A medium betwixt two extremes wherein it is proved that the whole first Adam was condemned and the whole second Adam justified : being a sermon lately preached on Rom. 8:1 and now published to prevent the further controversy (in one main point) about justification : to which are added reflections on some passages in Mr. Clark's new book called Scripture-Justification / by Benjamin Keach.

A POSTSCRIPT, containing a few Reflec∣tions upon some Passages in Mr. Clark's new Book, intituled Scripture-Justifica∣tion.

NEver more need for all that are Orthodox (I mean who are established in the Doc∣trine of Justification by the imputed Righteousness of Jesus Christ, or by his active and passive Obedience alone, according to the Scripture, and as maintained by most of the Antient Fathers, and all our worthy modern Pro∣testant Divines) to cement together in Love and Union, and to pass by small matters of Difference, considering what a grand design is carrying on by the great Enemies of the true Christian Religion, for Satan never appeared in his Instruments more bold and bare-fac'd against this grand Fundamental of Christianity, viz. that of Justification, since blessed

Luther's days, who as an Instrument (with others) gave him such a Wound, than at this present time.

Reader, we had need bestir our selves, and rouse up with holy Zeal for God; for all, even the Foun∣dation,* 1.1 is struck at.— Just as this precedent Sermon was going to the Press, a Book came to my hand wrote by Mr. Samuel Clark, a Man of great Lear∣ning; and who indeed writes without much seem∣ing Gall or Invectives▪ against any Man's Person (the better to vent his Indignation against the Doc∣trine he opposes) striving to revive and maintain the Baxterian Error, with such Confidence and bare∣facedness, that if some able Pen do not answer him, it may do much harm to weak and unwary Christians.

He says,* 1.2

He would not for a World lift up the least thought, much less a Finger, or Pen, or utter the least word derogatory to the free Grace of God, or cast the least blemish or speck upon the Reformation, or the worthy Persons that were Instruments in it.

Yet he hath been so unhappy as to attempt the razing and utter overthrowing of that grand Truth, in which mainly the Reformation consisted, viz. Justification by the imputation of Christ's active and passive Obedience, through the free Grace of God, apprehended and received by Faith alone, without any thing wrought in us, or done by us; not by imputing Faith or any other act of Evangelical Obedience, but the imputing of Christ's Obedience and Satisfaction ex∣clusively of all things else whatsoever. And that Faith is only said to justify us objectively, or in respect had to the Object Jesus Christ, which it taketh hold of.

To this purpose Luther, Melancthon, Calvin, Zanchy, Perkins, Ames, Dr. Ʋsher, Dr. Goodwin, Dr. Owen, Dr. Sibs, Dr. Preston, Norton, Burroughs, Caryl, Pemble, the Assembly, and indeed all o∣ther Antient and Modern Writers generally.

But contrary to this Doctrine see what Mr. Clark saith,* 1.3 viz.

That justifying Faith is the same thing in substance with effectual Calling, Repentance, Regeneration, Conversion, Sanctification, Re∣novation, forming of Christ in the Soul, &c.

Ans. What now is the Purport of this Notion? Why that Faith in a large or comprehensive Sense, i.e. Faith with all other Graces and inherent Righ∣teousness, God hath instituted and ordained to be our justifying Righteousness in his Sight, as in other places in his Book he doth assert without mincing the matter.

Again, he saith,* 1.4

I would avoid many figurative Expositions of Scripture, which others are feign to make use of to salve their Phaenomena, as when we are said to be justified by Faith, they take it Metonymically for the Object of Faith, viz. the Righteousness of Christ; which what is it else than to make the Scripture a meer Nose of Wax, and a Leaden Rule, and to comply with our Fancies? &c.

Answ. This is much like Bellarmine in another case: it appears the Doctrine we are established in, and upon which we build all our Hopes of Justifi∣cation and eternal Life, is but a Fancy; What is now become of that Doctrine Paul preached, and all our worthy Reformers? How will this make the Papists and Quakers * 1.5 smile. 'Tis not, according to Mr. Clark, the Object of Faith, not Jesus Christ that Faith apprehends, and we alone trust in, but it is Faith that justifieth us comprehensively taken; that is, Faith, Love, Charity, good Works, and sincere Obedience that is imputed to us, to our Justification in the sight of God: And that so far as you act in Faith, Holiness, and in sincere Obedi∣ence, so far you are justified. For he positively af∣firms, viz.

