is very small The chief difference lyeth in this That the Terminus a quo of Remission is the obligation to punishment but the Terminus of Iustification or the evil that it formally and directly doth free us from is the Laws Accusation and Condemnation Now though the difference between these two be very narrow and rather respective then reall yet a plain difference there is For though it be one and the same Commination of the Law by which men are both obliged to punishment accused as guilty and condemned for that guilt yet these are not all one though it is also true that they all stand or fall together That pardon is most properly the removing of the Obligation and that Iustification is the removing of Accusation and Condemnation in the Law will be evident to those that have read what Divines have written at large concerning the signification of the words especially such that have skill in Law which is a great advantage in this doctrine of Iustification Therefore as Mr. Wotten and Mr. Goodwin do a little mistake in making pardon of sin to be the formall cause of Iustification though they are far neerer the mark then their opposers So Mr. Bradshaw doth a little too much straiten the form of it making it to lye only in Apology or Plea It consisteth in both the Acts 1. Apology in oppositioÌ„ to AccusatioÌ„ thus Christ our Advocate doth principally justifie us 2. In Sentence virtuall or actuall so it is opposed both to Accusation and Condemnation so Christ the Mediator as Iudge and the Father as one with him and as the supream Iudge doth justifie But this latter is the chief Act. The rest of the Definition is sufficiently opened under the foregoing Definition of Pardon and will be more after THESIS XXXIX IVstification in Sentence of Iudgement is a gracious Act of God by Christ according to the Gospel by Sentence at his publique Bar acquitting the sinner from the Accusation and Condemnation of the Law pleaded against him by Satan upon the consideration of the Satisfaction made by Christ accepted by the sinner and pleaded for him EXPLICATION THere is also a two-fold Pardon as well as a two-fold Iustification One in Law the other in Sentence of Iudgement So. Acts 3. 19. Repent that your sins may be blotted out when the time of refreshing comes c. But pardon of sin is usually mentioned in respect to this life present as being bestowed here because a man may more fitly be said to be fully quit from the Obligation of the punishment commonly called the guilt in this life then from the Accusation of that guilt which will be managed against him by Satan hereafter or from the Condemnation which he must then most especially be delivered from The difference betwixt this Iustification and the former may easily be discerned by the Definition without any further Explication THESIS XL. WHen Scripture speaketh of Iustification by Faith it is to be understood primarily and directly of Iustification in Law title and at the bar of Gods publique Iudgment and but secondarily and consequentially of Iustification at the bar of Gods secret judgment or at the bar of Conscience or of the World EXPLICATION 1. THat Justification by Faith is in foro-Dei and not in foro conscientiae primarily see Dr. Downam's Appendix to Covenant of Grace against Mr Pemble Conscience is but an inferiour petty improper Judge The work must be transacted chiefly at a higher Tribunall View all the Scriptures that mention Justification by Faith and you shall finde by the Text and Context that they relate to the bar of God but not one directly to the bar of Conscience It is one thing to be justified and another thing to have it manifested to our Consciences that we are so 2. That it is not directly at the bar of the World all will acknowledge 3. That it is not directly at the bar of Gods secret Judgment in his own brest may appear thus 1. That is not a bar at which God dealeth with sinners for Justification or Condemnation in any known or visible way No Scripture intimateth it 2. We could not then judge of our Justification 3. They are immanent Acts but Justification is a transient Act Therefore Dr Downame in the place before mentioned hath proved against Mr Pemble that Justification is not from Eternity And as I judge by his following Tract of Justification Mr Pemble himself came afterwards to a sounder Judgment in the nature of Justification 4. God dealeth with man in an open way of Law and upon Covenant terms and so will try him at a publique Judgment according to the Tenor of his Covenants There secrets of his brest are too high for us By the word will he judge us That must justifie or condemn us Therefore when you hear talk of the Bar of God you must not understand it of the immanent Acts of Gods Knewledg or Will but of his Bar of publique Judgment and in the sence of the Word Some think that Justification by Faith is properly and directly none of all these yet but that it is a publique Act of God in heaven before his Angels I think this opinion better then any of the three former which would have it at the Bar of Gods secret Judgment or of Conscience or of the World and I know no very ill consequence that followeth it But that God doth condemn or justifie at any such Bar. I find no Scripture fully to satisfie or perswade me Those places Rom. 2. 