A Friendly Conference BETWEEN A Paulist and a Galatian, In DEFENCE of the Apostolical Doctrine OF JUSTIFICATION by FAITH without Works; Against many Specious Exceptions of the Modern GALATIANS:  
WHEREIN The Question, whether the Gospel be a New Law is modestly Discussed and Determined in the Negative.  
By THOMAS DANSON, Minister of the Gospel, sometime Fellow of Magd. Coll. Oxon.  
— Valde sibi acuti videnter Papistae quum ●llegant Operibus se Nihil tribuere, nisi mediant Christi gratiâ. Quasi vero alius fuerit Galatarum Error. Neque enim à Christo desicere se credebant, aut renuntiare ejus gratiae,  Calv. in Galat. 5.2. 
London: Printed for Samuel Crouch, over against the Royal Exchange, in cornhill. 1694.   

THE EPISTLE TO THE READER.  
THE Author of this Discourse, pretends not to so great a name as to expect, That his Assertions should be swallowed without chewing, embraced without examination upon his Authority: And indeed, he sees not the need of any such Pretence for such an End; for he presents the Reader but with the Doctrine of the Protestant Divines, whose name and authority( if there be any defect in its evidence) might challenge such a Veneration, as may forbid any hasty or rough opposition of what they have unanimously consented in. As to his Performance in compiling, he is ware, that not himself, but the Reader must and will be judge; and therefore to prevent the trouble of bringing a Writ of Error against his judgement, the Author thinks it needful to give an account of the occasion of the Composure, the manner of handling the Subject, the reason of the Publication at this time, and the weight of the controversy.  
As for the Occasion; About Eighteen Years since Three Reverend Divines Mr. William Jenkyn, Mr. Christopher Fowler, and Mr. William Cowper( with whom the Author had the honour to be intimately acquainted) did often in his hearing complain, of the increase of many dangerous errors in Doctrine, since the Year 1660. In which complaint the Author also joined, and withal gave them an account of a Collection which he had begun out of the most noted Authors, and cast under Four Heads ( viz. Socinianism, Popery, Arminianism, Hobbeism) which account they encouraged him to augment and perfect, as accordingly he did. And the Reverend Mr. Jenkyn, was so well satisfied in the fidelity of the Collector, that upon occasion of a Contest between a Divine and Himself, he Transcribed so many of the Collections as he thought meet, and published them in his Latin Book, entitled, Celeusma. And the Report of those Collections came to the Ears of the House of Commons; when there arose some Debates about Religion, about 1678 and the Chairman of the Committee for Religion, Mr. Dubeis, of London, Merchant; sent the Reverend Mr. William Cowper, for those Collections which had, the Popish errors, Names of the Authors, and of the Licensers in one Column, and the Doctrine of the Church of England, out of the Articles and Homilies, in another Column, and the Collectors name subscribed.  
When these Collections were weighed, the Committee made Report, and the House was startled at 〈◇〉 and it was thought, the Authors 〈…〉 ers would have been called to 〈…〉 the Prorogation of the House 〈…〉 it.  
But to return to the Triumviri after the Collection above mentioned, they p●… d to the Collector another Task, 〈◇〉 to Draw up for the Press some( a 〈…〉) the Principal Arguments against the errors contained in the Collection, and a concise Reply to the most specious Objections; which, as to Popery and Arminianism accordingly was done to their Content.  
And what is now tendered, is a part of what was intended for the Press long since, in compliance with their requests; had not the Authors call into the country, and the death of those worthy Divines hindered his further encouragement, without which he was as a Ship becalmed.  
As for the manner of handling the Subject; It is handled concisely, that the Reader may not be discouraged from buying by the Price, nor from reading by the Bulk, and as plainly as the nature of the Subject would bear; which is done for the Advantage of Private Christians, many of whom are concerned about the Differences in these Points.  
The Author well remembers, how much sorrow and wonder that Pious and Prudent Gentleman, Henry Ashurst, of London, Esq;( now ascended to Glory) expressed, at the joining of works with faith in our Justification, by a Divine of Note( and whom he had a great Esteem for) and there are others living, that look upon the same Divine's( and his Followers) error in that Point with great regret.  
And that the Discourse might be more suited to the capacity of the meanest Reader, capable of understanding Controversies, the Author hath thought fit to cast the materials into the Form of a Dialogue, which method he was encouraged to, by the good reception which the worthy Divine Mr. Matthew Pool's Dialogue, and a Friendly Debate of the Authors met withal, some years since; and by the advantage which it affords to the Reader, whose attention is quickened by alternate Discourse, which is dulled by a series of close Argumentation. The Author is not ignorant of the Exception which lies against this method of handling Controversies: That the Composer gives himself an advantage,( and too often uses it) to make his Antagonist say, not what himself thinks, but what the Composer pleases: but this Author is willing to bear the shane of Disingenuity, if he be found guilty in that kind. And yet being sensible of some appearance of such guilt, he thinks himself concerned to prevent censure by an Apology once or twice( at most) he brings in the Galation, as giving the Pauline Divines contemptuous words: but they are the very same which a Divine of that Denomination gives them in Print. And now and then the Galation is represented as at a loss for an Answer; the true reason whereof is, that the Author had neither met with any writer that answers some of the Paulist Arguments, nor could he excogitate a tolerable Reply. And sometimes the Galation is introduced as inclinable to face about and embrace the Truth he had relinquished, but that fault may admit of this fair excuse; That the Paulist supposes his Antagonist so honest-hearted, as to be willing to aclowledge his error, when convinced of it; and to suppose him convinced who makes no reply to the Argument produced, is no more unreasonable, than that a Prisoners standing mute at the Bar should be taken for a Confession of his Guilt. And indeed the Author of this Conference hath been so far from representing his Antagonists notions by halves, that he hath explained them when they seemed obscure, and added strength to their Arguments where they seemed to need it. And the Author hath given the Titles of Paulist and Galatian to the Dialogists, because the controversy here agitated is the same, with that between Paul and the Galatians( viz.) whether we are justified by Faith or Works, Gal. 2.16. ch. 3.11, 12. The meaning of which terms, and the difference assigned between the controversy then on foot, and now, is considered in the following Conference.  
The Author hath not name the Authors nor Books, which he writes against; and to that omission he could hardly reconcile his own thoughts. He apprehended it might seem an effect of fear, to provoke particular Persons; and yet he considered, that supposing it was so, yet that fear was not altogether unreasonable in him, who hath been a frequent Witness of Mens Impatience of Contradiction; of their being as hot as a Taylors Goose, tho not so weighty; and that the End aimed at might be obtained otherwise; and why then should a writer court spleen, and be fond of reproaches? especially such as disparaged his skill in his Profession; of which the most Pious and Learned Durham took notice, and modestly retorted: and tho unlearned and unread Divines, be the Epithets of the opposers of this Doctrine, yet possibly experience may show, that such may most readily be the Embracers of it. Expos. on Rev. 3. p. 146. and he speaks of the very Doctrine this Treatise opposes.  
The End aimed at, in speaking to things not Persons is, That the Discourse here offered may be weighed in an even balance( to use Jobs phrase, Job. 31.6) not poised by the hand; and this end is more likely to be obtained, by the course above mentioned: for the opposers of the Doctrine here defended, when they find not their own Names called in Question, may more calmly Deliberate before they pass Sentence; and their Followers( who have their Persons in admiration) may possibly be induced to consider what is said, when they know not against whom; otherwise they might indulge themselves in the Heathens humour, Facilius effecerit, quisquis objecerit, crimen honestum, quàm turpem Catonem Sen. He would rather call 'vice virtue, than Cato vicious: And they may embrace error for Truth, wander with their guides, rather than believe they could mistake their way.  
And the Author of this Discourse hath cited but few Protestant Divines( and those such as the Dialogists might have red, or quotations out of them; because his Design is not to prove the Matter of Fact, simply by their Testimonies( which is altogether needless to those who have perused them, with any heedfulness and judgement) but by laying their Arguments and Replies, to their Opposers Objections, as close as may be together, that the Reader may pass an Impartial judgement upon Fact and Right; that this is their Doctrine, and that it is true.  
The reason of the Publication, is not the want of Authors that speak fully and clearly to the controversy in our Native Language; as Mr. Anthony burgess, Mr. Samuel rolls, Mr. John Troughton, &c.( which latter deserves Perusal, particularly for the Proof he makes, of the natural Tendency of our Antagonists Doctrine to Socinianism, &c.)  
But a Compliance with the Importunity of some Friends, who have entertained the better Opinion of the Discourse, because they knew that the three worthy Divines before mentioned had given their Imprimatur to it, and it's no uncommon Observation, that new Books like new Fashions are most in request; but indeed, the chief Motives are, That a great deal of Matter is crowded into a little room. The Book is like the Picture of a Fight, wherein are more Heads of Men and Horses than whole Bodies; by which course, whether he hath done right or wrong to the Cause, is not for himself to say. To affirm the former, would be Immodest Pride; to affirm the latter, Proud Modesty: And that the Author is willing to enter his protest against errors, which he does greatly dislike, and the rather, because many Divines of better Abilities( for reasons best known to themselves) are contented to be Spectators, rather than Parties in this Quarrel, in a time when these errors spread like a Gangrene.  
And now the Weight of the controversy expects its room, in this Epistle. Some indeed of our English Protestant Divines speak slightly of it; one upon Rev. 3.1. hath this Passage: Thou hast a Name that thou livest, as being so full of Zeal for or against this Ceremony, and that Opinion, with hot and nice Disputes about Faith and Justification, and the time of these nice Disputes himself assigns( viz.) When Protestantism had become the Religion of Nations and Kingdoms; and thence we know very well( without being put to the trouble of guessing) that the Disputes were about Justification by Faith or Works, &c. Another Divine says, As far as I can see, St. Paul never meddles with a matter of that nicety; Whether a single act of Faith be the condition of our Justification, as it is distinguished from Evangelical Obedience— and a little after; I know the subtlety of later times hath made St. Paul dispute in the matter of Justification, not as one bread up at the feet of Gamaliel, but of the Mr. of the sentences.  
The Author thinks it unmeet to let this latter passage pass without this brief Animadversion; That if that learned Divine intends that distinction( as probably he does) sides sola justificat, said non quae sola, i.e. Faith alone justifies, but not that Faith which is alone. There seems to be no more subtlety in that, than in this distinction drawn from St. Paul's Doctrine, Christus qui Deus mortuus est, said non quâ Deus. That is, Christ who is God dyed; but he died not as God, which it is to be hoped that worthy Divine approves of, notwithstanding its subtlety. But there is a Third Divine who bears us in hand, That the common Opinion that justifying Faith, as justifying, doth consist in one single Act is a wretched mistake; and if so, then surely the mistake is of some consequence, or else his epithet is very Hyperbolical.  
But not to transgress the Laws of architecture, in making a large Porch before a little House: The Author recommends to the Readers Consideration, Mr. Durhams Sentiment of the Doctrines opposed in this Discourse.  
If by this, all the former Doctrine of Justification be enervated, Where are we till now? If it stand so, as the followers thereof may attain Heaven; what is the use of this so full a mould, with so much professed danger in, and dissatisfaction with the former? Will it not be welcome to Papists to have Protestants speaking in their terms, and hemologating them in condemning the former Language of the most Eminent Reformers, &c. Rev. 3[ pag. 146. in 4o.] and presently after he subjoins, If under this new Model another matter is comprehended, than formerly hath been intended by other expressions, in the writings of others, it cannot be so easily approved, lest we should condemn the Generation of Gods People, who have gone before us, Id. Ib. And if their Doctrine be the same for Substance with the old Galatians, the Apostle hath passed this censure upon it, that it is another Gospel, ch. 1.6.[ i. e. quiter different from what he taught] yet not another, but a Perversion of the Gospel of Christ, v. 7. and hath denounced a Curse against the Teachers of it, v. 8. and learners too, ch. 54. And what Defence our Modern Galatians can make for themselves will soon appear( for the trial will not be long) they being now brought to the Bar) if the Reader will but take his Place on the Bench.  
London, March 6. 1694. Tho. Danson.   

POSTSCRIPT.  