That our Justification at present,* 1.6 while we are in this World, is but partial, im∣perfect,

and incompleat.

These are his Words.

Answ. Now if we are not perfectly justified, it follows then we are not perfectly delivered from Condemnation, nor acquitted from the Guilt of all Sin,* 1.7 and so not in a state of Life, nor made free in∣deed by the Son of God; and then also Christ's Dove is not without spot,* 1.8 nor undefiled in respect to Justi∣fication: And then also it follows (as the Papists say) there is no assurance can be had or attained in this Life, or until Death, nor can we be said to be compleat in Christ; besides, it confounds Justificati∣on with Sanctification, nay it makes them but one and the same thing:* 1.9 Nay more, that by a Law Righteousness is to be obtained, and so Christ is dead in vain.

Now I profess, I can see but little difference be∣tween this Doctrine and that of Bellarmin's and other Papists. If famous Luther and other worthy Reformers, had wrought no better Reformation than this, the Church of God would have received but little benefit from them, nor would the Papists have been so angry with them; but the Notion of Mr. Clark and his Abettors certainly tends to raze and root out that antient Doctrine which the Apos∣tles preached, and those worthy Men laboured to restore about Justification. Did Bellarmine ever de∣ny, that their good Works and inherent Holiness, which they made the matter of their Justification before God, were performed by the Grace of God, and the Assistance of the Holy Spirit? This Man only excludes legal Works from having any thing to do in our Justific••••••on, but includes all Gospel-Works and sincere O••edience: he asserts these kind of Works and free ••••ace are consistent; and because not derogatory in point of Salvation, therefore not in Justification. He says that we must allow of Gospel-Works or Holiness to concur to Justification, and this Doctrine will appear, &c.

Answ. Yet he would feign insinuate that this Doctrine of his is in effect the same with that of the old received Doctrine of our Divines * 1.10: who teach, saith he,

That the sola fides solum, yet not fides sola, i.e. solitaria justificat; tho Faith a∣lone, yet not that Faith which is alone does justi∣fy.

What's the Purport of this? Why because the Faith of God's Elect, by which alone we appre∣hend or receive the Object, Jesus Christ, by whom we are justified, is attended with good Fruits, as Sanctification and Holiness, by which it is known from a false and dead Faith; therefore Faith, good Works, and Holiness is (the matter, or) that which doth justify us before God: or because Faith in respect of its own excellent Nature doth purify and sanctify us; therefore God hath instituted and ordained Faith and inherent Ho∣liness to justify us; and because inherent Holiness and Sanctification tends to make us meet for Heaven, therefore it is our only Title for Heaven. Is it not said that God imputes Righteousness with∣out Works, and justifies him that works not? How then do Works concur with, or are included, or joined with that Righteousness that is our Justifica∣tion before God?

Take a Passage of Reverend Perkins,* 1.11 viz.

It is objected that true Faith is never alone; I an∣swer, saith he, thus Faith is never alone in the Per∣son justified, nor in Godly Conversation, but is joined with all other Vertues, yet in the act and office of Justification it is alone; the Eye in the Body is not alone, being joined with all other Parts, Hand, Foot, &c. nevertheless the Eye in seeing is alone, for no part of the Body seeth but the Eye.

— He shews that Faith alone is the Eye which sees the Object Jesus Christ, and appre∣hends him and his Righteousness, whose Righteous∣ness only is the material cause of our Justification

before God. See the Assembly's Confession, &c.

All whom God effectually calleth, he freely justi∣fieth, not by infusing Righteousness into them, but by pardoning their Sins, and by accounting and accepting their Persons as righteous, not for any thing wrought in them or done by them, but for Christ's sake alone; not by imputing Faith it self, the act of believing, nor any other Evangeli∣cal Obedience as their Righteousness, but by im∣puting the Obedience and Satisfaction of Christ unto them; they receiving and resting on him, and his Righteousness by Faith: which Faith they have not of themselves, it is the Gift of God.

