⚫ members both, Gal. iv. 4. Chrift, therefore, having, in our stead, performed the conditions of life, there remains nothing but a promise, and the obedience of children, as the fruit and ⚫ effect thereof to them that believe in him, together with means of obtaining the full poffeffion, which here we want.' Reply. Either thefe paffages I have here cited and compared, were fetched at a great distance of time, out of authors differing as much in judgment as you and I do, and fo the diffonancy of them is the mere effect of oblivion, and incogitancy; or else your intellectuals are more confufed, and weak, than I am willing to fufpect them to be. For if the application of pardoning mercy to our fouls, is, in order of nature, confequent to believing (as you truly fay it was) then, certainly, notwithstanding Chrift's fulfilling the law, and purchafing heaven and happiness for men, fomething else must remain to be done, befides declaring this to them, to incline them to be lieve and accept it, or prefcribing to them in what way they fhall finally come to inherit eternal life. For, befides thofe declarations, and prescriptions you talk of, faith itself must be wrought in the fouls of men, or else pardoning mercy is not, in order of nature, confequent unto believing, as you faid it. was for all the external declarations, and prescriptions, in the world, are not faith itfelf, but only the means to beget it; which may, or may not become effectual to that end. Secondly, Whereas you. fay, this (fenfelefs notion) is confequent upon the doctrine of all true Protestants; you grofly abuse them, and make all the true Proteftants in the world guilty of worse than Arminian, or Antinomian dotage. The Antinomian, indeed, makes our actual juftification to be nothing elfe but the manifeftation, or declaration of our juftification from eternity, or the time of Chrift's death. And the Arminian tells us, that the declaration of the gospel to men, is fufficient to bring them to faith, by the affifting grace of the Spirit. But your notion is worse than the very dregs of both, and yet you tack it as a juft confequent to the doctrine of all true Protestants. P. 104. Reply, Thirdly, You fay, That to affirm faith, and repentance, to be the conditions of the new covenant required of us, in point of duty, antecedent to the benefit of the promife, doth neceffarily fuppofe that Chrift hath not done all for us, nor purchased a right to life for any; but only made way that they may have it upon certain terms, or merited, that we might merit. Here, fir, you vilely abufe all thofe worthy VOL. IV. Rr divines before-mentioned, who have made faith the condition of the new covenant, pinning upon them both Popery and Judaifm. Popery, yea, the dregs of Popery, in fuppofing their doctrine neceffarily implies that Chrift hath merited that we might merit. And Judaism to the height, in saying, their doctrine neceffarily fuppofes that Chrift hath not purchased a right of life to any. What can a Jew fay more? Ah, Mr. C. can you read the words I have recited out of bleffed Burroughs, Owen, Pemble, Perkins, Davenant, Downame, yea, the whole affembly of reverend and holy divines, with multitudes more (who have all, with one mouth, afferted faith to be the condition of the new covenant required on man's part, in point of duty; and that men must believe before they can be justified; 'which is the very fame thing with what I fay, that it is an antecedent to the benefit of the promise) and not tremble to think of the direful charges you here draw against them? The Lord forgive your rafh prefumption. Fourthly, Whereas you fay, Chrift hath, in our ftead, performed the conditions of life, and that there remains nothing but a promife, &c. you therein fpeak in the highest dialect of *Antinomiauifm; hath not Chrift, by his life, and death, performed the conditions of life, in our thead? Yet you yourself confefs, that pardoning mercy is in order of nature, confequent to our believing; certainly, then, there is fomething more to be done befide the mere making, or being of a promife: there must be the effects of the promife in our hearts, yea, the effects of thofe abfolute promifes of the firft grace, Ezek. xxxvi. Jer, xxxii. Or elfe, notwithstanding Chrift's performance of redemption on his part, we can neither be juftified nor faved. For I do not think you intend to lay the condition of repentance, or believing,, upon Chrift, who, in the new covenant, hath laid them upon us, though, in the fame covenant, he graciously undertakes to work them in us; and yet your words found in that wild Antinomian note., Objection. But, I fuppofe, you take my notion to be as felfrepugnant as your own, when I fay faith is an antecedent condition to juftification; because I alfo fay, this grace is alfo fupernaturally wrought in us, and is not of ourselves. This flaggers you, and is the very ftone you ftumble at all along this controverfy for in your fenfe, p. 34. every condition is me sitorious, by condignity, or congruity. : Reply. Firft, What do I fay more, in all this, than what thofe * Saltmarsh of free grace, p. 126, 127. worthies, before-mentioned, do exprefly affirm? Doth not Dr, Owen (the man whom you deservedly value) make conditions, both in Adam's covenant and the new, with this difference, that Adam's covenant required them, but the new covenant effects them in all the foederates? Sir, We take it for no contradiction to affert, That the planting of the principle, and the affifting and exciting of the acts of faith, are the proper works of the Spirit of God, and are, alfo, contained in the abfolute promises of the new covenant, Ezek. xxxvi. 26, 27. Jer. xxxii. 39, 40. And yet faith, notwithstanding this, is truly and properly our work and duty; and that upon our believing, or not believing, we have, or have not, an actual interest in Christ, righteousness, and life. For though the author of faith be the Spirit of God, yet believing is properly our act, and an act required of us by a plain command; 1 John iii. 23. This is the command of God, That ye believe. And if its being wrought in God's ftrength makes it ceafe to be our work, I would fain know what expofition you would give of that place, Phil. ii. 12, 13. Work out your own falvation, &c. for it is God that worketh in you, both to will and to do. And as this faith is truly and properly our work, though wrought in God's ftrength(for it is not God, but we that do believe) fo it is wrought in us by him (by your own confeffion) before the application of pardoning mercy, which is confequent, in order of nature, thereunto: and therefore hath the true nature of an antecedent condition, which is that I contend for; and did you but under. ftand your own words, you would not contend against it. Object. 