13. Heb. 9. 24. Luke 12 8 9. 15. 10. which are alledged to that purpose seem not to conclude any â—â—ch thing as that to be the Bar where Faith doth most properly justifie Yet I acknowledge that in a more remote sence we may be said to be justified by Faith at all the four other Bars viz. Gods Immanent Judgment and before the Angels and before Conscience and the World For God and Angels do judge according to Truth and take those to be just who are so in Law and in deed and so do our Consciences and Men when they judge rightly and when they do not we cannot well be said to be justified at their Bar. Therefore I think they mistake who would have Works rather then Faith to justifie us at the Bar of the World as I shall shew afterward when I come to open the conditions of Justification THESIS XLI THat saying of our Divines That Iustification is perfected at first and admits of no degrees must be understood thus That each of those Acts which we call Iustification are in their own kind perfect at once and that our Righteousness is perfect and admits not of degrees But yet as the former Acts called Iustification do not fully and in all respects procure our freedom so they may be said to be imperfect and but degrees toward our full and perfect Iustification at the last Iudgment THESIS XLII THere are many such steps toward our finall and
c. are implyed in the Covenant expressed as the necessary for future therefore if there be no conjugall actions affections or fidelity follow the Covenant is not performed nor shall the woman enjoy the benefits expected It is so here especially seeing Christ may dis-estate the violaters of his Covenant at pleasure This sheweth us how to answer the Objections of some 1. Say they Abrahams Faith was perfect long before Answ. Not as it is a fulfilling of the Covenants Condition which also requireth its acting by Obedience 2. Abraham say they was justified long before Isaac was offered therefore that could be but a manifesting of it Answ. Justification is a continued Act. God is still justifying and the Gospell still justifying Abrahams Justification was not ended before 3. Mr Pemble thinks that as a man cannot be said to live by Reason though he may be said to live by a reasonable soul and as a plant liveth not per augmentationem si per animam auctricem So we may be said to be justified by a working Faith but not by Works I Answ. Both Speeches are proper And his simile doth not square or suit with the Case in hand For Justifying is an extrinsecall consequent or product of Faith and no proper effect at all Much lesse an effect flowing from its own formall essence as the life of a man doth from a Reasonable soul and the life of a Plant from a Vegetative I hope it may be said properly enough that a Servant doth his work and pleaseth his Master by Reason as well as by a reasonable soul And a Plant doth please the Gardiner by augmentation as well as per animam austricem So that a man pleaseth God and is Justified by sincere Obedience as well as by a working Faith 3. How this differeth from the Papists Doctrine I need not tell any Scholar who hath read their writings 1. They take Justifying for Sanctifying so do not I. 2. They quite overthrow and deny the most reall difference betwixt the Old Covenant and the New and make them in a manner all one But I build this Exposition and Doctrine chiefly upon the clear differencing and opening of the Covenants 3. When they say We are Justified by VVorks of the Gospell they mean only that we are sanctified by Works that follow Faith and are bestowed by Grace they meriting our inherent justice at Gods hands In a word there is scarce any one Doctrins wherein even their most learned Schoolmen are more sottishly ignorant then in this of Justification so that when you have read them with profit and delight on some other subjects when they come to this you would pitty them and admire their ignorance They take our Works to be part of our Legall Righteousness I take them not to be the smallest portion of it But onely a part of our Evangelicall Righteousness or of the Condition upon which Christs Righteousness shall be ours 5. But what difference is there betwixt it and the Socinian Doctrin of Justification Answ. In some mens mouths Socinianisme is but a word of reproach or a stone to throw at the head of any man that saith not as they Mr. Wotton is a Socinian and Mr. Bradshaw and Mr. Gataker and Mr. Goodwin and why not Piscator Pareus c. if some zealous Divines know what