This agrees with that Doctrine Paul preached to the Romans and Galatians, &c. But from this Doc∣trine Mr. Clark (and many more) are departed; what saith the Apostle?* 1.12 If we or an Angel from Heaven preach any other Gospel unto you than what you have received, let him be accursed. Paul, as Mr. Perkins notes, saw the Galatians to be corrupt∣ed in the point of Justification; false Teachers be∣ing got among them, who preached Justification by Christ, and by the works of the Law: they did not exclude Christ's Merits, but brought in the works of the Law with Christ, in Justification be∣fore God; as some now do the works of a new Law, i.e. Gospel Law: But let them tremble. Where's Paul's Doctrine?* 1.13 for it is palpable this new Doctrine excludes not boasting, or ground of boast∣ing. I argue thus, viz. That Law doth not ex∣clude boasting that commands works of Obedience, as the Condition of Acceptance and Justification: But this new Law these Men speak of, commands works of Obedience, as the Condition of our Accep∣tance and Justification. Ergo, It doth not exclude boasting.* 1.14 But Mr. Clark intimates,

That works of the Law, performed by our own Strength, or without special assistance only, admit of boasting.

Answ. The Papists say, that all their Works and inherent Righteousness, are performed by God's Grace or special Assistance; yet how do they boast? Let the Creature perform good Works, &c. by what Assistance he will, yet the Works are his Works; and if such by which he is justified, they admit of boasting.

Reader, The Righteousness this Man contends for, by which we are justified, is not the Righte∣ousness of one, but the Righteousness of many, i.e. every Man's own Faith and sincere Obedience, con∣trary to what Paul affirms, Rom. 5.17, 18, 19.

Christ did not, saith Mr. Clark,* 1.15 obey the Law in Man's stead.

Answ. Then say I, he hath not fulfilled all Righte∣ousness for us, nor answered all the demands of the Law; nor doth God's Holy Nature and Justice re∣quire a perfect Righteousness to our Justification in his sight: Was not perfect Righteousness part of that Debt we owed to God? If so, who pays the Debt for us? the Penalty was but one part of our Debt. Then also it seems, the Law of perfect Righ∣teousness doth not result from the Purity and Holi∣ness of God, but only from the Sovereignty of his Will, not from the rectitude of his Nature. More∣over, why then did not God give this mild Law of Faith and sincere Obedience at first, and so have saved himself of buying it so dear, i.e. with the Price of the Blood of his own Son?

Christ's active Obedience, he affirms,* 1.16 is not imputed to us; nay he says, that imputing Christ's Righteousness to us, is not a Scripture Expression,* 1.17 'tis not found in any place of Scripture; tho he says he denies not the thing.

Answ. Righteousness was imputed to Abraham, and he was the Father of all Elect Gentiles, That Righteousness might be imputed to them also.* 1.18 Now it must be Abraham's own Righteousness, and so our

own Righteousness, that is imputed, or else the Righteousness of Christ.

Again, He may as well say Adam's active Dis∣obedience was not imputed to us;* 1.19 For as by one Man's Disobedience many were made Sinners, so by the Obe∣dience of one shall many be made righteous. As Adam's Disobedience in his first Sin was imputed to all his Seed, so is the Obedience of Christ imputed to all his, or to all in him. This Text I find he knows not how to answer, see pag. 97, 98. but boggles with it.

Obj. They object, if the Righteousness of Christ be made ours, we may be said to be the Saviours of the World as he was, or to save others as he did, &c.

Ans. Take Dr. Owen's as to this,* 1.20 viz.

The Apos∣tle declares, that as Adam's actual Sin is imputed unto us to Condemnation, so is the Obedience of Christ imputed unto us to the Justification of Life; but Adam's Sin is not so imputed unto any Person, as that he should then and thereby be the cause of Sin and Condemnation unto all o∣ther Persons in the World, but only that he himself should become guilty before God there∣on. And so is it on the other side: and as we are made guilty of Adam's actual Sin, which is not inherent in us, but only imputed unto us; so are we made righteous by the Righteousness of Christ, which is not inherent in us, but only im∣puted unto us; and with it, not for himself but for us.

Object. The Effects of Christ's Righteousness, &c. are imputed to us.

Answ. Saith the Doctor,

In this Imputation the thing is first imputed unto us, and not any of the Effects of it; but they are ours by virtue of that Imputation. To say that the Righteousness of Christ, that is his Obedience and Sufferings, are imputed to us only in their Effects, is to say

that we have the benefit of them and no more, but Imputation it self is denied; so say (saith he) the Socinians.

Again he saith,

The Righteousness of Christ is imputed unto us, as unto its Effects, hath this sound Sense in it, viz. that the Effects of it are made ours, by reason of that Imputation; it is so imputed, so reckoned unto us of God, as that he readily communicates all the Effects of it unto us; but to say the Righteousness of Christ is not imputed unto us, but the Effects only, is really to overthrow all Imputation.