THE Author of the following Discourse thinks it meet to answer two objections; one which hath been made against the Publication of it( viz.) That the peace of the Church is not consulted thereby; to that Calvin shall return an Answer: The Purity of the Doctrine [ of justification]( of that he speaks) is to be constantly maintained, though Heaven and Earth should be mingled together. The Name of Peace is Plausible, but Cursed is that Peace which is bought with the loss of the Doctrine of Christ, by which [ Doctrine] alone we coalesce into an holy Unity.[ Acts Ap. 15.1.] And there is another which he foresees likely to be made; that some tenants are here confuted which their assertor hath retracted. The ground of the Allegation must be, that he once signified he would have the measure of his judgement taken rather from other Books of his, than that out of which a Collection is here made. But that Retractation was but in general terms; and it seems evident that his judgement was not changed, by his defence of the same notions against divers Learned men, who wrote against them; and by this Commendation of the Orthodoxness of a certain writer, in explaining those Texts that meddle with Justification, and Remission of Sins, with Faith and Works, which Explications contain the sum of the most Heterodox Opinions about these points, in that pretendedly retracted Book, and therefore are some passages quoted out of that commended Writer in the Conference now presented to the Reader; and besides if the Assertor of the tenants above mentioned had really retracted them, unless he had imitated Chillingworths candour( who answered his own Arguments against Protestantism in Print) it might seem needful to refute them, because there are many who still retain them, and therefore either do not believe his change of judgement, or if they do, yet they take his Second Thoughts to be not better, but worse than his first. And indeed it is easier to thrust a Man into a deep Ditch, than to pluck him out again; to led him into an error, than to draw him off from it.  
T. D.   

ERRATA.  
P. 6. l. 5. r. pardoning. p. 7. l. 13. for Psal. r. P. p. 12. p. 25. after and r. the grand motive to it. p. 13. l. ult. blot of. p. 15. l. 26 blot cut by, and add, in the instance. p. 56. l. 13. after righteous add because. p. 29. r. score. p. 60. l. 13. after sense) r. that is. p. 19. r. Gospel. p. 65. l. 5. r. Tull. p. 67. l. 5. r. works. p. 70. l. 7. r. whereof. p. 78. l. 19. blot out is, before our. p. 80. l. 27. after ey●… add, in the br●sen Serpent.   

A Friendly Conference BETWEEN A PAULIST AND A GALATIAN.  Paulist. 
WELL met Old Friend: It is as great a rarity to see you, as to see a Fly in the Winter time, What is the matter that you decline my Company, which you formerly frequented?  Galatian. 
To deal ingeniously with you, Difference in Opinion breeds some alienation in Affection. I am come off to the New Methodists, and you adhere to the Old, in the Doctrine of Justification.  Paul. 
I do not approve of the Names you give each Party; for our difference is not in Method, but Doctrine. If they were to be Bishop'd( confirmed) I mean, and I might be Godfather.( for in Confirmation, a New Name is sometimes given, which takes place of the Name given in Baptism) I would call the former Modern Galatians, the latter Old Paulists, and this Name, I am not ashamed to own. I am perfectly of our Saviours judgement, No Man having drank Old Wine, strait way desireth New; for he saith, the Old is better, Luk. 5. ult.  Gal. 
You do ill to Nick-Name us Galatians, and to challenge the Honour to yourselves of being Paulists, which belongs to us.  Paul. 
If your Opinion be the same with the Galatians, I do but slander you with a Word of Truth; and that 'tis so, I shall prove in due time. As for the Honour you aspire to, I will as easily believe you can show me a black Swan( unless on a Sign-post) as believe your Party to be Paulists in this Point of Justification; till you have proved, that Paul was for Justification by Works, who so often, and so expressly denies it; And upon his Oath asserts, that, it was not his practise to eat his own Words; as God is true, Our Word toward you was not Yea, and Nay, 2 Cor. 1.18.  Gal. 
Paul denies Justification by Works of the Law, but not by Works of the Gospel.  Paul. 
But what if this be a Distinction without a Difference. I have been taught that the Gospel( strictly taken) is no Law,( and so hath no Works) but is only a Set( as I may call it) of New Revelations,( viz. of Christ's Person, Natures, Offices, Promises,) and New Objects of Old Duties, and New Motives to enforce them. Even our Word, Gospel is as much, as Good-spell( or Speech) from the matter of it.  Gal. 
It is no wonder that you are so ill taught, for Your Teachers are Vulgar and Unstudied Divines.  Paul. 
Good words Friend, my Teachers have been the First Reformers, and their Successors, and surely they do not merit such a Lessening Character, as you give them. And I have known the time, when you had other thoughts of them, you and I have been diligent readers of many of their Books, and were wont to compare Notes with great Satisfaction. And we have been frequent hearers of some of them, as Arch-Bishop Usher, Bishop Reynolds, Dr. Goodwin, Dr. own, Mr. nigh, &c. Mr. Vines, Mr. Anthony Burgess, Mr. Calamy, Mr. Jenkyns, Mr. Christopher Fowler, Mr. Charnock, &c. And we embraced their Doctrine( which they agreed in, though they differed in their Judgments about Church Disciplines and Government) and what's the matter, that you have now forsaken it? I am well assured, that heretofore, you, as well as I, would have started at the mention of Justification by Works, and of a First and Second Justification. And we should have cried out, Popery, Popery with open mouth.  Gal. 
I think our Latter Divines have Cleared the Doctrine of Justification. And though they use the Popish Terms, their Sense is different.  Paul. 
I wish it may not appear, they have Muddied it rather; and that you may not be cheated with Old Boots new vamped, and coloured, instead of a New pair.  Gal. 
You mean,( I suppose) that I shall have Popery imposed upon me in a Disguise.  Paul. 
I will reserve my meaning to myself, till I have heard what difference you will assign between Their Doctrine and the Popish, when I make enquiry of you about it in the process of our Discourse. Yet I shall tell you, that I often compare them to England and Scotland, which are Several Kingdoms, but near borderers.( partend but by a small River) And yet sometimes, I check myself for so favourable an Opinion of them; when I remember what Calvin says, The Papists seem to themselves very acute, when they allege, that they attribute nothing to Works, but by the Mediation of the Grace of Christ, as if the error of the Galatians were any other,[ viz. then that by the Grace of Christ they were Justified by Works;] for they did not believe they did either apostatise from Christ, or renounce his Grace, Calvin in Gal. 5.2.  
But to leave these Altercations, let us now proceed to a Discussion of the Point wherein we differ, which is, Whether our good Works be the Condition of our Justification before God? You hold the Affirmative, we the Negative; and I will be Opponent, you the Respondent; but do you explain the terms of the Question, that there be no wrangling about them.  Gal. 
By Good Works we mean, the Works of the Gospel; and done by the help of Special Grace: By Justification we intend, Acceptance of our Persons, as Righteous, and Pradoning all our Sins; before God, notes an Opposition to, before Man:( mentioned Luke 16.15.) By Condition we understand according to the Lawyers Definition,( it being a Law Term) that is called a Condition until the performance whereof, the Donor of any thing is not actually obliged to the Donation.[ navarre. Enchyr. p. 482.]  Paul. 
I consent to your Explications of the Terms of the Question( except that of the Subject of it, Good Works.)  
And therefore I will first prove, That there are no Works of the Gospel, and so they cannot be the Condition of Justification; and next that, Works done by the help of special Grace, are not the Condition of our Justification.  
1. I prove that There are no Gospel Works, and this I shall choose to do out of Mr. Anthony Burgess's Vindiciae Legis, because his Lectures were Preached and Printed at the desire of the London Ministers, An. 1646. And Approved of as Judicious and Elaborate( as appears by their Testimony prefixed to the Book) And they were Persons that understood Protestant Doctrine. 1. As to Faith, he says, The nature of Justifying Faith, was in Adam, though there was not such a particular Object, about which it might be exercised; for a thing may be, for the nature of it, and yet not have such a Name, which it hath from a certain Object which now is not; or from some Effects, which it cannot now produce. So Mercy and Grace was in God for the nature of it always, but as it hath a respect to a miserable Creature, that was not, till the Creature was made so, Psal. 139. 2. As to Repentance( he says) the Gospel( taken strictly) is not a Doctrine of Repentance; but comprehends no more, then the glad tidings of a Saviour. ibid. p. 262.  Gal. 
But Divines call Faith and Repentance the Two Evangelical Commands.  Paul. 
Mr. burgess takes notice of this Objection, and Answers it, That then they use the Word more largely; for the Doctrine of Christ and the Apostles; but( in a strict sense) it's only a promise of Christ and his Benefits: And hence he adds, The Gospel doth not terrify and accuse. Indeed there are woeful threatenings to him, that rejecteth Christ; yea, more severe, than to him, that rejected Moses, but this ariseth from the Law joined in Practical use with the Gospel.  Gal. 
Is not Christ called a Law-giver, Isa. 33.22? And surely then Faith and Repentance must be his Laws?  Paul. 
1. We deny him not to be such. And his institution of the Sacraments, Ministry, &c. are sufficient ground for such Denomination.  
2. As to the Instances you give, Christ Answers his Title, not by Enacting those Laws, but by Interpreting the first Commandment of the Moral Law, as containing them in it;( Interpreting or Declaring Law.( where there's any doubt of the Meaning) being an Act of the Legislative Power.) Hence Christ is said to come to Fulfil the Law, Matth. 5.17. where the Principal thing intended, is an Explication of it, as of larger extent, and more Spiritual, than the Pharisees imagined[ see ver. 21.22, 27, 28.] and notable to this purpose is Christ's Explication of the sum of the Second Table, Love to our Neighbour, as including Mercy to him, Mat. 20.27, 37. which Man in innocency was not under an Actual Obligation to, for want of an Object,( viz.) Misery which is your Great Pretence for making Faith and Repentance New Gospel Laws( and which when you out with it, I shall Reply to.)  Gal. 
Faith is called A Law, Romans 3.27.  Paul. 
But not a New Law, or Gospel Precept.  Gal. 
Believing is called God's Work, Joh. 6.29. and his Command, 1 Joh. 3.23.  Paul. 
I Answer, That Believing is a Commandment indeed( and so a Work) but whether it belongs to the Law or Gospel is not there determined.  Gal. 
It is there determined by mentioning a New Object, God's Son, Jesus Christ.  Paul. 
That's not a sufficient Reason, you may as well say, That a New Visible Object, requires a New sight; or( which is more apposite) that a New Prophet required a New Law to Oblige Persons to believe him; whereas there was no more requisite to that end, than suflicient Evidence that he was a Prophet.  Gal. 
But in the Innocent State, Man needed not a Saviour, nor did the Law admit one. And how then that Law can oblige to believe in one, I cannot see.  Paul. 
Nor do I say, that Man was Actually obliged to believe in a Saviour, till he needed him. But that the same Law that Obliged Adam and his Posterity to believe in God, obliged them to believe in Christ when he was revealed. As for the Law's not admitting of a Saviour, if you understand by that Term Law, the Covenant of Works we grant, that did not admit of a Saviour: But if you intend the Law precisely as a Rule of Faith, it admitted him to be the Object of Faith( as being the Great God, as well as our Saviour( as he is called, Tit. 2.13.)  Gal. 
But the Law is not of Faith, Gal. 3.12.  Paul. 
True, but it is not said, that Faith is not of the Law,[ i. e. a Duty to which the Law Natural or Moral binds us, upon the Revelation of a New Object God the Redeemer.] Yet( not to impose upon you) I must confess that Faith, is no more of the Law, than the Law of Faith in the sense of the Text, which is, that they are contrary to each other, in respect of the way of Justification( Viz. by our Own Righteousness, and by the Righteousness of another( Viz. Christ.)  Gal. 
I will now beat you with your own Weapon; for if it be so, then the Faith that depends upon another's Righteousness, cannot be commanded by the same Law, that required dependence upon our own Righteousness.  Paul. 