Socinianisme is But I had rather study what is Scripture-truth then what is Socinianisme I do not think that Faustus was so Infaustus as to hold nothing true That which he held according to Scripture is not Socinianisme For my part I have read little of their writings but that little gave me enough and made me cast them away with abhorrence In a word The Socinians acknowledge not that Christ had satisfied the Law for us and consequently is none of our Legall Righteousness but onely hath set us a copy to write after and is become our pattern and that we are Justified by following him as a Captain and guide to heaven And so all our proper Righteousness is in this obedience Most accursed Doctrine So farre am I from this that I say The Righteousness which we must plead against the Lawes accusations is not one grain of it in our Faith of Works but all out of us in Christs satisfaction Onely our Faith Repentance and sincere Obedience are the Conditions upon which we must partake of the former And yet such Conditions as Christ worketh in us freely by his Spirit 6. Lastly let us see whether St. Paul or any other Scripture do contract this And for my part I know not one word in the Bible that hath any strong appearance of Contradiction to it The usuall places quoted are these Rom. 3. 28. 4. 2. 3. 14. 15. 16. Gal. 2. 16. 3. 21. 22. Ephes. 2. 89. Phil. 3. 8. 9. In all which and all other the like places you shall easily perceive 1. That the Apostles dispute is upon the question What is the Righteousness which we must plead against the Accusation of the Law or by which we are justified as the proper Righteousness of that Law And this he well concludeth is neither Works nor Faith But the Righteousnesse which is by Faith that is Christs Righteousnesse But now St. Iames his question is What is the Condition of our Justification by this Righteousness of Christ Whether Faith onely or Works also 2. Paul doth either in expresse words or in the sence and scope of his speech exclude onely the works of the Law that is the fulfilling of the Conditions of the Law our selves But never the fulfilling of the Gospell-Conditions that we may have part in Christ. Indeed if a man should obey the Commands of the Gospell with a Legall intent that it might be a Righteousnesse conform to the Law of Works this Obedience is not Evangelicall but Legall obedience For the form giveth the name 3 Paul doth by the word Faith especially direct your thoughts to Christ beleeved in For to be justified by Christ and to be justified by receiving Christ is with him all one 4. And when he doth mention Faith as the Condition he alwayes implyeth obedience to Christ. Therefore Beleeving and obeying the Gospell are put for the two Summaries of the whole Conditions The next will clear this THESIS LXXVII THat we are justified by sincere obedience to Christ as the secondary part of the Condition of our Iustification is evident also from these following Scriptures Mat. 12. 37. Mar. 11. 25. 26. Luk. 6. 37. Mat. 6. 12. 14. 15. 1 Joh. 1. 9. Act. 8. 22. Act. 3. 19. 22. 16. 1 Pet. 4. 18. Rom. 6. 16. 1 Pet. 1. 2. 22. THESIS LXXVIII OVr full Iustification and our everlasting Salvation have the same Conditions on our part But sincere Obedtence is without all doubt a Condition of our Salvation therefore also of our Iustification EXPLICATION THe Antecedent is manifest in that Scripture maketh Faith a Condition of both Iustification and Salvation and so it doth
none in this life For even when we do perform the Condition yet still the Discharge remains conditional till we have quite finished our performance For it is not one instantaneous Act of beleeving which shall quite discharge us but a continued Faith No longer are we discharged then we are Beleevers And where the condition is not performed the Law is still in force and shall be executed upon the offender himself I speak nothing in all this of the directive use of the Moral Law to Beleevers But how far the Law is yet in force even as it is a Covenant of Works because an utter Repeal of it in this sence is so commonly but inconsiderately asserted That it is no further overthrown no not to Beleevers then is here explained I now come to prove THESIS XIII IF this were not so but that Christ had abrogated the first Covenant then it would follow 1. That no sin but that of Adam and final Vnbelief is so much as threatned with death or that death is explicitely that is by any Law due to it or deserved by it For what the Law in force doth not threaten that is not explicitely deserved or due by Law 2. It would follow That Christ dyed not to prevent or remove the wrath and curse so deserved or due to us for any but Adams sin nor to pardon our sins at all but only to prevent our desert of wrath and curse and consequently to prevent our need of pardon 3. It would follow That against eternal wrath at the day of Iudgment we must not plead