But Mr. Clark says,

'Tis the Righteousness of God by which we are justified,* 1.21 not the Righte∣ousness of Christ.

He will not have it be the Righteousness of him that was God, or take it in that Sense; but that Righteousness that God hath ordained and institu∣ted for our Justification, viz. our Faith and sincere Obedience.

Answ. We do not only say it was the Righte∣ousness of him that was God as well as Man, but also that Righteousness which God hath found out, and approves of, as agreeing with his Holy Nature and infinite Justice, and Purity of his Law, That he might be just: not the essential Righteousness of God, but the Righteousness of Christ as Mediator, Who of God is made to us Wisdom and Righteous∣ness, &c. Where pray hath God made our imper∣fect Righteousness a Righteousness to justify us at his Bar? I am perswaded this Man would not wil∣lingly be found in his own Righteousness at Death, let it be never so sincere. Ay, but we must take the Scripture in the plain literal Sense about Justi∣fication; this he much harps at, tho his Notion by thus doing brings in Justification by Works, which the Apostle shews is inconsistent, and directly con∣trary to Grace, Rom. 11.6. Works are Works,

whether Law-Works, or Gospel-Works. He ar∣gues much as the Papists in another case, and upon as grand a Point; Thou art Peter, and upon this Rock will I build my Church: I will appeal to all, whether the Words in the Letter do not seem to run smoother for the Papists, i.e. for the Church to be built upon Peter, than upon Christ that Peter confessed?* 1.22 And so this is my Body, &c. Mr. Clark cries out against puzling perplexing Distinctions, and taking Faith Metonymically, i. e. for the Ob∣ject of Faith, tho it is clearly imply'd, and that way only it beareth a true Analogy of Faith.

* 1.23I infer (saith he) that we are not justified by the active Righteousness of Christ, or his Obe∣dience to the Law of Works imputed to us; for then a Man would be justified by the Law, and by the Deeds and Works thereof, as much to be reckon'd his own, as if they were done personal∣ly by himself, (for that is their Sense of Justifi∣cation) then we are justified by the Law or Co∣venant of Works, in a Legal and in an Evangeli∣cal way; for then the Law is fully satisfied by Christ our Surety, and we stand recti curiâ, and the Law has nothing to say to us, or charge us withal; as if a Surety in Bond pay the full Debt, the Creditor has no Action against the principal Debtor, and there's no Favour at all show'd him in his Discharge.

Answ. In all Places where in the New Testa∣ment it is said, a Man is not, cannot be justified by the Works of the Law, or by the Deeds of the Law, 'tis evident that the Apostle speaks of that Obedience to the Law, that frail, depraved and im∣potent Man is able to yield thereunto; and the Reason why no Man can be justified hereby, is,

1. Because he hath both originally, and actual∣ly broken it; and as it admits of no pardon for what is past, so also it affords no strength to keep

it for time to come: Hence,* 1.24 what the Law could not do, God sent his own Son: What for? Was it on∣ly to make God amends for our Breach of it, and so to purchase a new, a milder and better Law of Works, &c? No sure: Where is there the least shadow of proof for this? See what this Gentle∣man's Reverend Father saith,* 1.25 speaking of Christ's fulfilling the Law for us; he saith,

That it was not meerly Obedience, but a meriting Obedi∣ence; there was an intrinsick Worth and Ex∣cellency in Christ's Obedience, answering to our Salvation: Hence, tho we have Justification of meer Grace, yet in respect of Christ, it was Justice and Debt; so that in Christ the Cove∣nant of Works was fulfilled, tho in us the Co∣venant of Grace: This Work Christ finished and compleated;

First, In that he did it wholly and universal∣ly; there was not one Tittle of the Law which he did not fulfil.

Secondly, He finished it universally for Parts, and not only so, but fully for Degrees: He did not only love God, but loved him as much as the Law requires; all that he did, was so fully done, that there wanted not the least Degree of Grace in any Duty.

Thirdly, Because he had not only an Objective Perfection in Parts and Degrees, but also a Sub∣jective; all within was throughly and perfectly holy: So that as we are originally and actually polluted, he was originally and actually holy; so that the Law had no fault to find with him.

Fourthly, He finished it in respect of Durati∣on, the Law requiring continuance, tho there were Perfection of Parts and Degrees, and sub∣jective Perfection also: Yet cursed is he that con∣tinueth not therein. Again he saith, For to obey the Law of God, and to suffer all the Wrath

that was due to our Sins, was a bitter Cup to drink.

