rather than another, and to the same man at one time, and not before, is by the Gospel. It's not the voice of the Law of Works, that the believing Sinner shall be justified for Christ's Righteousness, Rom. 3. 26. So Gal. 3. 22. And I might shew, that in Justification is a Right to Impunity; And can any thing but a Law give this? for Condemnation by Law cannot be reversed without a Law.
R. 4. The Gospel gives a Right to its Benefits upon believing, Ioh. 1. 12. to as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the Sons of God, even to them that believe in his Name. What did God by his Gospel give to these foreign a Right, a Title to be the Sons of God. Very many places of this kind might be urged: And little do men see what follows from denying this Gospel-Rule, when we read such Places as they were worthy, Rev. 3. 4. 11 Thess. 1. 5. 11.the Reward, 2Col. 2. 18. Heb. 11. 26. Mat. 6. 4.a Right to the Tree of Life. 3Rev. 22. 14.Are these Terms proper from the meer nature of Mens Actions? That's Popish Merit. Or from the Law of Works? That's false, and anti-Evangelical. But it's safe to say it's a Gospel Worthiness, Reward, Right, &c. God having for Christ's sake promised to give Blessings in such a way. The Gospel-Law is so entirely founded on Christ, and refers to him so fully, that there is no more than an inviolable Connexion between Terms and Benefits; there's no boasting when the Claim is strongest; yea, not boasting, but ascribing all to Christ, is one of the great Terms.
R. 5. If God hath no Gospel-Rule beside Election and Distinguishing Mercy to confer Glory by, then God will not, nay, cannot forgive or save the Non-Elect, though they should believe in Christ. Say not they will not believe, that makes no alteration, as to the Point in hand: Hath not God declared he will save them if they believe? That is his Law; and their rejecting his SalvationIohn …. …. Iohn …. …. Heb. 2. 3. God arraigneth them for: He is condemned because he hath not believed, &c. What an allay to their Misery would it be to think! Tho' I had believed, I had not escaped this Woe: I have lost neither Christ nor Heaven by my Unbelief. Read God's Pleas with all Sinners; remember Christ's Tears over lost Ierusalem. ….What do Men speak of a Day of Grace, that Men may sin away? Nay, what are the serious Pleas of Ministers with every Soul, to believe and repent? All are delusive Mockery; whilst God is as free to pardon the Elect, whether he believes or no, He is at liberty to damn others, though they should believe; nay, He is sure to do it, should they believe, because they are not Elect. If this leads not to Hobbism, I see nothing. I own that Forgiveness is an Act of Soveraignty; that is, he is free to give Faith and Forgiveness upon it to whom he will: But they that think God hath left himself absolutely free to forgive the Adult, whether they believe or no, and to condemn the Believer, seem to forget their Bible. Would men of this Principle but preach according to their Scheme, I think their Influence would abate, with all that seriously mind Heaven, not withstanding Mr. C. says, that Pardon will not leave them impenitent.
R. 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 appliesSee my Book Cap. 20. Christ's Righteousness for Justification. How could Peter say, Repent, and be baptized for the remission of Sin, &c. when the People cried, What shall we do? How could Paul answer the Goaler's Question, What shall I do to be saved? Believe Acts 2. 37, 38.on the Lord Iesus Christ, and thou shal… be saved? This is not an Advice to Signs, but to appointed Terms; q. d. God hath commanded you to repent andActs 16. 30, 31. believe, and hath enacted, that if you do so, the Blood of Christ shall wash and save you. So Gal. 2. 16. We have believed that we might be justified by the Faith of Christ. They believed for this very end. If any say it was Christ justified, it's true, but it was upon believing. Faith is not the justifying Righteousness, but it is the Condition of our being justified by this Righteousness, and the Saints did ill to believe to this end, if God had not enacted it to this end: Nor could they do it in this assurance, that they should be justified when they believed, if God had not promised it upon believing. Had Pardon come by an absolute Promise, they acted very legally in believing that they might be pardoned. Mr. C. may as justly say of them as of me, They set up a new Gospel.