I will wring it out of your hands, and beat you with it. There is no more Absurdity in this being a Duty of the Law, because of the Contrariety you allege between the Objects of it in the Innocent and Nocent State of Man, than that Black and White being contrary Colours, should yet be the Object of the same Sense( Viz.) sight; or that Heat and could being contrary Qualities should be the Object of the same Sense of Feeling: or( to give an instance in Duties) that the same Natural Law ( Viz.) Thou shalt Love thy Neighbour as thyself; that obliged Adam before his Fall, to love his Wife, when she was his Friend, should not oblige him, after his fall, to love her when she was become his Enemy, by betraying him to his ruin.  Gal. 
It cannot sink into my head, that Repentance should be a duty of the Law, because the Law did not admit of Repentance.  Paul. 
If you mean, as a Condition of Life I grant it; But if you mean, as a Duty, I deny it; and I will give you a Reason from 1 John 3.8. which plainly imports, that the Devil was obliged to repent, how else could impenitent sinners be said to be of the Devil, because they kept on in a course of sin( as he does) and sure the Devils obligation did not arise from the New Gospel Law, but from the Old Natural Law, so far as it was common to Men and Angels.  Gal. 
I never heard this Argument before, nor indeed can I answer it. But I believe our Divines can.  Paul. 
Consult them, and when we meet again, let me know their Answer.  Gal. 
Repentance was not consistent with a Sinless State, and how then could Man be under a Law to it.  Paul. 
The main Ingredients of Repentance were consistent with that State, as a Purpose of heart against Sin, and to continue in obedience and Hatred of sin, and a due sense of Sin,( viz.) of it in its own Nature( as a transgression of the Law of God) and in its Effects( Death being threatened to Sinners, Gen. 2.17.) and an Apprehension of the goodness of God, in present enjoyments and future hopes,( for which latter, the three of Life, Gen. 3.22. gave ground sufficient) and why Sorrow for sin committed, and a purpose and endeavour of New Obedience from an Apprehension of the Mercy of God in Christ should require a new Law, to oblige to them, I cannot understand. The Observation of the First day of the Week in the times of the Gospel, hath no New Precept, because the Fourth Command obliges us, without one: The morality of the fourth Command lies not in keeping the Seventh day in order, but one day in Seven, and which of the Seven appears from Christ resting from the Work of Redemption( a greater Work than that of Creation) and advancing it by that rest, above all other days) and why then is there any need of a New Law to oblige us to Repentance, because of New Objects of those Duties, and New Arguments to enforce them?  Gal. 
I am a little staggerd at your Argumentation.  Paul. 
I wish you may be brought off by it to embrace the Old Truth; in order whereunto, I would have you consider; that if your Arguments are of any weight to prove Faith and Repentance, New Laws of the Gospel, then they may be extended to our Love to God as Redeemer, to Prayer to, and Meditation on him, as such, to Love the Saints as Believers of, and Penitents, and Love to our Enemies, Mercy to the Miserable, Patience under Afflictions; Hope and Joy in the prospect of a good Issue of them, &c. For Innocent Man was not under an Actual Obligation to those Duties, as being Inconsistent with his State.  Gal. 
Though I do not remember that our Divines do apply the same Arguments to these Duties, that they do to Faith and Repentance, yet I cannot deny, but they are applicable. But what will you infer from my grant?  Paul. 
Stay a little for my Answer. Is Faith and Repentance, and those other Duties now mentioned the utmost bounds of your New Gospel Law?  Gal. 
I cannot say so. We make Love and its Works the condition of Justification; and so Branches of the New Gospel Law.  Paul. 
Now I will answer your Question. I infer from your First Grant, that the New Law hath encroached upon the Old, as the Sea does sometimes upon the Land. The Old( i.e. the Natural or Moral Law) did once oblige to love God, pray to, and meditate on him, as a Creator and Friend; but now God is become a Redcemer, a reconciled Foe; the Old Law is Vacated, as to those duties to him under those New Relations mentioned ( wherein he now stands) which methinks is as absurd, as if that Law which obliges me to love my Friend, whilst a Single Man, should cease its Obligation when he is Married. Again, From your Second Concession I infer, That your New Law hath served the Old, as Aaron's Rod did the Magicians Rods, swallow them all up, Exod. 7.12. And whereas the Socinians make Christ to add some New Precepts to the Old Law; ye Galatians make him to take away all the Precepts from the Old, to Constitute his Own New Law. This is worse then Robbing Peter, to pay Paul;( as our Proverb hath it) this is Robbing God to pay Christ: a Robbery which Christ disclaims, Matth. 5.17. and our Patron Paul, Rom. 3. last.  Gal. 
But we aclowledge the Old Law in force, as a Rule of Duty.  Paul. 
Very good: Though I do not see how the same Precepts should belong to the Old and New Law at the same time.( For by calling the Gospel Law, a New Law, ye make the first Old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth Old, is ready to vanish away, to borrow the expression used of the Old and New Testament Dispensations, Heb. 8. last.) But that which I conclude with, upon your acknowledgement, is, that if besides the proper Precepts of the New Law; those of the Old Law are adopted into your New Law, as a Condition of Justification; then the Covenant of Grace is properly and strictly a Covenant of Works, and even of Works or Deeds of the Law, which the Apostles denies, Rom. 3.28. and you yourself a while since. And this will be yet more evident, if your New Law hath its threatenings.  Gal. 
I cannot yet conceive, but that the Gospel hath threatenings, for the Damnations of Unbelievers, as well as the Salvation of Believers, is called the Gospel,( which the Apostles were to Preach) Mark 16.15, 16.  Paul. 
Damnation is part of the Doctrine Preached by the Apostles. But that it is not part of the Gospel, may be gathered from Rom. 6. last, The wages of Sin is Death; but the gift of God is Eternal Life, through Jesus Christ our Lord. Which Opposition sounds to this sense, that the Threats of the Law assign deserved Damnation, the Promise of the Gospel undeserved Salvation.  Gal. 
But the Gospel hath its Threats only against Final Unbelief, and Final Impenitency.  Paul. 
Surely then it is very Partial; for every act of Unbelief and Impenitency is a sin, and so deserves Damnation: And why then should those Acts escape its threats; and if the Gospel does not threaten them, then the Law must, For the wages of Sin( a single Sin not continued in) is Death;( as you heard but now) and then it will follow, that Unbelief and Impenitency are Sins against the Law; because it cannot threaten what is not a Transgression of it. And so the consequence of your Assertion will prove its irreparable ruin.  
Again, I argue thus; If the Gospel hath no Threats against Defects in Faith and Repentance, then such Defects are no Transgression of this New Law.( For if they were, it would threaten them, as well as final Unbelief, and final Impenitency.) And if so, then it will follow; either that you are not to Pray for the Pardon of them, or Power against them: Or if you do,( and think you are bound to do it) you must acknowledge, they are breaches of the Old Law, the Moral Law, which as the rule of practise requires the perfection of every Act it enjoins.  Gal. 
Christ proceeds in executing his Kingly Office in his Church according to the threatenings of the Gospel, and surely Men are not turned over to the Law for Punishment for Sins against the Gospel.  Paul. 
The Gospel cannot threaten greater Evils for Kind, than the Law doth; and therefore I may say of the Gospel, compared with the Law in its threatenings, as Solomon, of any other Man compared with himself; What can the Man do that cometh after the King; even that which hath been already done, Eccles. 2.12. And therefore though Christ be King of the Church, he cannot punish, but according to the threats of the Law. As for Sins against the Gospel, we know no such Sins.( as hath been said) And I add, that so extensive is the first Command of the Moral Law, that Trusting in the Lord Jehovah( that is Christ,) Isa. 26.4. is a branch of the duties required in it, and Gospel Unbelief( which is styled A departure from the Living God, Heb. 3.12.( a Title agreeing to Christ) is a Sin forbidden by that command; and the acknowledging God to be Our God, Deut. 26.17. and the not avouching him for Our God, Psal. 81.11. is comprehended under the Affirmative and Negative of that Commad.( see Assembly Catechism) Again, Inventors of evil things are Sinners against the Moral Law, Rom. 1.30.( for that was the Law which the Roman Gentiles were under) And if unnatural Lusts( partly intended in that Phrase) though not mentioned in the Seventh Commandment were included under it; I cannot see why the Rejection of Grace offered to Sinners( an evil thing invented by Cain, Heb. 11.4.) as well as the Rejection of Grace offered to Innocent Man; the slighting of the Recovery of Gods favour to the one, as well as of the Continuance of it to the other, should not be included in the First Commandment.  Gal. 
But Sins against the Gospel are threatened with greater Punishment than Sins against the Law, Mat. 11.22.24.  Paul. 
Your Argument supposes that the same Law cannot make a difference, as to degrees of Punishment, for greater or lesser breaches of it, the mistake whereof will appear by Adams laying the blame of his own sin in eating the forbidden Fruit, upon his Wife, and upon God,( as he does obliquely, Gen. 3.12.) which were breaches of the same Natural Law, yet the Latter was greater than the Former, because God is greater than Man, Job 33.12. And so it was punishable with more severity. And therefore( by a parity of Reason) though the Rejection of God's Offer of Reconciliation to Fallen Man, who had given the Offence, be a greater sin, than the Rejection of his offer of continuing Friendship with Innocent Man( abiding such) yet they may be Sins against the same Law, and by it, one punished with greater Punishment than the other, and so there's no need of a Gospel Law to assign greater Punishments to Gospel Sins,( as you imagine) for if the Natural Law given to Adam did not, yet( at least) the Moral Law given to his Posterity on Mount Sinai may suffice for that end.  Gal. 
But why do you distinguish between those Laws? I thought they had been but the same Law, in your judgement.  Paul. 
Yes, so they are for substance, but yet there is this difference; that the Former did but implicitly enjoin that Faith and Repentance which ye account the special and proper Gospel Laws: But the Latter Law does explicitly enjoin them, as being suitable to, And so the Present Duties of the Lapsed State,( as I proved even now) the Gospel( as opposed to either of those Laws( as I have distinguished them) does but reveal a New Object of those duties, a Redeemer the Object of Faith, and Sin Committed, the Object of Repentance.  Gal. 
I do not remember that I have heard divers of the things you allege in this point.  Paul. 
But they are either those which I have had from the eminent Divines above mentioned,( which stick like Pitch to my memory,) or they are easy and natural Deductions in my opinion, from their Doctrine. But before we go off this Point, I shall acquaint you with the late Rise, or Revival rather of this controversy, and thence with the Danger in a mistake about it.( not yet mentioned,) The Rise was from Arminius, who pretended that Adam had not Power of believing in Christ, and that therefore we could not lose in Adam what he had not.  Gal. 
But what Arguments did he urge for the proof of his Assertion?  Paul. 
That Adam in innocency had no need of believing in Christ. That Faith was not commanded by the Law, and therefore Adam was not bound to believe; for the Law only was given to him, and that none could believe but a Sinner.  Gal. 
These are our very Arguments. I could not have thought that our Israelites had been forced to go down to the Philistines to sharpen their Weapons. But are you sure of this you affirm?  Paul. 
I red it in the Learned Peter du Moulin's Anatomy of Arminianism, c. 11. and I have red the same Arguments in Mr. Anthony burgess( before cited) and heard them cited as Arminian Arguments by divers of our Pauline Divines; and if you doubt my veracity, you may red the Authors I name, and inquire of your own Divines.  Gal. 
But what did Arminius infer from his Positions which you city?  Paul. 
That God is bound to give all Men power to believe on Christ, &c. And this Moulin calls an Impious Opinion; and says, that seeing he intends the denial of Adams power to believe, &c. For the establishment of it; therefore this Question is not of small moment, nor to be perfunctorily handled.  Gal. 
But pray what's the Danger in our mistake about the Gospel's being a New Law?  Paul. 
That ye may dash upon Arminius's Rock, make the same wretched inference that you heard but now from it: But enough of this Question. The next thing that I am to oppose is that Works done by Grace, are the Condition of our Justification.  
Argument. 1. No Works are the condition of our-Justification, therefore not Works done by Grace. The Antecedent is evident, for the Apostle excludes from Justification Works, without any epithet, Rom. 4.2, 6. and Deeds[ or Works] of the Law, Chap 3.20, 27.  Gal. 
But that latter Phrase limits the former to that kind of Works.  Paul. 