the pardon of any sin but the first but our own non-desert of that wrath because of the repeal of that Law before the sin was committed All which consequences seem to me unsufferable which cannot be avoyded if the Law be repealed EXPLICATION WHen God the absolute Soveraign of the World shall but command though he expresly threaten no punishment to the disobedient yet implicitely it may be said to be due that is the offence in it self considered deserveth some punishment in the generall for the Law of Nature containeth some generall Threatenings as well as Precepts as I shewed before Whether this Dueness of punishment which I call implicite do arise from the nature of the offence only or also because of this generall threat in the Law of Nature I will not dispute But God dealeth with his Creature by way of legall government and keepeth not their deserved punishment from their knowledge no more then their duty it being almost as necessary to be known for our incitement as the Precept for our direction Gods laws are perfect laws fitted to the attainment of all their ends And by these laws doth he rule the world and according to them doth he dispose of his rewards and punishments So that we need not fear that which is not threatened And in this sence it is that I say That what no law in force doth threaten that sin doth not explicitely deserve Not so deserve as that we need to fear the suffering of it And upon this ground the three fore-mentioned consequences must needs follow For the new Covenant threateneth not Death to any sin but final unbelief or at least to no sin without final unbelief And therefore if the old Covenant be abrogated then no law threateneth it And consequently 1 Our Sin doth not deserve it in the sence expressed Nor Christ prevent the wrath deserved but only the desert of wrath 3. And therefore not properly doth he pardon any such sin as you will see after when I come to open the nature of pardon 4 We may plead our non deserving of death for our discharge at judgment 5. And further then Christ in satisfying did not bear the punishment due to any sin but Adams first For that which is not threatened to us was not executed on him This is a clear but an intolerable consequence 6. Scripture plainly teacheth That all men even the Elect are under the Law till they beleeve enter into the Covenant of the Gospel Therefore it is said Ioh. 3. 18. He that beleeveth not is condemned already And the wrath of God abideth on him ver 26. And we are said to beleeve for Remission of sins Acts 2. 38. Mark 1. 4. Luk. 24. 47. Act. 10. 43. 3. 19. Which shew that sin is not before remitted and consequently the Law not repealed but suspended and left to the dispose of the Redeemer Else how could the Redeemed be by nature the children of wrath Ehp. 2. 3. The circumcised are debters to the whole Law Gal. 5. 3 4. and Christ is become of none effect to them But they that are led by the Spirit are not under the law and against such there is no law Gal. 5. 18 23. The Scripture hath concluded all under Sin and so far under the Law no doubt that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to them that beleeve Gal. 3. 22. We are under the Law when Christ doth redeem us Gal. 4. 5. See also Iam. 2. 9 10. 1 Tim. 18. 1 Cor. 15. 56. Gal. 3. 19 20 21. Therefore our deliverance is conditionally from the curse of the Law viz. if we will obey the Gospel And this deliverance together with the abrogation of the Ceremonial Law is it which is so oft mentioned as a priviledge of beleevers and an effect of the blood of Christ which deliverance from the curse is yet more full when we perform form the Conditions of our freedom And then we are said to be dead to the Law Rom. 7. 4. And the Obligation to punishment dead as to us ver 6. But not the Law void or dead in it self 7 Lastly All the Scriptures and Arguments pag. 60. 61. which prove That afflictions are punishments do prove also that the Law is not repealed For no man can suffer for breaking a repealed Law nor by the threats of a repealed Law yet I know that this Covenant of Works continueth not to the same ends and uses as before nor is it so to be preached or used We must neither take that Covenant as a way to life as if now we must get salvation by our fulfilling its condition nor must we look on its curse as lying on us remedilesly THESIS XIV 1 THe Tenor of the new Covenant is this That Christ having made sufficient satisfaction to the Law Whosoever will repent and believe in him to the end shall be justified through that Satisfaction from all that the Law did charge upon them and be moreover advanced to far greater Priviledges and Glory then they fell from But whosoever fulfilleth not these conditions shall 2 have no more benefit from the blood of Christ then what they here received and abused but must answer the charge of the Law themselves and for their neglect of Christ must also suffer a far greater condemnation Or briefly Whosoever believeth in Christ shall not perish but have everlasting life but he that
