Answer. The sum of your answer (without denying, distinguish- ing, or limiting one proposition) 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 : AVhereas (say ' you) faith is only appointed as an instrument to receive and ap^)ly ' the righteousness of Christ, which is the alone matter of our * justification before God; and faith itself is not yur righteousness, ' as it would be, if it were a condition,' p. 105, 106.
Reply. Not to note the Aveakness and impertinence of this answeu,
I shall only take notice of what you here allow, and grant, That
Jaith is appointed as an instrument to receive, and apply the righ^
teousness of Christy zvh'ich is the alone 'matter of our justification
before God. Whence I infer three conclusions.
First, That we cannot be justified before God till we believe, except you can prove, that the unaccepted and unapplied righteous- ness of Christ, doth actually justify our persons before God.
Secondly, That the justification of our persons before God, is and must be suspended (as by a non-performed condition) until we actually believe. Which two conclusions yield up your cause to my argument, which you here seem to oppose.
Thirdly, That hereby you perfectly renounce, and destroy your Antinomian fancy before-mentioned, That ij' Christ have Juljilled the law, and purchased heaven for men, nothing can remahi but to declare this to them, S^c. for it seems by this, they must receive, and apply Christ's righteousness by faith, or they cannot be justified (you say not declarati\'ely in their own consciences, but) before God. And thus, instead of answering, you have confirmed, and yielded my first argument, and only oppose your own mistakes, not the sense, or force of my arguments, in aJl that you say to it, or the scriptures produced to prove it.
Arg. 2. To my second argument, recited p. 94. where I argued from God's covenant with Abraham, and proved it to be conditional;
536 VINDIGIAHUM VlKf)EX.
and yet by you acknowledged to be a pure gospel covenant : all that you say, is, That you have dispatched that before, in your discourse about the covenant of circumcision, and therefore will say nothing to it here.
Reply. In saying nothing to it here, you have said as much as you did before, in the place you refer to ; and therefore finding nothing said here, or there, I conclude vou can say nothing to it at all.
Arg. 3. j\Iy third argument was this: if all the promises of the gospel be absolute and unconditional, then they do not properly belong to the new covenant. That cannot properly and strictly b^ a covenant, which is not a mutual compact, and in which there is no restipulation, nor re-obligation : it is a naked promise, not a covenant.
To this you answer three things. In the first 4 branch of your answer, you impudently beg the •.-.„ -i-ij^ question, by saying, That i/ou have proved already, ■^' ' in your replies to my former arguments, that the neiv covenant is "wholly free and absolute. Upon this absurd Petitio principii, you make bold to invert my argument thus, in your second reply : ' If all ' the promises of the gospel be wholly absolute and unconditional, ' they do properly and truly belong to the new covenant ; but so they ' are : therefore, &£.' O rare disputant ! In the last place, in opposition to the sequel of my major proposition, you tell me. You •will oppose the judgment of Dr. Owen on Heb. viii. 10. where he saith, ' That a covenant properly is a compact, or agreement, on ' certain terms, stipulated by two or more parties, &c. and that ' the word A/a^jjxr/^ there used, signifies a covenant improperly, &c.
Beply. If you call this an opposition to the sequel of my major, either your brains or mine do want Jlellebore. Doth he not say the very same thing I do. That there must be a restipulation in a proper covenant ? And as for the word A/a^rjxjj, which, he saith, signifieth a covenant improperly, but properly is a testamentary disposition, I fully concur wath him therein ; but I hope a testa- mentary disposition may have a condition in it ; to be sure such a ©ne as I assert faith here to be, which is the free gift of God : and in this, sense I shewed you before, w^here the Doctor yields faith to be the condition of the new covenant.
J7g. 4, My fourth argument was this. If all the promises of the new covenant be absolute and unconditional, and have no re- spect nor relation to any grace wx'ought in us, or duty done by us ; then the trial of our interest in Christ by marks and signs of grace, is not our duty, nor can we take comfort in sanctification, as it is an evidence of our justificationj &c.
VlNDrCIAIlUM VINIiEX. 55^
Your answer, p. 120. is, That 'at this rate I may prove quidlibet *■ a quolihet ; for it doth not follow, that, because the new cove-
* nant is absolute, therefore it hatli no respect nor relation to any ' grace wrought in us, nor duty done by us. or that we may not
* justly take comfort in sanctification, as an evidence of our justi-