It hath been proved, that all Works are Works of the Law( and therefore I wave any farther Discourse about Gospel Works,( as your Phrase is) only I shall suggest; that if the Apostle had understood and intended such a difference of Works in relation to Justification, an Hint of that would soon have put an end to the controversy.  Gal. 
He hath Hinted it when he calls Faith a Law, and opposes it to the Law of Works, Rom. 3.27. And our Lord himself, when he calls Believing the Work of God, John. 6.29.  Paul. 
Calvins Answer to the first Scripture is sufficient, That the name of a Law is impropely given to Faith which yet does not darken the Apostles meaning, which is as if he had said, the Righteousness of Works is commended in the Law; but Faith hath its own Law, which admits of no Righteousness in Works of any sort whatsoever. And Beza, on the place( as I have heard him quoted) says, The Apostle seems for the nonce to imitate the Jews Phrase, who were Adversaries of Grace, and had always the Name of the Law in their Mouths; as to the other Scripture Hutcheson's Answer[ in his Exposition on John's Gospel] is very full. Christs calling Faith a Work doth not import that Faith as a Work doth justify( for it is only the hand to receive Christ who is our Righteousness.) But he gives it this Name, speaking in their terms who doted on Works. And even Camero( who is cried up by your party) after his Explication of John 6.29. to the same sense with Beza and Hutcheson, adds; The Scripture always opposeth Faith to Works in the business of Justification. For Faith gives nothing to God, but only receives; but Works are,( as it were) Sacrifices of Thanksgiving, which we offer to God, for Faith is the Organ( or Instrument) and as it were the Souls hand whereby we receive Gods Benefits, Praelect in Matth. 16.17. and p. 48. and hence I argue, That if Faith and Works are still opposed to each other in the business of Justification then Faith, is opposed to itself, as a Work[ or act of Obedience to the command of Believing] conceive it thus, we may say of a Beggar, and of an handicrafts Man, they have nothing but what they get by their Hands. But in a different sense, the former, as he receives what is given him: the other as he earns by his Work, his Bread before he eats it. Otherwise the Apostles Opposition of Faith and Works would be as Illogical, as this; we live by Bread, not by Food;( which latter in cludes the former) Bread being one kind of Food.  Gal. 
But Love is a condition of Pardon,( a branch of Justification) as appears by, Luk. 7.47.  Paul. 
All that can be concluded from that Scripture, is, that much Love, is an Effect,( and so a Sign,) not a Cause or Condition of forgiving many Sins, see ver. 42. 4● and this I shall prove from the Learned pink( whom one of your party flurts at, but confutes not his interpretation) I would alter one word in our Translation, BECAUSE into THEREFORE, the sense requires this Construction; because the whole scope of the Parable is to show, that he loves most to whom most is forgiven, and not contrarily, that most is forgiven to him that loves most, &c. The conjunction {αβγδ} admits it; for albeit not in the pure Greek Idiom, yet in the Hellenestick use of it, it so signifies, &c.[ Trial of sincere Love to Christ, Ser. on Eph. 6.24. p. 12.13.] And Calvin, and other Protestant Divines gave the same Interpretation before Pink. And I am  told, that the Learned meed and Hammond,( who were great critics) do give Instances in Scripture, where the Greek word is taken for therefore( and are quoted by Mr. Pools Latin Synopsis, on Luk. 7.47.)  Gal. 
Our Saviour after all these expressions of Love from the Penitent Woman, tells her, that her sins are forgiven her,[ ver. 48.]  Paul. 
Mr. Pink makes the Objection in these Words, and Answers; This was but that Sentence of Absolution for her greater comfort and assurance outwardly pronounced, of which no doubt but she had before some gracious inklings within, and the virtue whereof she had already tasted, though not in that comfortable measure, or distinct manner as she desired,[ Pink, Ibid. p, 13. 14.]  Gal. 
I aclowledge this Scripture, is as insignificant to our cause, as a cipher without a Figure in Numeration. But we can instance in an other Grace which is so expressly made a condition of forgiveness, as that you cannot elude it, ( viz.) Repentance, Acts 5.31.  Paul. 
I Answer, 1. That if Faith as a Work, be excluded from being a Condition of Justification( as I proved before) then Repentance which cannot be considered otherwise than as a Work, cannot be admitted. 2.( which is a confirmation of the first Answer) by Faith we receive forgiveness of Sins, Acts 26.18. by Repentance we Work for it,( whereas God does Frankly forgive Sinners, Luk. 7.42.)  Gal. 
The Words by Faith are joined to Sanctified in the Text, not to receive.  Paul. 
But. 1. Calvin refers those words to the other clauses foregoing, and makes the sense to be that By Faith we possess all the good things offered in 〈◇〉 Gospel; and Beza puts a Comm● after Sanctified; and affirms that He found it so in Old Greek Copies of the New Testament( as I have been  told by our Divines) 2. If I grant you the benefit of our Translation what you get by it, you may put in your eyes, and see never the worse, for then Repentance( being a branch of Sanctification) must be after Justification( and so not before it) and so not a condition of it) It being a received Rule in Divinity, that Justification is in order of nature before Sanctification, as this is opposed to Regeneration; this latter term noting those gracious Habits which are infused together; that former, the Acts of the Habits, which[ Acts] are drawn out by Faith's laying hold on Christ as a Sanctifier: And this is intimated, Luke 17.5. where Disciples beg not an increase of their Love, but of their Faith, that they might forgive their offending Brother.  Gal. 
The mention of Forgiving an offending Brother, puts me in mind of a Duty which is made a Condition of Gods forgiveness, Mat. 6.14.  Paul. 
Else where God's forgiveness of us is made a Motive to our forgiveness of others, Eph. 4. last, which supposes a Precedency of Gods Act to ours, and also of our Apprehension of it. And therefore our forgiveness cannot( strictly speaking) be a Condition of God's.  Gal. 
Why then does Christ use that form of Words which seems to import, that 'tis a Condition of it?  Paul. 
Because our forgiveness is an Inseparable effect and Indubitable sign of that Faith by which we obtain Gods forgiveness, and so we say that the Promise is not made to the Effect produced, but to the Cause producing it; not to Our forgiveness of others, but to the Faith itself( as a good three bringing forth that good fruit) and the same Answer we give to those passages of Scripture, which seem to make Repentance a Condition of forgiveness; which I may illustrate by Mark 7.29. compared with Matth. 15.28. it was not the Womans Saying, that obtained her Childs cure, but the Faith whereof that Saying was a Sign and Effect.  Gal. 
Your Distinction between Faith and its effects with respect to Justification is groundless. We say that Faith may called the only condition of the New Covenant, because all the rest are reducible to it, either as being Presupposed as necessary Antecedents or means; or contained in it, as its parts, or properties, or modifications, or else Implied, as its immediate product, &c.  Paul. 
Though the last, the product[ or effect] of Faith be to our present purpose, yet I would ask you for an instance of Antecedents to Faith.  Gal. 
Repentance from dead works, Godly sorrow, &c.  Paul. 
I see one may live and learn. I had thought they had been Effects, and so Consequents of Faith. I have learned, that without Faith 'tis impossible to please God, Heb. 11.6. But if your Notion be right, I must unlearn it again. For sure, he that hath fulfilled a condition of the Covenant of Grace pleases God.  Gal. 
No such matter, we say, there must be a concurrence of all Duties to make up the conditions, which have a promise of Life.  Paul. 
I suppose by Life, you mean( at least in part) Justification of Life, Rom. 5.18.( or else you speak not to the Question in hand) and if so, then even with Faith it is impossible to please God; because, that is but one Condition more; or in other words we are not justified by Faith alone, but by Works too. But pray what are the things Contained in Faith, as a part.  Gal. 
Love of Christ above all.  Paul. 
We Judge that Grace to be an Effect of Faith by warrant from Gal. 5.6. Faith worketh by Love. The Apostle makes Love( as it were) Faiths Instrument, by which it works, and who knows not the Instrument hath its Force, Motion and Action, not from itself; but from the Workman.[ So Luther appositely on the place] Faith blows the fire of Love, and then uses it as occasion serves. I have asked you these Questions, that by convincing you of your mistakes in your Answers, you may suspect the rest of your Notions. I have but one Question more: What are the Products of Faith?  Gal. 
Sincere Obedience and Works of Love.  Paul. 
How these, which are after Justification, not only in order of Nature, but in Time should be a Condition of Justification, is hard to conceive.  Gal. 
I wonder at your dullness, we distinguish between a first and Second Justification, the first whereof, is upon mere Faith, the latter is upon Sincere Obedience and Perseverance.  Paul. 
If I be dull, I think you are not very sharp,( if I may judge by your Distinction) for I cannot find either Name or Thing of a Second Justification in Scripture: But I have found a place that baffles it, Rom. 1.17. Therein[ viz. in the Gospel, v. 16.] the Righteousness of God,[ by which a Sinner is made Righteous to Justification, so called in opposition to Mans righteousness, whereof he is the Subject or Agent, Rom. 10.3. and because inherent in and performed by him who is God( viz.) Christ, 1 Cor. 10.30.] is Revealed[ in opposition to Natural Knowledge,( there being no Natural Christianity, though there be a Natural Theology] which term includes an exhibition of it( as Gal. 3.23.) whence the Gospel is called, A Ministration of Righteousness, 2 Cor. 3.9.] From Faith to Faith[ there seems to be a word wanting to make up the sense ( viz) To be[ as Jam. 2.5. To be rich in Faith( for Faith is not the cause but effect and end of Election] and the meaning is, to show what Justifying Righteousness he calls Gods, and is revealed in the Gospel( viz.) that Righteousness[ not which is begun by Faith, and carried on by Works, but] which Justifies us first and last only by Faith; as for the Phrase from Faith to Faith[ 'tis parallel to, from Glory to Glory, 2 Cor. 3. last] and 'tis intended to note, that the growth of Faith for Justification, will take rise from the more distinct apprehension of the need of Gods Righteousness only, for that end] For the just shall live by Faith,[ cited out of Habb. 2.4.] which words prove out of the Old Testament, the Doctrine of Justification by Faith, asserted in the New. And both the Hebrew and the Greek are ambiguous, and may be rendered, either The Just by Faith shall live, or( as our version) The Just shall live by Faith. If we take the former Version, then the consequence is evident, he that is just by Faith, is not Just[ and so nor lives] by Works. If the latter, he that lives by Faith must needs be supposed Just by it first; because the same Righteousness received by Faith, gives right to Justification and Salvation. I have been the longer upon this, because your error herein is very Gross.  Gal. 
'tis well you call Whore first; for if you had not been too quick for me, I should have  told you, that your opinion, that justifying Faith, as justifying, doth consist in any one single Act, is a wretched mistake.  Paul. 
But I am well assured, that it is an happy Truth: And this I will evince.  
1. From your own Concession but now, that the First Justification is upon mere Faith, which is a single Act ( viz.) an Acceptance of Christ as our Righteousness to Justification. As for the Second Justification, I am content it should be left to the wide World to shift for itself.  Gal. 
You mistake our term mere Faith, we understand it, of Faiths immediate receiving Christ as King and Prophet,( and in so doing to justify,) as well as the receiving him as Priest.  Paul. 
This Answer may well have the name Legion; I will not say, for the many Devils but errors, that it contains for.  
1. Suppose we grant your notion of Justifying Faith, as such; that it hath Christ in all his Offices for its Object. How can faith Immediately receive Christ as King and Prophet? when as the receiving of him as Priest, must needs precede the receiving of him as King and Prophet;( if not in Time, yet in order of Nature) and so be the immediate Act of Faith as Justifying. Our common Catechism tells us, that Faith receives Christ, as he is offered in the Gospel, which particle as intimates that the Order of receiving him, is directed by the Order of the Gospels Offer. And surely Justification is the First benefit offered[ see Acts 13.38, 39. Rom. 3.21, 22. ch. 8.34. ch. 10.10.] or Christ as our Righteousness for Justification is first tendered[ which is the same thing in other words.]  Gal. 
But why may not that Particle As, refer to the entireness of the Object of Faith, or Christ in all his Offices?  Paul. 
Yes, it may, and does: but yet we affirm( and shall prove presently,) that though Christ as Prophet and King, be the Object of Justifying Faith, yet he is not of Faith, as Justifying, and therefore the As must be understood also( as was said.)  