of Pardon Justification doth then absolutely pardon and justifie us when we perform the Condition Hence is the phrase in Scripture of being Iustified by the Law which doth not only signifie by the Law as the Rule to which men did fit their actions but also by the Law as not condemning but justifying the person whose actions are so fitted In which sence the Law did justifie Christ or else the Law should not justifie as a Law or Covenant but only as a Direction which properly is not Justifying but only a means to discover that we are Justifiable As the Word of Christ shall judge men at the last day Ioh. 12. 28. So doth it virtually now And if it judge then doth it condemn and justifie So Rom. 2. 12. Iam. 2 12. We shall be judged by the Law of Liberty Gal. 5. 3. 4 23. In the same sence as the Law is said to convince and curse Iam. 2. 9. Gal. 3. 13. it may be said that the Gospell or new Law doth acquit justifie and bless Rom. 8. 12. The Law of the Spirit of Life in Christ Iesus hath made me from the Law of Sin and Death As the Law worketh Wrath and where is no Law there is no Transgression Rom. 4. 15. And as sin is not imputed where there is no Law Rom. 5. 13. and the strength of sin is the law 1 Cor. 15. 56 So the new law is the strength of Righteousness and worketh Deliverance from Wrath and were there no such new Covenant there would be no Righteousness inherent or imputed Ioh. 7. 51. So that I conclude That this transient Act of God pardoning and justifying constitutive is his Grant in the new Covenant by which as a Morall Instrument our Justification and Pardon are in time produced even when we beleeve the Obligation of the Law being then by it made void to us And this is the present apprehension I have of the nature of Remission and Justification Si quid novisti rectius c. yet I shall have occasion afterwards to tell you That all this is but Remission and Justification in Law and Title which must be distinguished from that which is in Judgment or Sentence the former being vertual in respect of the Actuality of the latter 2. The second kinde of Gods Acts which may be called Justifying is indeed Immanent viz. his knowing the sinner to be pardoned and just in Law his Willing and Approving hereof as True and Good These are Acts in Heaven yea in God himself but the former sort are on earth also I would not have those Acts of God separated which he doth conjoyn as he ever doth these last with the former But I verily think that it is especially the former transient legall Acts which the Scripture usually means when it speaks of Pardoning and constitutive Justifying and not these Immanent Acts though these must be looked on as concurrent with the former Yet most Divines that I meet with seem to look at Pardon and Justification as being done in heaven only and consisting only in these later Immanent Acts And yet they deny Justification to be an Immanent Act too But how they will ever manifest that these celestiall Acts of God viz. his Willing the sinners Pardon and so forgiving him in his own brest or his accepting him as just are Transient Acts I am yet unable to understand And if they be Immanent Acts most will grant that they are from Eternity and then fair fall the Antinomians Indeed if God have a Bar in Heaven before his Angels where these things are for the present transacted as some think and that we are said to be justified only at the bar now then I confess that is a transient Act indeed But of that more hereafter 7. I add in the definition That all this is done in consideration of the Satisfaction 1 made by Christ 2. Accepted 3. and pleaded with God The satisfaction made is the proper meritorious and impulsive cause 2. So the Satisfaction as pleaded by Christ the intercessor is also an impulsive cause 3. The Satisfactious Acceptance by the Sinner that is Faith and the pleading of it with God by the sinner that is praying for pardon are but the Conditions or Causae sine quo But all these will be fuller opened afterwards THESIS XXXVII IVstification is either 1. in Title and the Sence of the Law 2. Or in Sentence of Iudgment The first may be called Constitutive The second Declarative The first Virtuall the second Actuall EXPLICATION I Will not stand to mention all those other Distinctions of Justification which are common in others not so necessary or pertinent to my purposed scope You may finde them in Mr Bradshaw Mr Iohn Goodwin and Alstedius Distinctions and Definitions c. The difference between Justification in Title of Law and in Sentence of Judgment is apparent at the first view Therefore I need not explain it It is common when a man hath a good cause and the Law on his side to say The Law justifieth him or he is just in Law or he is acquit by the Law and yet he is more fully and compleatly acquit by the sentence of the Judge afterward In the former sence we are now justified by faith as soon as ever we beleeve In the latter sence we are justified at the last Judgment The title of Declarative is too narrow for this last For the sentence of judiciall absolution doth more then barely to declare us justified I call the former virtuall not as it is in it felf considered but as it standeth in relation to the latter All those Scriptures which speak of Justification as done in this life I understand of Justification in Title opf Law So Rom. 5. 