R. 7. The Gospel is at least part of the Rule by which Christ will judge the World at the last day. That it must be a Law, if it be a Rule of Judgment, I suppose none will deny, unless they'l deny that Christ is a Judge: The Work of that day is not to try Christ, whether he fulfilled all … Righteousness, nor yet whether his Righteousness was impured to all that did believe, but by solemn Sentence to decide the Cause of all men, to silence all false Apologies, and publicklyOf the judgmentday. adjudge all to their eternal place, unto the Glory of Justice and Mercy. That day supposeth all justified or not by the Gospel, Christ then changeth no mans state; the Godly stand there pardoned and entituled to Life by Christ's Righteousness imputed; the Wicked are there without any Interest in Christ; these wicked ones, if they pretend to sinless Innocency, they are cast upon the least Sin, by the Law of Adam: But if they plead God's general Mercy, it will be evident that Mercy adjusted its Rule in the Gospel. If they plead Hopes from Christ as a Redeemer, and the Offers he made, they are convinced by that Book, that Christ saved none but such as repent and believe. If they plead they did believe and profess his Name, Christ will convince them, that his Gospel required a true Faith, operative in sincere and persevering Obedience, the want whereof he will charge upon them; as you see in Mat. cap. 7. cap. 22. & 25, &c. and so leaves them subject to the Law of Adam, without Relief by the Gospel; yea, heightens their Condemnation for disobeying the Gospel: But if they yet plead, But Lord, thou savest some that were Unbelievers as well as we, at least, they were not such Believers as did yield sincere Obedience: This Plea Christ will confound by solemn Declaration of the true Faith and Sincerity of all them whom he now saves, and so will evidence, that his Judgment is without respect of persons, and that his Righteousness is no Plea for any finally unbelieving, ungodly Hypocrite, whom his Gospel condemned. If the Damned or Satan should plead, But they were Sinners, though not unbelieving Hypocrites; the Answer of Christ will be, I have satisfied the Law for them, and so Justice cannot suffer by my washing them in my Blood, nor hinder their being glorious for my sake.
I humbly think this is being judged according to our Works, Rev. 20. 12, 13. This is being justified by our Words, Mat. 12. 37. And what Iames most intends Iam. 2. 24. I hope none can doubt, but this proves the Gospel is part of the Rule of Judgment, and it's plain, God will judge the Secrets of all Hearts by my Gospel, Rom. 2. 16. And the word that I have spoken to you, that shall judge you. This is one of the *Ioh. 12. 48. Of Iust. p. 10. Rev. 20. 12.Books that shall then be opened, saith Mr. Ch. Father. And how awful is that day, when the closest Hypocrite will be discovered, and yet the doubtful Christian adjudged sincere! But blessed be God, the Saints Plea will be managed by Christ himself.
Reader, it's hard reconciling the account we have of the Day of Judgment, by any thing below what I have delivered, and were not the Gospel to be a Rule of Judgment, I cannot see how that could be a Iudgment-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 a Satisfaction, and it's by the Gospel only he hath enacted the way how this Satisfaction shall be applied. By that first Law these Unbelievers (yea, all men) were condemned virtually in Adam when he was judged upon his Fall, and that Sentence seized them as soon as they had a Being, there needed no other. It would help thy Thoughts, if thou wilt accomodate some of the Circumstances of the last Judgment to them that shall be alive at that time. I might multiply Arguments to prove the Gospel to be a Law. Whatever proves the Covenant to be conditional, proves the Gospel to be a Law. Nothing keeps the most sincere Godliness, or Act of a Saint here from being downright a Sin, if the Gospel be no Law, for they are not legally perfect, and so are Sins, I see not how any man can have grounded Hopes of Glory, if the Gospel be no Law; and they that deny it, and say Faith is but a Sign, must set up Works above Faith, for they are more evidencing Signs than an internal Act of Faith: Yea, how can Christ be our King, if his Gospel be no Law? Many more might be added, were there room, but I shall omit the rest, except what will occur in my Answer to Mr. C's Objections which follow.
I. Mr. C. objects, p. 5. Whoever is justified by a Law, is fallen from Grace, Mr. C's Obj. the Article is wanting.Gal. 3. 11. It should be read a Law, not the Law; it is foreign, the emphatical Particle is not put in, and so it's every Law is excluded.