2. I Argue, If Faith as justifying does immediately receive Christ as King and Prophet, then you must grant, that Faith receives the Personal inherent Gospel Righteousness for the Second Justification, before it receives the imputed legal Righteousness of Christ for your First Justification,( to use your own terms) and surely this is to set the Cart before the Horse, and is as odd a thing as if a Lady upon the motion of a Match to a foreign Prince, should change her natural allegiance, and become his Subject, before she becomes his Wife.  
3. If by Faith receiving Christ as Prophet and Priest, you mean a Purpose or Promise[ or Covenant] to Subject yourselves to him in those Offices, then our first Justification is by works of our own, as well as the second, and you should put in Works, and blot out Faith, Rom. 5.1.( and where ever else you find Justification ascribed to Faith) and if that be Pauls sense, you may warrant your Alteration better than Luther could his Addition of the word alone to Faith, Rom. 3.28. in his version of the New Testament into his Native Language.  Gal. 
I think you take our Divines meaning right, for they do say that Subjection, Cordial-covenanting, Self-resigning, are the very proper essential formal Acts of Faith[ as Justifying.]  Paul. 
And I think that your Divines take the Apostles meaning wrong. 1. For that Justifying Faith, as Justifying, lies in an Acceptance of Christ as a Priest only, is evident, because in the Execution of that Office only he performed that Righteousness, by which, imputed to us, we are Justified. Christs Sufferings were undergone as a Priest and his Active Obedience must be referred to this Office too; as appears, by the Typical Priests, who were to be legally Righteous, and their Sacrifice without blemish( which the Apostle alludes to Heb. 27.26. 1 Pet. 1.19.) 2. Hence, Justifying Faith( so called, not from its only, but immediate effect) does accept of Christ as Prophet and King, not for Justification, but Sanctification( viz.) Submission to his Instruction and Government. And that Submission or Subjection to him in those Offices, which you called but now, the Act, is indeed the Effect of Faith; and in order of Nature after the acceptance of Christ as Priest for Justification. Hence Purifying the Heart is ascribed to Faith, Acts 15.9. Not that Faith does purify us, as a Grace or Quality infused into our Souls: but because it receives purity offered in Christ, as Calvin well observes on that place. And so I judge, 'tis evident enough, that Works have no cooperation with Faith, to Justification.  Gal. 
I wonder at your confidence, in denying Justification by works, when the expressions of St. James are so plain, Jam. 2.21, 22, 25.  Paul. 
And so do the Papists when we deny a real( as they term a Bodily) Presence of Christs, in the Sacrament, when the words of Christ are so plain, This is my Body. But as they, so you, have little cause to wonder.( as will appear presently.) But in the mean while, I cannot but admire at your interpretation of James, to a sense contrary to Paul, Rom. 3.28. I shall tell you how Dr. Manton( a Divine of great esteem with you Galatians and us Paulists) reconciles the seeming contradiction between them out of Diodate( but in more concise terms, then he) Diodate excellently glosseth that Justification in Paul, is opposite to the condemnation of a Sinner in general; and Justification in James is opposite to the condemnation of an Hypocrite in particular. In Pauls sense a Sinner is absolved, in Jame's sense a Believer is approved, and so most sweetly, and for ought I can see without exception, the Apostles are agreed.[ Manton on James 2.21. page. 312.]  Gal. 
We have another and better way of reconciling them. That Paul when he denieth Justification by Works, means Works of Perfect Obedience, and James when he affirmeth, what Paul denies intends by Works, Gospel Obedience which is the Causa sine qua non, or Condition without which we are not justified before God.  Paul. 
The Learned Manton, shall answer, and not I. So Socinus[ 2 Synops Justif. p. 17.] and herein he is generally followed by the Men of his own School. But to this I reply. 1. That the Apostle Paul doth not only exclude the exact Obedience of the Law, but the sincere Obedience of the Gospel, all kind of Works from the business of Justification, &c.[ Manton on James 2.24. p. 333.334.] and elsewhere more fully, Obedience is not the condition of Justification, but the evidence: not the Condition and Qualification of the New Covenant, so much as of the Covenanters,[ Manton p. 336. on Jam. 2.24.] 2. 'tis a matter of dangerous consequence to set up works upon any pretence whatsoever, as the matter or condition of our Justification before God, for it robbeth God of his Glory, &c.[ Manton, v. 24] red the rest, it will be worth your while, and let me tell you, my old Friend, that I do not like your Reconciliation of the Apostles, nor the Term, Causa sine qua non, one jot the better for the Persons sake, of whom your Masters have borrowed them. But though you prefer the Socinians interpretation of James before the Protestants's, yet do you understand this latter?  Gal. 
Yes, I suppose their meaning is, that James takes Justification for a Declaration of it, and so, that James intends, that Faith( and consequently Justification) the immediate effect of it) discovers its reality by works. But again this interpretation we object.  
1. That the Justification in James is such as Salvation dependeth on, ver. 14.  Paul. 
The words are, What doth it profit, tho' a Man say he hath Faith, and hath not Works? can Faith save him? To your Exception, I Answer. 1. The Apostle speaketh not a word in that Verse of Justification, which Salvation dependeth on: but of a Faith which Salvation dependeth not on,( and consequently nor Justification( for that Faith which will not save, will not justify him that hath it.) 2. Suppose other Verses in the context speak of such a Justification, yet they do not speak of it Directly, but Indirectly; and by consequence( according to our interpretation of James) we mean, that his Scope is to prove, that that Man is not a Visible Believer,( and so nor Visibly Justified) that hath no Works, and hence indeed it follows, that much less, is he an Invisible Believer, and so Justified in the Court of Heaven( and so in a state of Salvation.)  Gal. 
2. We Object, That the Justification in James is such as followeth only a Living Faith. But the World may as well justify us, when we have no Faith at all.  Paul. 
I suppose your Objection refers to Jam. 2.17.26. and I Answer.  
1. Those Verses( if understood of a Justification before God) do not affirm such a Justification by a Living Faith, but only deny it to a Dead Faith.  
2. As to the latter Clause, which seems to aim at a Reason, why James Justification cannot be Declarative[ or before Men] I Reply, that if Men will be wilful, they may as well condemn us, when we have Faith, as a self-conceited Man may bear us in hand that a Man is dead, when he hath all the Signs of Life, as well as that he is alive, when there is no Sign at all of Life. But what then? Does it therefore follow, that Works are no ground for a judgement of Mens Faith, and so of their Justification? No surely; And even he that makes this Objection, does yet( out of the heat of dispute) confess, That Works do prove the Sincerity of our Faith,[ red Matthew 5.16. 1 Peter 2.12.]  Gal. 
3. We ask; Was Abraham Justified before Men for a Secret Action?[ James 2.21. compared with Genesis 22.5.]  Paul. 
1. Isaac was witness of his Fathers attempt to kill him, Gen. 22.9, 10. and so Abraham was declared to be a Believer( and so Justified) before one Man.  
2. Though the Action was secret when done; yet when it came to Mens knowledge, it was an Evidence of Abrahams Faith; and so of his Justification, to all that heard and credited the report of the fact. And now it is recorded in the Scripture, it is a standing Justification of his Faith to all that red and believe the History. Christ is declared to be the Son of God by the Resurrection, Rom. 1.4. and yet his Resurrection was a Secret Action, even to the Disciples, who saw him after he was Risen, but did not see him Rise, Mark 16.9, 15. and I hope that the Disciple frequent sight of him, was to them and our belief of their report to us, a sufficient ground to credit the Fact, and so a Declaration to us of his being the Son of God, and of his Justification from the Sins of the elect charged upon him in his Death.  Gal. 
But was Abraham Justified before Men for such an Action as killing his Son?[ Would they not rather exclaim against it, as a barbarous Action?]  Paul. 
Perhaps some Men might, who did not know he had a Command from God. But upon supposition, that his Action was known to be warranted by God( to whom alone we owe an implicit Faith, a Blind Obedience) his Faith must needs be celebrated,( as it is, Heb. 11.17.) for that very act.  Gal. 
But was not He the Justifier here, who was the Imputer of Righteousness? ver. 23. therefore God was the Justifier here.  Paul. 
According to this interpretation now under debate, we Answer this Question in the Negative: All that can be fairly collected from ver. 23. and ver. 21. compared, is but this; that Abraham's offering up his Son was a New evidence of his Old Faith, and of Gods imputing Righteousness to him long before, Gen. 15.16. If we should grant you the Affirmative, then this absurdity would follow( supposing the term Fulfilled, ver. 23. be meant( as a Galatian Divine interprets it) that That Testimony of Scripture appeared to be true) that Gods Justifying Abraham by Faith formerly, should appear to be true, by Gods Justifying him by Works now. A strange proof surely.  Gal. 
Your Phrase, That Works justifies our Faith, not our Persons, makes ver. 24. run thus sencelesly by Works a Mans Faith is Justified, and not by Faith only.  Paul. 
No such matter; the sense is good thus. A Man is declared to be Justified by Works, and not by Faith without them; because Faith is visible only by Works[ see v. 18.] Thus much may suffice, to evince; that this Interpretation of James may be defended against any Objections of your Party. Yet there is another Interpretation, which deserves consideration. This grants one thing which you contend for, that James speaks of Justification before God: but denies another, ( viz.) that James affirms such Justification to be by Works. In short, when James says, by Works a Man is Justified; he means a Working Faith.[ a Faith apt to show itself in all good Works( Works the Effect being put for Faith, their Cause] And when James adds, and not by Faith only, he excludes a dead Faith, a bare ascent to the Articles of Religion, destitute of sincere Obedience, and so Paul and James do sweetly consort together. Paul severs Works from our Justification, not from our Faith, James joins Works to our Faith, but not to our Justification.[ so Pemble of Justification, p. 234.]  Gal. 
We say, we dare not raise an Exposition, so far from the plain importance of the words, without apparent necessity, which here is not.  Paul. 
1. Whether the Exposition be forced, you cannot well judge without reading Pemble, which I desire you will do with attention.  
2. There is an Apparent necessity, either of this Exposition, or the former of Declarative Justification: because else the Apostles clash one with another.  Gal. 
If Pemble so understand a Working Faith, as that it justifieth principally as Faith; and less principally, as Working, we should not differ from him.  Paul. 
How Faith should justify Principally, I cannot conceive, according to your own Notion, that Faith justifies in the nearest sense, directly and properly, as it is the fulfilling of the condition of the New Covenant. In the remote and more improper sense, as it is. The receiving of Christ, and his satisfactory Righteousness so that you deny that which is Peculiar to faith as opposed to Works in Justification, and which gives it a Principality above them: and you ascribe no more to it, then what agrees also to Works. For your Divines say, That Works justify in the same kind of causality, or procurement as Faith,( viz.) as part of the condition of the Covenant, or of Justification. These Notions are Ropes of Sand, but( if I mistake not) you have a Notion that ascribes more to Works, than to Faith, which I cannot readily recall. Pray help my memory.  Gal. 
It is this( I suppose,) Works make Faith alive as to the attaimment if its end of Justification.  Paul. 
Yes, that is it. And if it be true, than surely it roundly follows, that Works justify principally, as Works; and Faith justifies less principally, as Faith( to invert your own Phraseology) and so contradict yourselves.  Gal. 
But does not the Scripture often ascribe Justification at the Day of judgement to Works, at Matth. 12.37. chap. 25.35. &c.  Paul. 
This general Answer might suffice, that however the letter of the Words in those places sound, it having been proved, that our constitutive Justification( as your Phrase is) is not by Works, our sentential Justification cannot be by them neither; For the last judgement shall be nothing else, than the approbation of the Doctrine of the Gospel,[ says Calvin on John 12.48.] which Doctrine is; that we are justified by Faith, not by Works. Yet I Answer, to the first Scripture, Christ meaning can be no more, than that Good Words shall be a Proof or Evidence of our right to sentential Justification; not that they shall be the condition of our right to it. It is more agreeable to Scripture language to say, that Christ in pronouncing Sentence of Justification, will have respect to the Words for the Speakers sake, not to the Speaker for the Words sake; for 'tis said, Gen. 4.4. God had respect to Abel the Offerer, and thence to his Offering, not to the Offering, and thence to the Offerer.  Gal. 