1. Being justified by faith we have peace with God Rom. 4. 2. Rom. 5. 9. Being now justified by his blood c. Iames 2. 21 25. c. But Justification in Judgment as it is the compleating Act so is it most fitly called Justification and I think the word in Scripture hath most commonly reference to the Judgment day and that Justification in Title is called Justification most especially because of its relation to the Justification at Judgment because as men are now in point of Law so shall they most certainly be sentenced in Judgment Therefore is it spoken of many times as a future thing and not yet done Rom. 3. 30 Mat. 12. 37. Rom. 2. 13. But these may be called Justification by Faith for by Faith we are justified both in Law Title and at Judgment THESIS XXXVIII IVstification in Title of Law is a gracious Act of God by the Promise or Grant of the new Covevant acquitting the Offender from the Accusasation and Condemnation of the old Covenant upon consideration of the Satisfaction made by Christ and accepted by the sinner EXPLICATION HEre you may see 1. That pardon of sin and this Iustification in Law are not punctually and precisely alone 2. And yet the difference
production of the Effect under the chief Cause And so you may call Faith an Instrument Quest. But though Faith be not the Instrument of Justification may it not be called the Instrument of receiving Christ who Justifieth us Answ. I do not so much stick at this speech as at the former yet is it no proper or fit expression neither For 1. The Act of Faith which is it that justifieth is our Actuall receiving of Christ and therefore cannot be the Instrument of Receiving To say our Receiving is the Instrument of our Receiving is a hard saying 2. And the seed or habite of Faith cannot fitly be called an Instrument For 1. The sanctified faculty it self cannot be the souls Instrument it being the soul it self and not any thing really distinct from the soul nor really distinct from each other as Scotus D'Orbellis Scaliger c. D. Iackson Mr. Pemble think and Mr. Ball questions 2. The holinesse of the Faculties is not their Instrument For 1. It is nothing but themselves rectified and not a Being so distinct as may be called their Instrument 2. Who ever called Habits or Dispositions the souls Instruments The aptitude of a Cause to produce its effect cannot be called the Instrument of it you may as well call a mans Life his Instrument of Acting or the sharpnesse of a knife the knives Instrument as to call our holiness or habituall faith the Instrument of receiving Christ. To the sixth and last Question I Answ. Faith is plainly and undeniably the condition of our Justification The whole Tenour of the Gospell shews that And a condition is but a Causa sine quâ non or a medium or a necessary Antecedent Here by the way take notice that the same men that blame the advancing of Faith so high as to be our true Gospell Righteousnesse Posit 17. 20. and to be inputed in proper sence Posit 23. do yet when it comes to the triall ascribe far more to Faith then those they blame making it Gods Instrument in justifying 1. And so to have part of the honour of Gods own Act 2. And that from a reason intrinsecall to faith it self 3. And from a Reason that will make other Graces to be Instruments as well as Faith For Love doth truly receive Christ also 4. And worst of all from a Reason that will make man to be the Causa proxima of his own Justification For man is the Causa proxima of believing and receiving Christ and therefore not God but man is said to beleeve And yet these very men do send a Hue and Crie after the Tò credere for robbing Christ of the glory of Iustification when we make it but a poor improper Causa sine qua non And yet I say as before that in Morality yea and in Naturality some Causae sine qua non do deserve much of the honour but that Faith doth not so I have shewed in the 23. Position Some think that Faith may be some small low Impulsive Cause but I will not give it so much though if it be made a Procatarctick Objective Cause I shall not contend THESIS LVII IT is the Act of Faith which justifieth men at age and not the habit yet not as it is a good work or as it hath in it's self any excellency in it above other Graces But 1. In the neerest sence directly and properly as it is The fulfilling of