2. Oh, but say you, p. 34. every condition is meritorious, either by way of congruity, or condignity. Reply. This is your ignorance of the nature of a condition, with which I find you as unacquainted, as with the nature of a covenant. A condition, whilft unperformed, only fufpends the act of the law, or teftament; it being the will of the teftator, legiflator, or donor, that his law, or teftament, fhould act, or effect, when the condition is performed, and not before: But it is not effential to a condition, to be a meritorious, or impulfive cause, moving him to bestow the benefit for the fake thereof. A man freely gives another, out of his love and bounty, fuch an eftate, or fum of money, which he fhall enjoy, if he live to fuch a year, or day, and not before; is this quando dies veniet, this appointed time the meritorious, or impulfive cause of the gift? Surely no man will fay it; but that it is a caufa fine qua non, or a condition fufpending the enjoyment of the gift, no man will deny, that knows what the nature of a condition is. An act meritorious, by way of congruity, is that to which a reward is not due, out of ftrict justice, but out of decency, or fome kind of meetnefs. Merit of condignity is a voluntary action, for which a reward is due to a man, out of justice, and cannot be denied him, without injuftice; our faith is truly the condition of the new covenant, and yet we deteft the meritorioufnefs of it, in either sense. Object. 3. But you object my words to me, in my Method of Grace, where I affert the impoffibility of believing without the efficacy of fupernatural grace, p. 102, 103. Reply. Sir, I own the words you quote, and am bold to challenge the most envious eye that fhall read thofe lines, to fhew me the leaft repugnancy betwixt what I faid there, and what I have faid in my Vindicia Legis, &c. p. 9. of the Prolegomena, and p. 61: of that book. You fhew your good-will to make an advantageous thrust, but your weapon is too fhort, and can draw no blood. But leaving thefe weak and impertinent ca vils, let us come to your folution of my arguments, p. 98. by which I proved the conditionality of the new covenant. My first argument was this: Argum. 1. If we cannot be juftified, or faved, till we believe, and are juftified when we believe; then faith is the condition on which those confequent benefits are fufpended, c. Anfwer. The fum of your anfwer (without denying, diftin guishing, or limiting one propofition) is this, That, here faith is properly put into the room of perfect obedience, and is to ⚫ do what perfect obedience was to do under the law: Where as (fay you) faith is only appointed as an inftrument to re ceive and apply the righteousness of Chrift, which is the alone ⚫ matter of our juftification before God; and faith itself is not our righteousness, as it would be if it were a condition,' p. 105, 106. Reply. Not to note the weakness and impertinence of this anfwer, I hall only take notice of what you here allow, and grant, That faith is appointed as an inftrument to receive, and apply the righteousness of Chrift, which is the alone matter of cur juftification before God. Whence I infer three conclufions. Firft, That we cannot be justified before God till we be lieve, except you can prove, that the unaccepted and unap plied righteousness of Chrift, doth actually justify our persons before God. Secondly, That the juftification of our perfons before God, is, and must be fufpended (as by a non-performed condition) until we actually believe. Which two conclufions yield up your caufe to my argument, which you here feem to oppofe. Thirdly, That hereby you perfectly renounce, and destroy your Antinomian fancy before-mentioned, That if Chrift have fulfilled the law, and purchafed heaven for men, nothing can remain but to declare this to them, &c. for it feems by this, they must receive, and apply Chrift's righteoufnefs by faith, or they cannot be juftified (you fay not declaratively in their own confciences, but) before God. And thus, instead of answering, you have confirmed, and yielded my first argument, and only oppose your own mistakes, not the fenfe, or force of my arguments, in all that you fay to it, or the fcriptures produced to prove it. Argum, 2. To my fecond argument, recited p. 94. where I argued from God's covenant with Abraham, and proved it to be conditional; and yet by you acknowledged to be a pure gofpel covenant: all that you fay, is, That you have dispatched that before, in your difcourfe about the covenant of circumcifion, and therefore will fay nothing to it here. Reply. In laying nothing to it here, you have faid as much as you did before, in the place you refer to; and therefore finding nothing laid here, or there, I conclude you can fay nothing to it at all. Argum. 3. My third argument was this: if all the promises of the gofpel be abfolute and unconditional; then they do not properly belong to the new covenant. That cannot properly and ftrictly be a covenant, which is not a mutual compact, and in which there is no reftipulation, nor re-obligation it is a naked promife, not a covenant. Anfwer, ་ To this you answer three things. In the first branch of your anfwer, you impudently beg the queftion, by faying, That you have proved already, in your replies to my former arguments, that the new covenant is wholly free and abfolute. Upon this abfurd Petitio principii, you make bold to invert my argument thus, in your fecond reply: If all the promifes of the gofpel be wholly ab 'folute and unconditional, they do properly and truly belong to the new covenant; but fo they are: therefore, &c O rare difputant! In the last place, in oppofition to the fequel of my major propofition, you tell me, You will oppofe the judgment of Dr. Owen on Heb. viii. 10. where he faith, That a cove. nant properly is a compact, or agreement, on certain terms, 'ftipulated by two or more parties, &c. and that the word And, there used, fignifies a covenant improperly,' &c. 6 |