But Christ at the Great day will show forth his Love to the Obedience, and not only to the Persons Justified.  Paul. 
We grant it two ways. 1. By Praise and Commendation, 1 Cor. 4.5. and by giving that Testimony to their Words, the Obedience now under consideration) which he did to Job in this life,( viz. that they were right, Job 42.8. ( but with some grains of allowance, for many of his words had been very wrong) And 2. By putting them into possession of that Salvation, which their Obedience qualified or made them meet for,[ Col. 1.12. Psal. 17. ult.] not gave them right to.  Gal. 
But our Works gives us a right now to Salvation, and therefore will do so, at the day of judgement. A staunch Divine of our Party, thus interprets Rev. 22.14. Blessed are they that do his Commandments, that they may have Right[ by virtue of the Covenat of Grace] to the three of Life [ Christ and Eternal Life by and with him.]  Paul. 
If your Annotators gloss be right, I cannot see to the contrary, but that Faith is shut out for a Wrangler, from being the bond of Union on our part between us and Christ. For Works are competent enough for that end without it. And if this be true, I cannot think but Paul and John are at Daggers drawing. For whereas Paul says, that Christ dwells in our hearts by Faith, John says, that he dwells in them by Works.  Gal. 
Does not John say elsewhere. He that keepeth his Commandments dwelleth in him, and he in him, 1 John 3.24?  Paul. 
Your Annotatour's gloss here contradict his other now mentioned. 'tis this, [ thereby showing himself to be united to Christ] And so we Answer, that doing God's Commandments, does not give, but declare a right to Christ, and eternal life. And so to that Sentential Justification( now under debate) whereby that life is awarded to us. But the right accrues from our Union to Christ by Faith alone, whereby all things[ that are Christ's are ours, 1 Cor. 3.21, 23. And let me add, that if Christ be intended in that metaphor, The three of Life. 'tis not Christ as offered in the Gospel, but Christ as enjoyed in Heaven; which enjoyment is intimated in the word come in the sentence of Absolution, Matth. 25.34, 35. from which Scripture I would fain know what you do infer.  Gal. 
This we infer from thence, that the Works of Mercy there mentioned, are parts of tha● Evengelical Righteousness, which is the condition of our Justification at the day of judgement. The word For importing the Reason of the Sentence.  Paul. 
If that be a just Inference, these Absurdities would follow.  
1. That these Works of Evangelical Righteousness foreseen, were the condition of Election[ as that term imports, a choice of some Persons, with a leaving of others; and a purpose of bestowing Salvation upon them; both being intended in those clauses of the Sentence, Ye Blessed of my Father, the Kingdom prepared for you, ver. 34.] And thus must the Sentence run. I admit you into possession of Salvation, because ye have performed works of Mercy to my poor Members, the foresight whereof induced my Father from eternity to appoint you to Salvation, rather than others whom he foresaw would neglect those Works.  
2. Absurdity, Is that those Works are also the condition of Adoption[ intimated in the Word inherit] and this Adoption may be considered, either as included in Election[ as explained above] from eternity; or as an act of God's in time. If the former, then this clause must be added to the sentence. And because my Father foreknew you would be dutiful, he resolved to adopt you to a Kingdom; whilst he denied that honour to those whom he foreknew would be undutiful and rebellious. If the latter, the sentence must have this addition, Because ye have performed those good Works which were the condition of your Adoption: Therefore I adjudge you the possession of the Inheritance you were thereby adopted to.  Gal. 
But we do not hold Works foreseen to be the cause of Election, and Adoption included in it.  Paul. 
Nor do I clarge you with that Assertion. I only design your conviction of the error of your Interpretation of the Text, from whence such Absurdities do naturally flow. But surely you cannot deny, that Works are the condition of actual Adoption, if they be the condition or matter of Justification: whereas the Scripture says, We are all the Children of God by Faith in Christ Jesus, Gal. 3.26. By Faith, not by Works; not Children, because dutiful; but dutiful because Children.  Gal. 
But if Works of Mercy be not considered as part of the condition of Justification at the day of judgement; how then? Not as the Righteousness which the Law requires. For so shall no Man living be Justified, Rom. 3.20.  Paul. 
Those Works cannot be considered otherwise than as part of the Righteousness which the Law requires, if they be part of the condition of Justification; and therefore are excluded from being by the Scripture you city( as hath been sufficiently demonstrated)  Gal. 
Works are not considered, as a mere sign whereby God doth discern Mens Faith, for he seeth it immediately, and needeth no sign.  Paul. 
The Man Christ Jesus being the Judge, Acts 17.31. he will suitably to his manhood, at the great Day, pass Sentence upon believers by Works, as signs of their Faith, to himself,( as he did on Earth to the Centurian, Mat. 8.10. and the Woman of Canaan, chap. 15.28.) though as God, upon an immediate inspection of their hearts, he had admitted their Souls into Heaven at their dissolution.  Gal. 
Nor are Works produced as mere signs to satisfy the justified Person himself.  Paul. 
Yet the Author whom you quote, adds, That the business of the Day of judgement, is to put the godly out of doubt by the sentence, and by their Glory, put out of doubt: Of what? It must be either of their Sincerity, or the passing of the sentence of Absolution, or their Admission into Glory of their whole Persons. The first he denies; and I think, he might as reasonably deny the other too. For it is not imaginable, that the Godly who had been absolved, and admitted into Heaven in Soul, should doubt of the continuance of that favour, or of the extent of it to their Bodies.  Gal. 
But the common opinion is, that it is to satisfy the condemned World of the sincerity of the Faith of the Godly.  Paul. 
Add but the end of that satissaction, ( viz.) that the Wicked may be convinced of the Justice of God's procedure, in acquitting the Godly; whilst themselves are condemned, and we own the Opinion, and like it never the worse for the commouness of it. What have you to except against it?  Gal. 
For, clearly expresses the ground or reason of the Sentence. Can any more be said of Faith, than that we are Justified or Judged to life for it?  Paul. 
To Answer your Question first. So much is no where said of Faith, and therefore much less of Works.  
As for your Particle; for I cannot see how it should express the Ground of the Sentence; because the Works of Mercy mentioned in it, are no Righteousness, as not being conformable to any Law. If they be, tell me to which?  Gal. 
To deal ingeniously with you, I cannot well tell to which. If I shall say, to the Natural Law, I am ware, that the same Arguments, whereby we exclude Faith and Repentance from being branches of that Law, exclude Mercy also. If I shall say, to the Moral Law, I am sensible, that that requires perfect Obedience. And if the Acts of Mercy in the Sentence are such, then they are our Legal, not Evangelical Righteousness( which latter we contend for) but if they are Acts of Sincere Obedience, then they fall short of what the Moral Law requires; and so cannot be our Legal Righteousness. And therefore I must say, that the Acts of Mercy under consideration, are conformable to the Gospel Law.  Paul. 
I am very glad, my Discourse hath find so good an effect, as to give you the sight of Day, through a little hole. But as to that Law you pitch upon, I Argue( upon Supposition, not a Grant that there is such a Law) either that Law requires Perfect, or only Sincere Obedience. If the former, none can be Justified by that Law without such Obedience: But the Works of Mercy in the Sentence, were not perfect. Solomon says, There is not a just Man upon Earth that doth good, and sinneth not, Eccles. 7.20. i. e. that doth not evil, as well as good, and that doth not evil in doing good. If the latter, then indeed the Merciful may be sentenced to Life, as having fulfilled the Righteousness of that Law. But then there are two scurvy consequences will undeniably sollow. One, That Christ's Sentence of Justification, doth not include Forgiveness of Sin. For if Sincerity be all the Gospel Law requires, where that is found, there is no transgression, and so no need of forgiveness. But your Party agree with ours in acknowledging Forgiveness, to be a branch of Justification, by warrant from, Acts 3.19. The other Consequence, which follows from the first is, that it is a sentence of mere Legal Justification, which Christ pronounces at the day of judgement. For Christ pronounces Men Righteous, because they have done all, that the Gospel Law exacted of them.  Gal. 
The use and interest of Gospel conditions, is not from the Conformity of them to the Preceptive part of the Law( though in a degree) there be that, but from their conformity to the Rule of the grace of the Promise.  Paul. 
1. But then the 〈…〉 returns, ( viz.) That M 〈…〉 Righteous, without a Righteousness. For Christ by virtue of the Gospel-Sanction accepts them as Righteous by that very Law, which they have 〈◇〉, and by that breach are Unrighteous: And so the judgement cannot be said to be according to Truth.  
2. I would have you consider, that Righteousness imports a respect or Relation to a Law or Rule of our Actions, not to a Sanction. The Sanction of Promise, supposes actions to be good, does not make them good, we are not Righteous we are justified; but Justified because we are Righteous. And this is evident from the instance of the Old Covenant of Works. God made Man upright[ or Righteous] Eccles. 7. ult. which he did in Order of Nature, if not Time, before he annexed that Sanction to the Law, The Man that doth them shall live in them, Gal. 3.12.  Gal. 
It seemeth that Christ doth call Men Righteous, in reference to this personal Evangelical Righteousness mentioned in their justifying Sentence, Matth. 25.46.  Paul. 
But it seemeth not so to me. For Believers are acquitted at the day of judgement, on the very same account and scour they are now( viz) for the imputed Righteousness of Christ in the way of free grace,[ or received by Faith][ so Flavel on Assem. Catech. p. 97, 96. Q. 7.1 compared] and so the denomination of Righteous, must needs be taken from that Righteousness without them upon the account whereof they were acquitted.  Gal. 
I am sensible, that our Cause suffers by my disability to manage it. Yet the Interpretation our Divines give of the kinds of works excluded from Justification sticks with me  Paul. 
Let me hear it, and I will give you my sentiment about it.  Gal. 
The Work excluded from being the Righteousness whereby we are justified, are the Works of the Ceremonial Law,[ Rom. 4.9, 10. Gal. 5.2.]  Paul. 
Let Judicious Calvin be heard, who thus occurs this Objection. 'tis certain that Paul contested with false Teachers, who puffed up the People with an undue confidence in the Ceremonial Law. But in division of the controversy between himself and them, he limits not his Discourse to the Ceremonies; nor does he dispute particularly, how far they availed; but he comprehends the whole Law[ Rom. 3.20.] Calvins meaning is, that the Apostle argues from an Universal to particulars, i.e. that Men are not Justified by any Works; therefore not by those of the Ceremonial Law, and that this Observation is true, and so gives a Mortal wound to your cause, I shall make most evident.  
1. The false Teachers looked for Justification by Works of the Moral Law, as well as the Ceremonial, Luk. 18.11, 12. The Pharisee boasted of his freedom from Sins against that Law, and trusted in himself that he was Righteous thereby, v. 9. and therefore the Apostles Assertion, that by the deeds of the Law there shall no flesh be justified in Gods sight, Rom. 3.20. must needs be extended to the Moral Law.  
2. The Apostle excludes from Justification the Works of that Law which was common to Jew and gentle, which was the Natural or Moral Law; as appears by the instances of the Sins which were all against that Law, and not one against the Ceremonial Law, Rom. 3.20. compared with v. 10. to v. 18.  
3. The Apostle excludes the Works of that Law which the Gospel intended to establish, as a rule of duty, Rom. 3. last. which was not the Ceremonial Law,[ Eph. 2.15. Heb. 9.10.] but the Moral[ Mat. 5.17.18. compared with v. 21.22, 27, 28.]  Gal. 
But your Calvin takes in the Ceremonial Law too, as established by the Doctrine of Justification without the deeds of the Law[ Calv. Rom. 3. ult.  Paul. 
He does so; but with a difference from the Moral: Not that the precepts of it are continued, but that the righteousness shadowed out by them, was exhibited in Christ.  
But as for the Moral Law( he says) that in it is found the exact righteousness of the Law, which by imputation is made ours; and also sanctification, imperfect indeed, but aiming at Perfection as its mark[ Calvin on Rom. 3. last.] and so he intimates, that the Moral Law requires perfect Obedience still, though not for Justification: And so God does not cease to be a Sovereign, by becoming a Benefactor. Again, by your denial of Justification to work of the Ceremonial Law you contradict your own Notions.  