the Condition of the New Convenant 2. In the remote and more improper sence as it is The receiving of Christ and his satisfactory Righteousnesse EXPLICATION 1. THat the habit of Faith doth not directly and properly justifie appeares from the tenour of the Covenant which is not He that disposed to beleeve shall be saved But he that believeth 2. That Faith doth not properly justifie through any excellency that it hath above other Graces or any more usefull property may appear thus 1. Then the praise would be due to Faith 2. Then love would contend for a share if not a priority 3. Then Faith would justifie though it had not been made the Condition of the Covenant Let those therefore take heed that make Faith to justifie meerely because it apprehendeth Christ which is its naturall effentiall property 3. That it is Faith in a proper sence that is said to justifie and not Christs Righteousnesse onely which it receiveth may appear thus 1. From the necessity of two-fold righteousness which I have before proved in reference to the two-fold Covenant 2. From the plain and constant Phrase of Scripture which saith He that beleeveth shall be justified and that we are justified by Faith and that faith is imputed for righteousnesse It had been as easie for the Holy Ghost to have said that Christ onely is imputed or his righteousnesse onely or Christ onely justifieth c. If he had so meant He is the most excusable in an error that is lead into it by the constant expresse phrase of Scripture 3. From the nature of the thing For the effect is ascribed to the severall Causes though not alike and in some sort to the Conditions Especially me-thinks they that would have Faith to be the Instrument of Iustification should not deny that we are properly justified by Faith as by an Instrument For it is as proper a speech to say our hand and our teeth feed us as to say our meet feedeth us 4. That Faith doth most directly and properly justifie as its the fulfilling of the Condition of the New Covenant appeareth thus 1 The new Covenant onely doth put the stamp of Gods Authority upon it in making it the Condition A two-fold stamp is necessary to make it a current medium of our Justification 1. Command 2. Promise Because God hath neither Commanded any other meanes 2. Nor promised Justification to any other therefore it is that this is the onely condition and so only thus Justifieth When I read this to be the tenour of the New Covenant Whosoever believeth shall be justified doth it not tell me plainly why Faith Justifieth even because it pleaseth the Law-giver and Covenant-maker to put Faith into the Covenant as its condition 2. What have we else to shew at Gods barr for our Justification but the New Covenant The Authority and Legality of it must bear us out It is upon point of Law that we are condemned and it must be by Law that we must be Justified Therefore we were condemned because the Law which we break did threaten death to our sin If we had committed the same Act and not under a Law that had threatned it with death we might not have dyed So therefore are we Justified because the New Law doth promise Iustification to our faith If we had performed the same Act under the first Covenant it would not have Iustified As the formall Reason why sin condemneth is because the Law hath concluded it in its threatning so the formall Reason why Faith justifieth is because the New Law of Covenant hath concluded
many But I know nothing can be said against it but by denying the Antecedent viz. That Faith as it Accepteth Christ for Lord and King doth Justifie But that I have proved before If it be one Faith and have the Object entirely propounded as one and be one entire principall part of the Covenants Condition then sure it cannot be divided in the work of Justifying This may be easily apprehended if men will but understand these three things 1. That Faith is no Physicall or naturall proper Receiving of Christ at all But meerly a morall Receiving though performed by a Physicall Act of Accepting For thy Will doth not naturally touch and take in the person of Christ That is an impossible thing whatsoever the Transubstantiation men may say Though the Essence of the Godhead is every where 2. That this accepting which is a Morall Receiving doth not nor possibly can make Christ ours immediately and properly as it is a Receiving But mediately and improperly onely The formall cause of our interest being Gods Donation by the Gospell Covenant 3. That this Covenant maketh a whole entire Faith its Condition A Receiving of whole Christ with the whole soul It is as Amesius Actio totius hominis And if the Covenant doe make Christ as King the object of that Faith which is its Condition as well as Christ as a Deliverer or Priest Then may it be as fit a Medium for our Justification as the other That Obedience is as neere a fruit of Faith as Affiance is evident if you take