Repl. Upon such Cobwebs, in the face of the plain scope of the Bible, doth this Cause stand. Where's the Argument? Because in a few places the Article foreign is not put in, therefore the Apostle excludes even every Law, when he doth plainly exclude only one sort, as appears by the whole Context. Nay, when he at the same time affirms another Species, under that general, Rom. 3. 27. But farther note, 1. Where the Article is elsewhere omitted, the word it refers to doth not exclude every sort of Law, Rom. 2. 14. foreign. Will you render this? For the Gentiles, which have not a Law, or not any Law, the Article is wanting, but sure they had some Law, even the Law of Nature. 2. Where the Article is wanting, it doth not infer, that every kind under the general word are alike intended; Rom. 2. 12. foreign. Is not there the written Mosaick Law set in opposition to the Law of Nature unwritten? Yet the Article is wanting, Rom. 5. 20. foreign, The Law was added; Was it no special Law? Sure there was some Law before. So Gal. 4. 4. Gal. 3. 11. foreign, The Iust shall live by Faith. Is this any sort of Faith? Will a temporary or historical Faith serve? Yes, by Mr. C's Rule. 3. The Article is oft added to the word Law, in the very Subject before us, Gal. 3. 12. foreign, &c. But the Law is not of Faith. V. 21. foreign, Is the Law against the Promises? and v. 24. Rom. 10. 5. foreign, Moses describeth the Righteousness which is of the Law. 4. The Socinians evade the force of Ioh. 1. 1. and so deny the Deity of Christ, even by Mr. C's Argument: foreign. The Article is wanting to foreign, therefore it's to be thus render'd: The word was a God, not the God, a God by Office, for that is a God, but not by Essence, which would be the God. 5. The Context doth manifestly specifie this Law, and not exclude every Law. It's true, the Gospel argues à fortiori against Justification by the Law of Innocency, yet he directly speaks of Moses's Law; as any may see in reading the places, Mr. C's Proof is taken from Gal. 3. 11. And doth not the Apostle, v. 17. say, The Law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul the Covenant, &c. Was it every Law that was given 430 years after Abram? So from Rom. 3. 28. & cap. 4. And is not the Apostle in the three Chapters express, That that Law was the Jewish Law, or at most the Law of Nature together with it: But more of this last hereafter. Reader, Mr. C. seems fond of this Argument from the Article, and thence oft repeats it; but do thou but read one Book in the Greek Testament, by his Rule, viz. that where the Article is omitted from a word in negative Propositions, there every Species is excluded; yea, bring it down to Names, and where the Article is omitted, then it is any Peter, any Iohn who is there spoken of.
Obj. II. Mr. C. oft objects, as p. 5. Works performed under a Law-Sanction, are legal Works, and do make the Covenant enjoyning them a Covenant of Works. And a few lines before saith he, The performance of Duty as Terms enforced by a Law-Sanction, A Sanction makes it a Covenant of Works.is a Covenant of Works; so that such men are Preachers of a Law, no matter what Law. P. 21. The preceptive Will of God with the Sanction of Rewards, promised upon the things required, and Threats of Punishment upon the non-performance, is alwaies a Law or Covenant of Works. This runs through his Book, and he oft saith, The Gospel hath no Sanction, and if we say so, we make i… a Covenant of Works. P. 10. Christ is of no effect to him that is justified by a Law.
Repl. 1 He oft seems not to understand what a Sanction is; for p. 24. he takes it to be meer Life and Death, considered abstractedly, but not as determiningA Law Sanction. the way of giving of the one, or inflicting of the other: Whereas a Sanction consummates a Law, and determineth what the Benefit or Penalty shall be, and the certain Connexion between the Benefit and the Condition, and between the Penalty and the want of that Condition, &c. Now will any, except Mr. C. say, That God hath not by the Gospel given Assurance, that upon believing we shall be saved? Have not we God's Word, Oath, and Seals for this? 2. A Law-Sanction doth not exclude the greatest Mercy and Grace, in conferring the Benefit. It's true,Every Sanction excludes not Grace. that if the Condition be in it self meritorious, then in that respect the Benefit is of Debt, and was made a Condition in the Covenant, because of its condignity, if exactly proportionable, or congruity if less valuable: But God chuseth a Condition, that hath …o merit either of Congruity or Condignity; nay, the Benefits are purchased by Christ, qua good things in themselves, and they be freely given, tho' in this way. Is it not a gracious Law, though a Law, that If fallen wretches will duly accept of my Son, they shall have Life by him; and this I command them to do? 3. His Mistake seems to be in his Notion of Reward, and in his upon and not upon performance of the Condition. Gospel-Benefits are no Reward of Debt, and yetThe