1. That Works done by Grace do justify, for the Works of the Ceremonial Law whilst it was in force, were Works done by Grace, and so according to your sentiment were part of the Righteousness, whereby the Believers of the Old Testament( and of the New too, till that Law was actually abolished) were justified. This Antecedent I prove. 1. From Luk. 1.6. which Zacharias and Elizabeth, are called, Righteous; because they walked in the Ordinances of the Lord, which term notes the Ceremonial Law. And 2. By this Reason, that they had this Moral Goodness in them, ( viz.) a subjection of the Conscience to the mere will of the Law-giver; and if Works done by Grace under the Old Testament Dispensation did not justify: How come they by that efficacy under the New?  
2. That the works of the Gospel Law justify. For the works of the Ceremonial Law were works of the New Gospel Law;( in your sense is) the actual obligation to that Law commenced soon after Adam's fall,( as we may collect from Gen. 4.3.4.) and that Law represented Christ and his benefits, and the observation of it was an exercise of Faith and Repentance( the two great precepts of your Gospepl Law)[ as appears by 1 Cor. 5.7, 8.] and either those Works of the New Gospel Law, did not justify under that Evangelical Dispensation before Christ. And if so, how is it that any Gospel Works do justify Since Christ? Or if those Ceremonial Works did justify then, and not now; then the Old Testament Saints were justified by one, the New Testament Saints by another sort of works of the same Gospel Law.  
3. You grant that we are Justified by Works of the Moral Law; but the works of the Ceremonial Law were Works of the Moral Law[ i. e. positive Precepts, which by virtue of the first and second Commandments of the Moral Law, the Jews were Obliged to obey; and this is true, whether you consider them as joined with their signification, and Gospel use, or separated there from, and being thus coincident, the Jews could not be justified by the Moral Law, but they must be justified by the Ceremonial Law; And if it was so then, why not now? The Reason cannot be because 'tis a Law of that kind, but because we are not justified by any Law at all.  Gal. 
This is all Stuff, we deny Justification by the Moral Law.  Paul. 
I see, 'tis as true of erroneous Persons as of Liars, that they have need of good memories, to make their tales hang well together. Do not you Galatians allege Abraham and Rahab as instances of Persons justified by Works, Jam. 2.21.25. And 'tis evident that Rahabs receiving Joshua's Messengers was an Act of Obedience to that Moral Law. Be not forgetful to entertain Strangers, Heb. 13.2.( which is a branch of the sixth Commandment) and Abrahams offering up his Son, was though a positive Precept, yet reducible to the sum or the first Table, Mat. 22.37, 38. Thou shalt love the Lord thy God, &c. And God himself owns it as a sign and effect of his fear of him, Gen. 22.12. and surely fear of God is a duty of the Moral Law,( viz.)[ of the first Commandment] and did not you even now make Love and its Works the personal Righteousness whereby we are justified, and Love is the sum of both Tables of the Moral Law, Love to God( in the Scripture now quoted) Love to our Neighbour, Matth. 22.39, 40. and Rom. 13.8, 9.  Gal. 
But you forget what I  told you, that it is sincere Obedience( which the Gospel requires) not perfect( which the Law exacts) that is our personal Righteousness to Justification.  Paul. 
I remember it well enough, and thence rightly conclude, that you say and unsay, when you deny, that you hold Justification by the Moral Law. For the sincere Obedience which you call a Work of the Gospel Law, and the perfect Obedience which you call a Work of the Moral Law, are really Works of the same Law( viz.) the Moral: As your Wife is the same Woman now, that she was when single, though she hath lost her Fathers Name, and got her Husbands. As for your evasion, that 'tis Perfect Obedience which is excluded from being our Personal Righteousness for Justification; it is insignificant, yea hurtful to your cause: I at us but weigh that one passage, Rom. 3.20. By the deeds of the Law shall no flesh be Justied in his sight; for by the Law is the knowledge of sin. Where remember, that by no flesh, is meant, no Man,[ Jew or gentle, ver. 9.] and that by the Law, is meant the Law Natural[ or unwritten] and the Law Moral[ or written]( which are the same for substance( as I have proved before) and that by the Knowledge of Sin,( which is by the Law,) is meant( in James's Phrase) being convinced of the Law as Transgressors, Jam. 2.9. and then borrowing his Phrase, the Apostles Argumens is this, they who are convinced of the Law as transgressors, shall not be Justified by the deeds of the Law: But Jew and gentle are convinced of the Law as transgressors. Therefore neither Jew nor gentle shall be justified by the deeds of the Law. And thence the inference is very natural, that( at least) all the deeds of your Gospel Law( viz.) Love with all its works] which you own to be deeds of the Moral Law, and imperfect) are excluded from being our personal Righteousness for Justification. And if you acknowledge not the Inference, you accuse the Apostle of great fault in a Disputant( viz.) not to be ware of the force of his own Argument, that it would prove what he intended not; or rather, disprove what he intended to grant( as you imagine) I mean, that we are Justified by sincere or imperfect works, because we are justified only by perfect works.  Gal. 
Some of our Party allege that External Works of the Moral Law, not internal, are denied to be our Righteousness for Justification, and thus a Learned Man argues, so far forth as Paul rejects Spiritual and External Works, as unnecessary; he admits of internal Works as necessary, but ritual Works Paul rejects as unnecessary to Justification; therefore he admits Spiritual Works, as necessary to Justification.  Paul. 
I shall borrow the Learned Dr. Tullies, Answer to it( who deserves an Honourable mention for appearing on the behalf of Pauline Justification against its opposers) A pleasant argumentation( saith he) and very like this, so far forth as useless Subjects are excluded, useful Subjects are admitted: but useless Subjects are excluded from a share in Regal Authority; therefore useful Subjects are admitted to a share in it, whereas both sort of Subjects are excluded.[ Tullies Justificatio Paulina, pag. 57. 58.] And I may make bold to add, that the reason is; because not subjects as useless, but merely as Subjects are debarred Regal Authority; and so Works are not rejected from Justification as External, but as Works( though they be Internal and Spiritual.)  Gal. 
But some of our persuasion conceive, that the Works which are denied to justify, are Works done without the assistance of Divine Grace[ or Works done by our own strength.]  Paul. 
If they mean exclusively( as they must, or else speak not to the Question) I see no reason for their Opinion. For it hath been proved sufficiently, that Works done by Grace are not allowed by our Patron Paul, to have any thing to do in Justification( except as Signs or Effects of it) and thence it follows indeed, that much less can he be supposed to allow any thing to Works done without Grace. But if Paul intended directly to exclude from Justification Works done without Grace, he would have fitted his instances to his Position, and have brought in Cain and Judas, rather than David and Abraham for examples of Persons not Justified by the Works be disputed of. But seeing he does otherwise, I cannot but have a better conceit of his logic, who was brought up at the feet of Gamaliel then of your Divines, who were brought up at the feet of Amyraldus.  Gal. 
Once more some of our Party conceive, that the Apostle intends only to exclude from Justification, those Works, which the Workmen thought to be Meritorious.  Paul. 
I Answer, 1. That according to their own explication of their Notion, it follows, that Paul intended to exclude all works, even those of the Gospel Law; and if you will own the consequence, we will shake hands, and be perfect Friends.  Gal. 
I do not apprehended what explication you interpret a giving up our cause.  Paul. 
'tis this, That the Objectors confess, That Christians are prove to place merit in their Faith and Obedience to the Gospel, and that when they do so, their faith and Obedience are by Analogy included in, and refuted by the Apostles discourse( viz) [ as not being the righteousness by which they are justied.]  
But 2. I deny, that the Apostle intended to exclude only, Works imagined to be meritorious, and affirm, that because of the wilderness of fallen Man to place Merit in Works. God to make sure work excludes all werks of our own from being the condition or matter of our Justification, and ascribes this Effect, only to the Work of another ( viz.) Christ, and so there's no pretence for the merit excondigno( as the Popish term is) for the intrinsic value of the works is from the Worthiness of another Subject and Agent, nor expacto, for there is not so much as a promise or contract of God's to justify us, by any Righteousnss in us or dene by us.  Gal. 
But doth not your Doctrine in denying good Works to be the condition of our Justification tond to drive Obedience out of the World?  Paul. 
1. I dare appeal to your own experience, whether this Doctrine hath had any such effect upon the Puritans in our time who were staunch Paulists.  
2. I apprehended not the tendency of it to that end, unless you suppose good Works to be of no other use, than to justify us. And if that be your sentiment, take an Answer to it from a Pious Learned Divine of New-England. Obj. Good Works are useless, if they be not for Justification. Sol. There are uses and necessary uses for our good Works, Tit. 3.14. Though they serve not for our Justification. To say otherwise, is as if a Man should say, What use of Money, if I cannot eat it? and of my House, if I cannot carry it about? for I can buy Meat with my Money, and dwell in my House.[ chancy of Justification, pag. 216.]  Gal. 
But your Author does not name the uses.  Paul. 
But I can easily supply that defect. They are, an acknowledgement of Gods sovereignty; that we cease not to be Creatures, by being made New Creatures, an Expression of our Gratitude to our Benefactor, 1 Cor. 6. last, A showing forth of Gods Praises, 1 Pet. 2.9. or virtues {αβγδ}( as I am  told the Greek is) i. e. the Divine Perfections, Justice, Goodness, Truth, &c. For which God is worthy to be Praised[ Psal. 18.3.] by our imitation of them.  Gal. 
But surely Good works are necessary to Justification and Salvation?  Paul. 
Many Learned Men think it not safe to use such a Proposition. But rather this, Good Works are necessary to justified Persons, or to those that shall be saved.  Gal. 
I think they are more Nice than Wise. What's the difference between those two Propositions.  Paul. 
The Former makes good works conditions effecting Justification. The Latter makes them Offices and Duties in the Persons justified.[ An. burgess. Vind, Leg. p. 40.]  Gal. 
Doth not your Doctrine confirm the World in their Soul cozening Faith, in taking Christ for a Saviour, and not for a Lord? Surely the easiness of the former, and difficulty of the Latter seemeth to tell us, that this is a necessary part of Justisying Faith.  Paul. 
To your Question, I Answer, Negatively; but you misrepresent our Doctrine. Have not I argued with you sufficiently about it, and showed you that taking Christ for our Lord is an act of Justifying Faith, though not as Justifying, i.e. that the same Faith that accepts of Christ for Justification, accepts him also for Sanctification; but yet, that latter acceptance is not the condition of our Justification, &c. As for your talk of the easiness of taking Christ for a Saviour, if my long acquaintance with you, gave not ground to judge you a good Christian, I should much suspect your state for such words. For surely the heart of Man is as much averse from Justification by the Righteousness of Christ, as a Tradesman who hath been long set up for himself, is to serve an apprenticeship.[ red Rom. 10.3.] But I suppose your meaning is, that because we allow not a purpose of submitting to Christs Laws, nor an actual Submission to be the Condition of our Justification; therefore our Doctrine encourages Men to look for Happiness without Holiness. But I Answer, that there is no ground from it, for such encouragement, for we constantly affirm, that Sanctification is inseparable from Justification, and though it gives not a right, yet it does a fitness for Heaven; the main happiness thereof lying in mutual Communion between God and us, there can be no liking between God and us, unless there be a likeness between us.  Gal. 
Is not this excluding of sincere Obedience from Justification the great stumbling block of Papists?  Paul. 
Are you thereabouts, my Old Friend? It seems then you symbolise with them, how else does your Doctrine remove the stambling block, which ours puts in their way? And indeed you make the Gospel a Law with threats? So they. Your Arguments for the conditionality, are all the same with theirs, for the merit of Gospel Works in Justification.  Gal. 
But there is a wide difference between conditionality and merit.  Paul. 
We will talk of that by and by. In the mean while, I must tell you, that it is very lucky that your Arguments should be the same, and yet your Doctrine different.  Gal. 
But there is a geat deal of difference between our Doctrine and the Popish. For they take Justifying for Sanctifying, but so do not we.  Paul. 