Thus Christ fulfilled the Law for us as our Surety, and in him it was fulfilled in us, there being a Legal or Law-Union between him and us.

Now since this perfect, this compleat and con∣stant Obedience to the Law, was our Duty, and that Debt we owed to God, Dare you deny Christ as our Surety, paid it? Certainly had he not fulfilled the Preceptory part of the Law (as well as born the Penal part) for us, we could not be jus∣tified from the Charge and Curse thereof: But why must we (because we say Surety hath done this) be justified by the Law or Covenant of Works? Are we Saviours or Mediators, because we have his Righteousness imputed to us of meer Grace? Is the Debtor the Surety, because the Sure∣ty's Payment is accepted for him? The old Cove∣nant-Righteousness was an inherent Righteousness, a Righteousness in a Man's self, i. e. Adam's own Righteousness, not a Righteousness imputed, but inherent: the Righteousness of your new Law, is a Legal or Law-Righteousness, and looks more like an old Covenant-Righteousness, because 'tis inhe∣rent, or infused into you, not put upon you, or imputed to you, as being wrought out for you without you. And, Sir, is there no favour shew∣ed to us, because our Surety has paid this Debt? Was it not great Love, great Grace and Favour for God to accept of a Surety? nay, to substitute his own Son in our stead to satisfy all the Demands of the Law and Justice? True, we are not sim∣ply dealt with in a way of Mercy, (I mean par∣doned only) but in a way of Justice and Righte∣ousness also: Justification has more than Pardon in it (as your Notion allows;) we found not the Surety, but God found him; therefore all is of God's free Grace, tho also all is by the Obedience

of Christ, i. e. by his keeping Law for us, and dying in our stead. To plead for a Righteousness by Obedience to any mild Law, is no other than to plead for a Legal Righteousness in our selves to jus∣tify us; and that is as opposite to the Righte∣ousness of God, as the trusting in the Moral and Ceremonial Law, it being opposite to Grace: the Righteousness therefore of the Law, by which no Flesh can be justified, is a Righteousness rested in, or trusted to, that is inherent in us, whatsoever Thoughts a Person may have of it, i. e. as perfectly, or only sincerely kept.

But to proceed: Did not God send his Son,* 1.26 that the Righteousness of the Law might be fulfilled in us, &c? that is, in our Nature, in our Head. Christ and Believers (as I said before) are one in a Law-sense; and evident it is, that the Righteous∣ness of the Law is not fulfilled in us in Sanctificati∣on, because that is imperfect, that is far from ful∣filling it; and there is no other way it can be said to be fulfilled in us, but by imputation.

Moreover, by Christ's coming to keep the Law in our Nature, God hath magnified the Law,* 1.27 and made it honourable; and hereby we do not make void the Law through Faith, but establish the Law, in that the Son of God, in Man's Nature, yielded perfect Obedience thereto, and died for our breach of it, whose Obedience is ours by imputation to our Justification at his Bar.

Pray observe that through Faith we attain a perfect Righteousness, i. e. are interested in the most compleat Obedience of Christ to the Moral Law; but now if Christ only satisfied for our breach of the Law by his Death, and his perfect active Obedience has no hand in, or is not the ma∣terial Cause of our Justification before God, how do we by believing in him establish the Law?

I say the Righteousness of the Law (which is so called) which the Apostle decries as unable to justi∣fy us, is a resting in or trusting to our inperfect Conformity to it, or to any other Law tho never so sincerely performed; for this sort of Righteousness is always opposed to the Righteousness of Faith or of Grace,* 1.28 If it be of Works (of any Works what∣soever) it is not of Grace: all works of sincere Obe∣dience to any Law of God, are alike materially good. But God has not ordained any Law of sin∣cere Obedience to justify us, because Grace excludeth all Works done by us in point of Justification in God's Sight. We can no more be justified by the Law of the Gospel, i.e. the New Law, than by the Old.

Mr. Clark says,* 1.29

The Justification Paul speaks of in the Romans, and that which James speaks of is the same. And further he says, to be justified by Faith according to Paul, and by Works ac∣cording to James, is all one; Justification by Works springing from Faith, is Justification by Faith in this Sense.