Gospel Sanction infers not merit. they are given in a way of reward. The Benefits are given not for our Faith, yet upon believing; not upon it as a meriting consideration, yet upon it as that the presence whereof is made necessary by the Gospel, this having required Faith, and confined the Benefit to him that believes. If a man says, I'll give you a thousand pounds if you will come to my House and fetch it; is it not a free Gift, though the poor man must come if he will have it? And the Giver is yet bound by his Promise to give it if he come, and not bound to give it if he refuse to come. Do not say receiving Pardon is only naturally necessary, and not as a Condition enjoyned, for God might have applied Christ's Merits for Pardon, though the Sinner consented not. A Lunatick may be pardoned by a King; and the Rich man might have sent the thousand pound to the Poor man's House, whether he came for it or no; but Christ resolved to shew his governing Authority in the displays of Grace, and excite to Duty by Motives from Benefits, though the Benefits shall be so given, as that what we do shall be no cause or Merit of them. 4. HathThe new Covenant hath a Sanction. the Gospel Covenant no Sanction? What think you of Heb. 8. 6? He is the Mediator of a better Covenant, which was established upon better Promises. I hope he'l grant this Covenant is the Covenant of Grace, in a greater opposition to the first Covenant with Adam, though more immediately opposed to the Jewish Covenant; yet this second Covenant hath a Law-Sanction, foreign, Sancitum est, saith Beza. It's a greatest part of the new Name Mr. C. hath reproached the Gospel with; here's a Law, a Law-Sanction which the new Covenant is consummated by. Men skilled in the Socinian Controversies lay the stress of the Cause of Truth upon Arguments from Condemnation and Justification, being God's Rectoral Acts, but what a loss will they be at, if God do not … by a or any Law? as Mr. C. Of Iustif. 166, 167.saith p. 18. Where's Dr. Owen's Law of Iustification? Yea, We must part with the Force of Rom. 5. 19. 5. But why must it needs become a Law or CovenantA Sanction doth not make the Gospel a Law of Works. of Works meerly by a Sanction? The great difference between the Covenant of Works and the Covenant of Grace, lies in this: What is the Righteousness for which we are saved? Is it the Righteousness of Works, or the Righteousness of Christ? But it is not how we come to obtain Salvation by Christ's Righteousness. Doth God make our Faith or Sincerity to be our Justifying Righteousness? If he saith, If thou truly believe, I will justifie thee by Christ's Righteousness, but if thou believe not, thou shalt remain condemned; something might be said (tho' not enough) if we were to believe by our own Strength, but that is not so More might be said, yea, enough, if our Faith and Sincerity were to be the Righteousness for which we are pardoned, or entituled to Life; but neither is it any thing like that, nor doth the Gospel design it, nor its Law-Sanction at all infer it. It's… one thing to be justified for Faith, as a Work or inherent Qualification, (though it be such a Qualification) it's another thing to be justified by it, as a meer Condition: I abhor the former, and will (through God's Grace) dye by the latter. In the first sence, it's only that for which I am justified; in the last sence, it's only that upon which, by God's Ordination, the Righteousness of Christ justifies me: As a Work, it would make me just as an immediate Cause of Title, but as a Condition, it removes the Obstacle which God's Gospel-Threatning hath laid in the way of my obtaining his Gift of Righteousness upon Christ's account. Hath God appointed Faith by his Command to be a *Gal. of coming to Christ, p. 170.federal Instrument to receive Christ's Righteousness? I say no more, so that Men will own Men shall be denied it without that Instrument: But then, must the Gospel be a Law of Works? By no means; tho' Mr. C. p. 30, 31, 33. thinks, that whatever Law requires an Act of ours in order to Benefits for the sake of Christ, is a Law of Works, because (I suppose) the Action is a Work. Is not receiving Christ an Action? Ay, but itBall, son Covenant, p. 114. The Action of Faith is not excluded, in Ro. 3. 27, 28. How Faith justifies as a Condition, tho' it be an Act. justifies not as receiving, but it's Christ received justifieth. I say the same, but yet I ask, Will Christ justifie me if I do not receive him? A Christ he is, and a full Righteousness he hath before I receive him, yet I was unjustified, notwithstanding that. Why was I unjustified by his Righteousness so long? Was it not because I received it not, till I received it? Well then, sure though that Action of Receiving doth not justifie me, yet that Action is by God's fixed Law necessary to my being justified by Christ's Righteousness; not as it is an Action, but as it answers to the Rule of the Promise, whereby God enacts, he will for Christ's sake justifie him that believes. 