Though you do not consound the Terms, yet you do, the things signified by them. I mean, you make Works the matter of Justification and Sanctification.  Gal. 
They overthrow the most real difference between the Old Covenant,& the New, and make them in a manner all one.  Paul. 
The most real difference between those two Covenants, I take to be, that in the former our Justification was by personal righteousness; in the latter by righteousness of another imputed to us. And though ye do own[ after a sort,] imputed Righteousness, yet by introducing a personal Righteousness for Justification, ye do in a manner wake the two Covenants one, as well as the Papists. For if this latter righteousness can obtain the end you assign it, the former is useless as to that end.  Gal. 
But when they say, we are justified by Works of the Gospel; they mean only that we are Sanctified by works that follow Faith.  Paul. 
If that be their only meaning, they are sounder than you. For then, they do not own Justification by Works of the Gospel, as you do.  Gal. 
The Papists take our Works to be part of our Legal Righteousness; we take them not to be the smallest portion of it; but only a part of our Evangelical Righteousness, or of the condition upon which Christs Righteousness shall be ours.  Paul. 
1. You wrong the Papists to right yourselves. For they do not make their inherent Righteousness part of Christ's Righteousness, but they ascribe the merit of the former to the merit of the latter: or( to use their own words,) they say, Christ hath merited that we should merit: Or that our works merit being dipped in the blood of Christ.  
2. Whereas you say, You do not take works to be the smallest portion of our Legal Righteousness: It cannot sink into my head, that you can mean as you say, because you assign the same end to your Works, which Christ aimed at in his; I mean, our justification. We indeed truly affirm, that our Works are not the smallest portion of our Legal Righteousness; because we do them not for the same end, that Christ did his ( viz.) for our Justification, but for the Glory of God's sovereignty, which is not depressed by the exaltation of Mercy.  
3. You call your Works only a part of our Evangelical Righteousness. Pray what is the other part?  Gal. 
Faith. Have you forgotten our late Discourse?  Paul. 
No, no. But I thought fit to quicken your attention by the Question, to a passage of the Learned Ball,( whom your party unjustly claim) How Faith and Works should be conjoined, as con-causes in Justification is impossible to conceive,[ Treat. Covenant of Grace, p. 70.]  Gal. 
But he was mistaken: Do not you remember what I  told you lately, that our Works are part of the condition upon which Christs Righteousness shall be ours, and Faith another part. And so they are con-causes or have the same causality ( viz.) of a condition of Justification.  Paul. 
But this will not salue the difficulty. For then Faith is not contra-distinguished to Works, but is only one more eminent part of the Works by which we are justified, and so Faith and Works are not joynt-Causes, but Works are the Sole cause[ or condition] of our Justification. I conclude with a repetition of a passage of the Learned Tully,( which one that understands latin hath translated for me) concerning the Author of those differences you have assigned between the Popish Doctrine and yours. The Reverend A. endeavours indeed to clear his opinion from the suspicion of that contagion[ viz. Popery] but this he does so faintly, in so few words, and so cursorily, that any one may perceive be undertook a task no way greatful to himself,[ Just if. Paul. p. 116.] But now it is high time to proceed to another neither grand Argument against your conditionality of works done by Grace. The First was that no works are the condition of Justification therefore not Works done by Grace.  
Arg. 2. The Second is, That if Works done by Grace are the condition[ or matter] of Justification before God, then our Justification is not of Grace.  Gal. 
I should think that the Consequence should be rather, that then our Justification is of Grace.  Paul. 
No such matter; at least, if you will credit a Divine of your own Denomination, who says; By the Covenant of works the mere work gave an interest in the reward, as it was obedience to the precept, by a Sanclion that had goodness, but no such Grace,[ viz. as that in the Covenant of Grace] It seems then, that in his Opinion, the goodness[ or Grace] of God did not appear so eminently in the Covenant of Works wherein the promise was made to the mere Work, as it does, in the Covenant of Grace. And hence I infer, that therefore this latter Covenant, that it may answer its denomination, and be sufficiently distinguished from the former, must not have a sanction[ or promise of Justification and Salvation] made to the mere Works. i. e. Obedience to the Precept, which yet he and you assert in sense, though not in the very terms mentioned. And one of your Party upon Rom. 3.28, 29. compared, says, that we are Justified, i.e. accounted Righteous and dealt with accordingly: By believing in Christ, which is our Gospel Righteousness, or the terms and conditions of the Covenant of Grace for Justification( as amongst us some Felons are quited as to life by their Clergy, or upon their reading.) And this Faith, he describes, such a firm, hearty, lively belief of Christ to be what the Gospel declares him to be, as begets sincere obedience in the life. It is plain, that this author makes Faith in Christ such a condition, as reading to the Felons acquittal. And sure this a mere Work required by the Law by virtue whereof his life is saved. And he makes that Faith to be a Dogmatical Faith; which is a mere work, and cannot be otherwise considered, then as such. Let us frame a definition of the Faith required in the Covenant of Works, according to this Authors Notion. It was such a firm, hearty, lively belief of God to be, what the Light of Nature declared him to be, as begot perfect Obedience in the life. And then, I think he is quick sighted, that can discern a difference between the one Faith and the other in their respect to the Sanctions. For both are mere works, and as such, give interest in the reward promised.  Gal. 
But the reward is not to the mere Work in the Covenant of Grace, because 'tis but Sincerity( which is consistent with Sin,) that is the condition of the reward.  Paul. 
The same author upon Rom. 3.27. interprets the Law of works to be that Law which requires perfect Obedience for Justification, and the Law of Faith, that Gospel Law, which sets up Faith in the room of Law-works for Justification, so that then, whether the work were perfect or sincere Justification is the reward promised to both; to the former, as a mere Old Law-work, to the latter, as a mere New Law-work.  Gal. 
But the aforesaid Author says, on Rom. 3.9. All being guilty of Sin, are equally excluded from possibility of being justified by Works.  Paul. 
But all New Law-Workers are guilty of Sin, Ergo, they are equally excluded from a possibility of being Justified by Works.  Gal. 
But you omit what the author adds in the same verse. And therefore the Gospel righteousness is no less necessary for the one[ the Jews] than the other[ the Gentiles.]  Paul. 
Well minded. Necessary for what? To reconcile contradictions; that they who being Sinners cannot be Justified by any Works, should be justified by some[ viz. New Law-Works.]  Gal. 
But how do you prove your Consequence, that if Works of Grace be the condition of Justification? then Justification is not of Grace.  Paul. 
Because those Works give occasion of hoasting, so Rom. 3.27. Hence the Apostle Argues, chap. 4.2. which runs thus. If Abraham were justified by Works, he hath whereof to Glory [ viz. before God] But he hath not whereof to glory before God; therefore Abraham was not justified by Works.[ So Calv. Par. and others.]  Gal. 
But these Works are such as were done without special grace, or perfect, &c.  Paul. 
Enough hath been said to confute that pretence.  Gal. 
But Faith is the Work of God, and so takes away boasting of our own Abilities, and Righteousness.  Paul. 
As though Works done by common grace, or perfect works, were not the Works of God too; and upon the same ground exclude Boasting in our own Abilities.  
2. As to Righteousness, if Faith be such, either it gives ground of boasting( and so is excluded from Justification) or if it don't, then the Apostle gives a caution where there is no danger. I shall only add, that the Apostles design is, to prove, that we are Justified by Grace, and so all pretence of Boasting is excluded, Because we are not Justified by any Righteousness in us from Christ, but by a Righteousness in Christ for us. And so we proceed to,  
Arg. 3. If we are justified by Righteousness of Christ imputed, then we are not justified by our inherent Righteousness: But the former is true, and therefore the latter. That Christ's Righteousness is imputed appears by Rom. 4.11. compared with 2 Cor. 5. ult.  Gal. 
But what do you mean by the term Imputation in this Question?  Paul. 
It is an Act of God ascribing to us the Righteousness of Christ, and accounting it ours no less, than if we had in our own Persons performed it,[ so Dr. W. Slater on Rom. 4.6. p. 52. and generally our Divines to the same sense if their words be somewhat different] And the Foundation of this Act of Gods, they make Christ's suretyship, mentioned, Heb. 7.22.  Gal. 
This Opinion seemeth to ascribe to God a mistaking judgement, as to esteem us to have done in Christ what we did not.  Paul. 
There's no more ground to suppose a mistake in God, than in the Creditor, that he should reckon his debt paid by the Debtor, when he knew it was paid by the Surety. But as the payment of the debt by the surety is in the eye of the Law the Debtor's Act. So is the Righteousness of Christ performed by him in our stead, by legal reputation, is our act and dead, and is available to us, as if had been personal.  Gal. 
Then we are as Righteous as Christ.  Paul. 
1. Some of our Divines deny the consequence, and think it no better than this, The Debtor is as rich as his Surety, because the Surety hath paid his Debt[ Clarkson Sermon a Morning Lecture against Popery, pag. 455.] And they give this Reason, Because the Righteousness of christ is not imputed to any particular believer according to the whole latitude of it, but as he needs it,[ Dav. Just. Hab. p. 331.]  
2. Some Divines grant the consequence, with limitation. A Learned Man in a Sermon just now published: says, As Christ is perfectly Righteous having fully paid the Debt, and being fully discharged, so are they in him. And he adds for illustration and proof, The Original Debtor is as clear and free as his surety is, considered as his surety, when the debt is paid, and that payment accepted for, and adjudged to the Original Debtor, by the Creditor.[ Mr. Nath. madder. Ser. Righteousness of God, p. 24, 25.] And I see not what exception can be made against the grant, thus bounded.  Gal. 
But you have forgot to prove your consequence.  Paul. 
No, no. That is proved thus, he that hath a Righteousness of his own, needs not another's for Justification. And he that is Justified by anothers Righteousness, must needs be supposed to be destitute of any Righteousness of his own. And thus much is imported in that notable Scripture, Phil. 3.8, 9. which all Old Protestant Divines were wont to urge against the Papists. The great Calvin observes on this place, that the Apostles compares two Righteousnesses together, Man's own, and Gods, as contraries which cannot stand together— For whereas the, Law brings Works, Faith essers a naked Man to God, that he may be clothed with the Righteousness of Christ.  Gal. 
Some of our Divines understand the Righteousness here opposed to be Pauls Jewish and Evangelical Righteousness.  Paul. 
1. Then there's no Opposition, at all, not between the Righteousnesses, for neither of them are a Righteousness: nor the former for that is defective in parts,[ external Righteousness without internal,] not the latter, for that is defective in degrees[ by the Apostles acknowledgement, ver. 12. Not as through I were already perfect nor between the Apostles interest in them. If the words my own refer to the Author, neither of the Righteousnesses were his own, both Gods. If to the Subject and Agent, then both were his own.[ see Acts. 15.9.1 Joh. 3.3.] And it cannot sink into my head, that the Apostle could not speak sense.  
2. Supposing the Law of Opposition observed: Why does the Apostle renounce his own Pharajaical Righteousness?  Gal. 
Because it would not be gain to him. i. e. advantageous to him to procure acceptance with God.  Paul. 
Then it seems he relied upon his own Gospel Righteousness for that end, which could not be obtained by his other Righteousness. But I have always thought, that God hath made us accepted in the beloved, Eph. 1.6. i. e. that Christ's Righteousness,[ viz. whereof himself is the Subject and Agent] had been the procuring cause of our acceptance with God.  Gal. 
But a late Author urges many Arguments to confirm his interpretation.  Paul. 
I am not ignorant of them, but what you have heard now will give you an intimation what Answer may be returned. My occasions call me away, you and I may have perhaps an opportunity to discourse further of these Points, and others wherein your Party stand at a great distance from ours. In the mean while, as to the main point we have been upon, I would have you consider, that all the Protestant Arguments, though they are directed against the merit of Works asserted by the Papists, yet they exclude the Conditionality of them too; because they make Faith the only medium or instrument of applying Christs Righteousness, as the mere Act of the eye, was the only means of cure to the Israelites bitten by fiery Serpents, John 3.14.15.  Gal. 
This parting word sticks. I believe I shall shortly be a Deserter.  Paul. 
The sooner the better.  
FINIS.