Answ. Now we and the Orthodox say, that Paul speaks of our Justification before God, or of the Person; James of the Justification of our Faith, good Works demonstrating our Faith to be of the right kind, or do declare to Men, and to our own Con∣sciences, that we are justified Persons. Paul speaks of the Justification of a Sinner, James of the Justi∣fication of a Believer (as it is said, the People justified God, that is, declared he was just); so our Gospel-Works springing from Faith, declare that our Faith is true, and we sincere Believers.

Yet he would have his Reader believe he is no Heterodox Person in this Point.

Paul speaks of Justification and Absolution of a Sinner at God's Bar, through the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness.

James speaks of the Manifestation or Declaration of that Justification to the Conscience.

Paul speaks of the cause of our Justification be∣fore God.

James of the signs of it before Men.

Paul speaks of the Imputation of Righteousness.

James of the Declaration of Righteousness.

Paul speaks of the Office of Faith by God's Or∣dination, as it apprehends Christ, &c.

James of the quality of Faith, or of its own ex∣cellent Virtue.

Paul speaks of the Justification of a Person.

James of the Justification of the Faith of that Person.

Paul speaks of Abraham how justified.

James of Abraham's good Works, as already jus∣tified, and as declaring him so to be.

Paul speaks of Justification in a proper Sense, as God's gracious act, through Christ's Righteousness, whereby a Man is imputed or counted Just and Righteous in God's Sight.

James speaks of Justification whereby we are not made Just before God, but declared to be justified, being sincere Believers, and free from Hypocrisy.

Paul had to do with Legal and Judaizing Chris∣tians, such who either brought in a Law, or a self-Righteousness, instead of God's Grace in imputing Christ's Righteousness, or else setting up an inhe∣rent Righteousness with it (as these Men do now.)

And James had to do with such, who might be justly called Antinomians, i.e. such that abused the Grace of God, or Doctrine of free Grace, to en∣courage themselves in Sin, boasting of a false and presumptuous Faith, a dead Faith. Now James's work is to shew the effects and nature of true Faith; therefore he speaks not of Justification in a proper Sense, when he says Abraham was justified by Works, but declaratively only. Faith wrought

not with Abraham's Works,* 1.30 in the Justification of his Person at God's Bar, but in declaring and evin∣cing that his Faith was true and saving, not a dead Faith; good Works being the Fruits of saving Faith▪ If this was not so, how could he say, in vers. 23. that The Scripture was fulfilled,* 1.31 which saith, Abra∣ham believed God, and it was imputed to him for Righteousness? (not his Act of Faith, but the Object his Faith believed in, or took hold of.) The Jus∣tification of a Sinner in a proper Sense is one thing, and the Justification of a Believer, as such a one, is another thing. How then can Mr. Clark say, the Justification Paul speaks of, and that which James speaks of, is all one and the same thing?

This Man contends for a mild Law; certainly the Moral Law remains a perpetual Rule of per∣fect Obedience: let this Man shew us where and how he can prove that God in the Gospel only com∣mands sincere imperfect Obedience to the Moral Law: the Law surely loses no part of its sanction by the Gospel; that is as holy, just and good as e∣ver:* 1.32 Be ye perfect as your Father in Heaven is per∣fect. We are still to love the Lord our God with all our Hearts, with all our Souls, and with all our Strength. Our Faith, Love, Patience, &c. ought to be perfect; the Law or Commands of the Gos∣pel know no bounds or limits: tho the Law is abro∣gated as a Covenant of Works, yet not as a rule of perfect Obedience. See what Reverend Mr. Cross says,* 1.33 i.e.

Either the Gospel Law, or Law of Faith must require perfection in those Duties, or some other Divine Law, or else God would become an indulger of Sin by Law; if it be by another Law, viz. the Moral, that requires per∣fect Obedience, and this sincere only: then these Laws differ but in degree, not in Specie or Kind; because both require the same Duties or Works: and so this Gospel Law would be no distinct