6. The Apostle doth expresly tell us, that the Gospel-Law is not a Law of Works, Rom. 3. 27. Where is Boasting then? Is it excluded?Paul affirms the Gospel to be a Law yet not a Law of Works. By what Law? Nay, but by the Law of Faith. Here's two Laws opposed, and yet both are Laws, and one no Law of Works neither. We are threatned with an Answer, P. 33. though I know as much as he is like to tell me, yet I am sure I have the best Expositors for this sence, and doubt not the defence of it: Yea, though he should argue, it is but the Doctrine of Faith, yet if God be a Ruler that commands that Faith, in order to my obtaining saving Benefits, I despise all that can be said against its being a Law. But it may be he'l admit a Solution of his Objection from Mr. Bulkley of New England, TheBulkley, of Gospel Covenant, p. 325. putting of a Condition doth not hinder or lessen the Free Grace of the Covenant, so long as the Condition is Evangelical, and not Legal. And p. 328, 329, 330. he answers the Objection against the Gospel being a new Law, and saith, Tho' Christ be not a Law-giver, to give a Law of Works to justifie our selves by it, yet He is a Law-giver, to give us a Law of Faith, commanding us to believe, &c. p. 333, 334. when it is said, Do this and live: Here the Promise of Life is legal, because the Commandment of Doing is legal. On the other side, when it is said Believe and live, here the Promise of Life is Evangelical, because the Commandment of Believing is Evangelical; but if we make the Commandment of Believing to be legal, then the promise of Life upon Condition of believing must be legal also, and then there is no difference left between these two, Do and live, and Believe and live, which confounds Law and Gospel, Heaven and Earth, and makes the two Covenants all one. See Mr. Ball, The Covenant which wasBall, of the Covenant, p. 17. made of Free Love, and calls for nothing at our hands, but what comes from, and shall be rewarded of meer Grace, is a Covenant of Grace, though it be conditional: So the pardon of Sin is given of Grace, and not for Works, though the Pardon be granted to the Penitent, and Faith on our part, a lively, unfeigned, and working Faith be required to receive the Promise.
Obj. III. Mr. C. p. 2…. Moreover, all the preceptive Will of God, then or afterward Mr. C. obj. No Law but the Law of Innocency.to be revealed, was enjoyned to Man as his Duty to observe in the Law of Nature, imprinted on his Heart: As for Faith, it was an eminent part of his Perfection, and that which the Serpent first wounded him in by Temptation, &c. P. 22. I tell you, the Gospel hath no Law-Sanction at all of its own, but it only establisheth the Sanction of the Law by way of promise to all saved ones. Christ is the end of the Law to them, and as to those that are not saved, the Law takes its course of them, they came not under the efficacy of the Gospel at all.
Repl. The Argument of these words is, that all the Precepts and Threats in the Gospel are part of the Law of Nature, given to Adam; and that Law of Adam is the only Law, and therefore Faith in Christ, which Sinners are called to is only the Voice of the Law of Works or Innocency; and the whole Sanction of the Gospel is the Sanction of that Law, and hence the Gospel must be no Law. I might shew what a gross sence he gives of Christ being the end of the Law, and that his words lead us to think, that all Obligation (except from Gratitude) to Obedience, lies on Christ only, and not on the Elect; that the Gospel hath no influence at all upon them that are not actually saved; that the Gospel is only an absolute Promise, or rather a Declaration of Election, to the Elect, and requires nothing at all from them as a term of any Benefit whatever, and yet they are saved, as Elect by the Law, as immediately entituling them to Life, without the interposal of the Gospel-Sanction; that is, the Gospel doth not only invest them in Pardon, and a Right to Salvation by God's imputing Christ's Righteousness to them (when Believers) which was a perfect Obedience of his to the Law, and a full Satisfaction to the Law-giver for them, as their voluntary Surety: Which I hold; but that the Law immediately judgeth them to have obeyed it perfectly, and also to have endured the Penalty in Christ, he being their Proxy and Attorney.
This is the Method these men espouse, whereby they destroy Christ's Sufferings as a proper Satisfaction, exclude all Forgiveness, as needless: They debase Christ to an Attorney, and exalt the Creatures, as if they stood on the strictest Terms of Merit with God, having legal Innocence of their own, as having obeyed and atoned too: Yea, they had a Grant of all the Saving Effects of Christ's Death, before they fell in Adam, who was their Head even when Christ was their Head too, for they were one legal Person wlth Christ alwaies as Elect, and not when they become Believers. And hence the Gospel doth require nothing of any elect persons, to interest them in Christ or his Benefits.
But I pass by these, and in opposition to the Argument, I shall (in the strengthThe Gospel is not the law of Adam. of Christ) evidence, that the Law of Nature or Works is not a hindrance to the Gospels being a Law, but that the Gospel is another Law, distinct in its Precept and Sanction, and other respects.
1. The Gospel is distinct in its preceptive part, from the Law of Innocency.The Gospel differs in its Precepts from Adam's Law. Faith in Christ was never commanded by that Law. To say Faith in God was a Duty, is a vain Objection, for Faith in Christ as a Saviour is specified from its Object, and is distinguished into temporary, historical, saving, &c. The Faith that Mr. C. saith Adam was wounded in, was meerly a Faith of Assent, which the Devils have, or a natural Trust in God as Creator: But what's that to a receiving of Christ, or consent to him as Redeemer, and relyance on him? Of which more by and by.
Is it not strange that Mr. C. saith, The Law never brings us to God, then Faith doth not, for it's part of the Law, &c. But let's hear what others speak. Mr. Hooker of New E. p. 337. saith, I flatly deny that Adam, if the Lord JesusMr. Hooker Souls Effect. Calling. had been revealed to him, was able to believe in him, and so to rest upon him, &c. the Reason to confirm this Point, that Adam had not this Grace of Faith, is this; this believing in the Lord Jesus is that which doth directly cross the Estate of Adam in his Innocency, &c. He to p. 343. proves it, and answers Objections. P. 338. to one he thus says: I answer, that not believing in the Lord Christ is not a Sin against the Moral Law, but it is a Sin against the Law of the Gospel, 1 Ioh. 3. 23. Rom. 3. 28. Mr. Bulkley, p. 327. lays down this; That Faith inBulkley of Gospel Covenant. Christ unto Justification and Salvation, the Commandment enjoyning this Faith is no Commandment of the Law, but of the Gospel, which I prove by these ensuing Arguments. This he doth by no less than nine Arguments, and answers many Objections from p. 327. to 335. and thus concludes: Thus far we are come, that the putting of Faith as a Condition of Life in the Covenant of Grace, doth no whit derogate from the freeness of Grace.
D. Goodwin affirms, That Faith now is of another kind than the Faith of Adam: D. Goodwin in 2 vol. of the Creatures, &c. lib. 2. cap. 7. p. 5…. to 63.As to the Principle, Objects, Light, &c. ours is supernatural, his natural, and as you may see at large, proves by several Reasons, that his was but natural; as, 1. All other things belonging to him were natural, &c. and therefore it would be strange, that if the Principle of Faith in him, which then was not of general use, should be supernatural, &c. 2. For him to have a supernatural Principle of Faith, as we have, was in him superfluous and vain. This he shews, because Adam's Covenant would not have brought him to Heaven. 3. It would not only have been of no use, but it would have made him miserable. 4. And therefore our way of Faith must needs be supernatural, and altioris ordinis from his, &c. which he proves 1. in the respect of the Objects revealed to our Faith, which his Mind should never have arrived at: 2. in regard to the Light by which our Minds are acted and elevated: 3. in respect of the way or manner of Knowledge or Assent raised up thereby.
I might add the Testimony of one whom Mr. C. honoured, who gives this reason in the present Debate, saying, viz. If Consent to the Covenant was a Duty by the Law, then the Law did bind to its own dissolution. But I suppose this may serve to shew, that Faith in Christ was no Duty by the Law of Nature, and therefore either it is a Command of the Gospel-Law, or it is no Duty at all. The like I might shew of Repentance, which Melancthon's Followers prove against Flaccius Illyricus.
Obj. If any one should object, Did not the Law of Nature bind us to do whatever God should at any time require?