Law, but only the measure of sincere Obedience, would receive a new Use of its giving right, &c. which we own it has, to wit, to be an index or mark of our Justification, tho we can't own that use of giving right, &c.—a distinct Law they must hold, or quit their Cause, or this Foundation of it; for the Text sets the Law of Faith down as an opposite Law to that of Works, and that they hold: then if it be a perfect Law requiring perfect Obedience, there is no possibility of Justification in this Life — but this is not all the difficulty, for it's the adding a load to a burden: Is this Gospel to a Man that is not able to perform the least part of the Moral Law, to tell him that God or the Me∣diator requires perfect Obedience to it for the future, and another too? Or is this Gospel, to say you shall perish eternally, and have the Fire of Hell seven times heated, if you obey not the Gospel! it's indeed a conditional Hell, but it is more dreadful than the Fire of Hell; and the condition is more impossible, because we have less Power to shun this difficulty of two perfect Laws: Mr. Bull owns no other perfect Law but the Gospel, since Man fell; but by shunning one difficulty he falls into as great. (1) Then the Mo∣ral Law is abrogated, besides the falseness of the Doctrine it self; for it is impossible that should cease to be our duty to love God with all our Hearts and Souls. What advantage brings in Christ's Death, to abrogate one perfecting Law, and establish another? here is little Gospel. A second difficulty, i. e. we must either say Christ has purchased to us pardon for Sins against the Gospel Law, or none at all but that one Sin of Adam's, if the Moral Law be abrogated; after the fall we never sinned against any Law but the Gospel, for we were under no other Law accord∣ing

to him, &c.

Thus Mr. Cross▪ Is not much of our Obedience under the Gospel, Obedience to the Moral Law? Nay, is not the Moral Law the Rule of all our Obedience to God in all positive Gospel-precepts?

Reader, This mild Law of theirs they say re∣quires sincere Obedience as the condition of Justifi∣cation; now there is no sincere Obedience without it be universal, &c. how then may this fill a poor Christian with terror, and slavish Fear? I do all I hope sincerely, but I may not obey universally, some Precept through ignorance I may lie short of; I can't tell when my Obedience is full: Also according to them I can be but partially justified in this Life, and therefore I am partially condemned: and thus the Creature hangs till Death, between Hea∣ven and Hell.

Ah poor England, poor Church of God, where are thy brave old Heroes, that stood up to main∣tain the Truths of Christ? What Apostacy is here from the Orthodox Faith? what decay of doctrinal and practical Christianity? what dark Clouds spread over our Heavens? How are many fallen from the Faith? But I must leave Mr. Clark to an abler Pen, I design'd no more than to make a few Remarks to provoke some others to reply to the Argumentative part of his Book, which I see no great difficulty to answer. Now that the Lord would scatter this Cloud, and all other dangerous Errors, let it be all our Prayers both Day and Night. Yet I doubt not but the present opposition against this Fundamental Point of Faith will cause the Truth in the end to shine more clear and bright, which the Lord grant in his Infinite Mercy, to the praise of his own Glory. Amen.

FINIS.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Called Scripture-Justifica∣tion.
• * 1.2

  In his In∣troduction, Pag. 1, 5.
• * 1.3

  Pag. 62.
• * 1.4

  Pag. 85.
• * 1.5

  Phrasis hac, side justifica∣mur, me∣tonymica est, & a∣quipollet huic: me∣rito Chris∣ti side ap∣prehensio justifica∣mur. Welleb. Compend. pag. 163. Can. viii.
• * 1.6

  Pag. 18.
• * 1.7

  Joh. 8.36. Cant. 4.7.
• * 1.8

  Chap. 5.2.
• * 1.9

  Gal. 2.21.
• * 1.10

  But cer∣tainly all may see it is in effect the same with the Papists.
• * 1.11

  2 Vol. on Gal. pag. 210.
• * 1.12

  Gal. 1.8.
• * 1.13

  Rom. 3.27.
• * 1.14

  Pag. 43.
• * 1.15

  Pag. 100.
• * 1.16

  Pag. 96.
• * 1.17

  Pag. 97.
• * 1.18

  Rom. 4.11.
• * 1.19

  Rom. 5.19.
• * 1.20

  Dr. Owen on Justifi∣cation, p. 307.
• * 1.21

  Pag. 105.
• * 1.22

  Pag. 85.
• * 1.23

  Pag. 46.
• * 1.24

  Rom. 8.3.
• * 1.25

  Mr. Sam. Clark, Pa∣stor of the Church at Bennet∣fink, his Medulla Theolo∣giae, or the Marrow of Divinity, Pag. 280.
• * 1.26

  Rom. 8.3.
• * 1.27

  Rom. 3.31.
• * 1.28

  Rom. 11.6.
• * 1.29

  Pag. 71.
• * 1.30

  See Pool's Annot.
• * 1.31

  Jam. 2.23.
• * 1.32

  Mat. 5.48.
• * 1.33

  Serm. on Rom. 4.5.