A. You must consider, 1. the Law of Nature less properly, as the Rule ofThe Law as in Innocency not the Gospel-law. Happiness in the Covenant of Innocency; and so it was appropriated to that state, and was a particular Law of Works: If so considered, the several Precepts of it were written on Man's Heart, and God and the Creatures ministred Instruction to the innate Light, which was inherent in our Minds, and that in a natural way. Some Ruins of both are still preserved to fallen Man, Rom. 1. 19, 20. Cap. 2. 14. In this sence Faith and Repentance could have no place at all in the Law, for it was a Law to govern and save Innocent Man, but not to recover Sinful Man. To suppose our own Perfection to be the Condition of Life, and yet to be obliged at the same time to repent of Sin, or believe in an a…oning Saviour; to have our Abilities immediately from God as Creator, and a Stock in our own Hands, and yet be obliged to depend on Christ as Mediator for all Strength, are utterlyThe Law as natural in f…lnmen, not the Gospel-law. inconsistent. 2. If you take the Law of Nature for the remaining Instincts and Notices of it in Man (which ought to be perfect) and assisted and directed by the Works of God, sure the Gospel must be another Law, or else Heathens are able to find out Christ by the Book of Nature, and engaged to receive him, and rely on him, though he were never revealed to them. The reason is this; the Law of Nature in this sence binds all the Heathens, and its Precepts are engraven naturally upon their Hearts, and God and his Works consider'd naturally, direct their Minds. 3. The Law of Nature may be considered most generally, viz. as it is an Obligation upon Man to believe and obey, whatever God shall any way or time reveal and require, and to suffer for Disobedience what God shall threaten. In this sence indeed the Law commands all Duty in general, but it doth not denyThe general Law of Nature …inders not the Gospel to be a Law. the Gospel to be a special Law, for this indeed doth oblige us to obey all God's Laws, when he makes them Laws; but it doth not determine any one Law, nor give a Being to one particular Precept. It's the Foundation of our Obligation, to submit to God's Authority as Creatures, but appoints not wherein we must instance that subjection. It's the same as an Obligation among men to Allegiance to the supreme Power, which I hope prevents not the Ruler's Acts to be Laws. This Law of Nature subjects us to God's Threatnings, which he shall pronounce at any time for Sin, but determineth neither the sort nor degree of the threatned Evils. This Law is common to good Angels, Devils, innocent Man, fallen Man, yea, damned and glorified Man, for they are all engaged as Creatures to obey the Laws of God, when he enacts them, and suffer what he threatens if they obey not. But is the Gospel therefore no Law, or only this Law of Nature? Then Angels, Devils, and the Damned are obliged to believe in Christ for Salvation. Do not say, God doth not require this of them, for they are under this Law of Nature, and so he doth require it of them; or else it is some distinct special Law, whereby he requires it of others, and not of them. By this Notion God never made any Law beside this one Law of Nature; no positive Law, no ceremonial Law, for this Law of Nature did bind Man to observe them when God was pleased to command them; and yet they were special Laws for all that. And why then must the Command of Faith in Christ, and Repentance for Remission, be no Law, when God commands them, because the Law of Nature requires us to obey them when God doth command them? What a Government do these men assign to God, who allow him but one and the same Law to govern the whole Creation by, when their state and circumstances be so different, though all are his Creatures? 4. As for such as confound the Law of Nature with the Law toThe Moral Law now the Gospel. Israel, as taken into the Covenant of Grace, I shall not think fit to say more to than this; Though the carnal Iews did turn it into a Covenant of Works, as if their imperfect Obedience and chargeable Sacrifices were the very Righteousness for which they were justified, and so neglected Repentance and Faith in the Promise of Forgiveness for the sake of Christ, who was typified in their Sacrifices; nevertheless it was a Law of Faith and Repentance, as Wittichius calls it, p. 106.Wittichius Epist. ad Rom. in cap. 2. v. 25. and therefore such great Titles are given it in the Old Testament; and not as such is it opposed by the Apostle Paul in the New Testament, it was the base perverting of it, as exclusive of Faith in Christ, and as opposing Gospel Institutions by Jewish Ordinances, that he reprehends: See Calvin. onCalvin on Psal. 19. 10. That the Law was the Gospel in David's s…nce. Ball, Cov. …15. Ps. 19 9. he states the difference between the Law commended by David, and as represented by Paul, and saith, that Paul had to do with the perverse Interpreters of the Law, which separated it from the Grace and Spirit of Christ▪ &c. and sums up all in these words, Haec diversa legis acceptatio, &c. This different acceptation of the Law easily reconciles the seeming difference in the words of David and Paul, because Paul's purpose is to shew what the Law of it self (viz. as it sincerely requires the Duty we owe to God, without the Promise of Grace) can do in us or for us; but David commends the whole Doctrine of the Law, which is the same with the Gospel, and therefore includes Christ therein. See Mr. Ball's Arguments for the Covenant with Israel being the Gospel-Covenant,Ball on Cov. from 102, to 120. and how the Precepts were Gospel-Precepts. Indeed it's true, the matter of the Ten Commandments were much of the matter of the Law of Innocency, but God did not deliver it to his Church as a Law to innocent Man, but to fallen Man, for his direction and recovery. Therefore when any Authors take the Law as given on Sinai, to be the Covenant of Grace, they deny Faith to be commanded Adam in Innocency, though they grant it requir'd in the Law at Sinai.
2. The Sanction of the Gospel is not the same with the Law of Innocency; The sanction of the Gospel differs from Adams law.which I shall evidence in the promissory and minatory parts. I'll begin with the promissory part.
I. The promissory part of the Gospel differs from that of the Law of Innocency. 1. There are many things promised in the Gospel, which that Law neverThe Promises differ. promised. Did that Law ever promise Union with Christ, or the indwelling Spirit, or Forgiveness of Sin, or Perseverance? Surely no: But the Gospel doth all this. Nay, Dr. Goodwin urgeth many Arguments to prove, that the Reward ofD. Goodw. vol. 2. lib. 2. p. 46, &c. Adam was to be only a continuance in the same Life he had in Paradise, and not a translation to Heaven. 2. The Rewards of the Law of Works were not promised on the same account, as the Benefits promised by the Law of Grace be; those were on the account of Works as a meriting Righteousness, ours are by Free Grace, on the account of Christ's sole meriting Righteousness. Dr. Goodwin saith,D. Goodw. p. 45. ubi supra. The Reward of the Law was in a just sence due (of Debt) unto the Creature, and that from God: Not that God can owe any thing to his Creature, or be obliged for any thing to him, but because in a way of natural Justice, or rather Comeliness and Dueness, such as is by the Law of Creation to be between a just Creator and a holy Creature; there is an approbation due to him from God, whilst that Creature obeys him, and that as a Debt of Nature. But I say, all the claim we have, is for Christ, and ex pacto, as the Free Promise assureth us. 3. The Benefits are promised on different terms. By the Law all was for perfect Sinless Obedience, but the Gospel promiseth Pardon upon our true repenting and believing; and we forfeit not our Interest in its Blessings, if our Faith be effectual and persevering in sincere Holiness and Obedience. 4. The Law of Adam did not justifie till the whole time of the trial of Obedience was finished. It's true, it did continue the Blessings he had, while he sinned not, but it did not fix his state of Happiness till his trial was over; but the Gospel puts us in a justified state upon our first believing.
II. The threatning part of the Gospel differs from that in Adam's Law. 1. TheThe Threatnings differ. Evils threatned are not wholly the same: Here's not only Death, but that in sorer degrees, Heb. 10. 29. & 12. 25. God's Wrath will be more poured out, and Conscience will find matter of sorer Reflections. Here's a privation of Christ, and his Spirit and Pardon: We are not only without them, but we are barr'd from them, because of our wicked refusal, when they were sincerely offer'd us after our Apostacy. If the Gospel were no Law, we could not be obliged to more Misery than Adam brought us under; yea, and Adam could not be our full Representative in his Covenant, if we are capable of encreasing our Misery by that Law, without disobedience to a new one. 2. The Gospel doth not denounce Death for the same Sins, as Adam's Law did; that Law threatned Death for the least Sin, yea, for one Sin, but the Gospel threatens Death not for every Sin; it doth not bar every Sinner from actual Relief, but the impenitent, unbelieving, and utterly ungodly Hypocrite. 3. The Gospel binds not Damnation on us, unless we are finally impenitent Unbelievers. If at any time of life we truly repent and believe, we shall find Mercy, but Adam's Law denounced him miserable on his first Sin.
III. There be a great many other Differences, viz. in Adam's Law God actedOther Differences. as meer Creator, in the Law of Grace he acts as Redeemer as well as Creator; in Adam's Law Men were considered as innocent and sinless, in the Gospel we are considered as Sinners; by that Law God governed us as happy, in order to a fixing us in our happy estate, in the Gospel he deals with us in order to our recovery from a lost estate; in that there was no Mediator, in this there is a Mediator, who also is our King-Redeemer. Many more might be added.
Reader, weigh all these things, and if the Gospel must be a special Law, so that it be not the Law of Innocency, what can be more plain, than that it is not the same with the Law of Innocency or Nature either. I could farther demonstrate, that the very appropriation of Faith (tho' it were a legal Precept) to be the grand Condition of Salvation, doth argue the Gospels being a distinct Law▪ for otherwise any Duty would be of equal use: But because Mr. C. charges me as a New Gospeller, I'll give thee a few of the hundreds that oppose his three former Errors, and consent to my Paradoxes as orthodox.