it for the Obedience of the Soul in Acts that are no more remote from the heart then Affiance is And so is the Obedience of our Actions externall in its formall respect as Obedience though not in its materiall because the imperate Acts are not all so neer the fountain as the Elicite I take it here for granted that Dr Downames arguments in the place fore-cited have proved Affiance to be but a fruit of the principall justifying Act of Faith THESIS LXXIII FRom what hath been said it appeareth in what sence Faith only justifieth and in what sence Works also justifie viz. 1. Faith only justifieth as it implieth and includeth all other parts of the condition of the new Covenant and is so put in opposition to the Works of the Law or the personall Righteousnes of the old Covenant 2. Faith only justifieth as the great principall master duty of the Gospell or chief part of its Condition to which all the rest are some way reducible 3. Faith onely doth not justifie in opposition to the Works of the Gospell but those Works do also justifie as the secondary less principall parts of the condition of the Covenant THESIS LXXIV SO that they both justifie in the same kinde of causality viz. as Causa sine quibus non or mediums and improper Causes or as Dr Twisse Causae dispositivae but with this difference Faith as the principal part Obedience as the less principall The like may be said of Love which at least is a secondary part of the Condition and of others in the same station EXPLICATION I Know this is the doctrine that will have the loudest out-cries raised against it and will-make some cry out Heresie Popery Socinianism and what not For my own part the Searcher of hearts knoweth that not singularity affectation of novelty nor any good will to Popery provoketh me to entertain it But that I have earnestly sought the Lords direction upon my knees before I durst adventure on it And that I resisted the light of this Conclusion as long as I was able But a man cannot force his own understanding if the evidence of truth force it not though he may force his pen or tongue to silence or dissembling That which I shall do further is to give you some proofs of what I say and to answer some Objections Though if the foregoing grounds do stand there needs no more proof of these assertions 1. If Faith justifie as it is the fulfilling of the Condition of the new Covenant and Obedience be also part of that Condition then obedience must justifie in the same way as Faith But both parts of the Antecedent are before proved The other proofs follow in the ensuing Positions and their Explications and Confirmations THESIS LXXV THe plain expressions of Saint James should ternifie us from an interpretation contradictory to the Text and except apparent violence be used with his Chap. 2. 21. 24 25 c. it cannot be doubted but that a man is justified by Works and not by Faith only THESIS LXXVI NEither is there the least appearance of a contradiction betwixt this and Paul's doctrine Rom. 3. 28. If men did not through prejudice negligence or wilfulness overlook this That in that and all other the like places the Apostle doth professedly exclude the Works of the Law only from Iustification but never at all the Works of the Gospell as they are the Condition of the new Covenant EXPLICATION IN opening this I shall thus proceed 1. I will shew the clearness of that in Iames for the point in question 2. That Paul is to be understood in the sence expressed 3. How this differeth from the Papists Exposition of these places and from their doctrine of Justification by Works 4. And how from the Socinian doctrine 1. The ordinary Expositions of St. Iames are these two 1. That he speaks of Justification before men and not before God 2. That he speaks of Works as justifying our Faith and not as justifying our persons or as Mr. Pembles phrase is the Apostle when he saith Works justifie must be undestood by a Metonimy that a working Faith justifieth That the former Exposition is falfe may appeare thus 1. The worlds Justification freeth us but from the Worlds Accusation to which it is opposed And therefore it is but either a Justifying from the Accusation of humane Lawes Or else a particular Justification of us in respect of some particular facts or else an usurped Judgement and Justification For they are not constituted our Judges by God And therefore we may say with Paul It is a small thing with me to be judged of you or of mans Iudgement And so a small thing to be Justified by men from the Accusations of the Law of God But the Justification in Iames is of greater moment as appeares in the Text. For 1. It is such as salvation dependeth on vers 14. 2. It is such as followeth onely a living Faith but the world may as well Justifie us when we have no Faith at all I therefore affirme 1. The World is no lawfull Judge of our Righteousness before God or in reference to the Law of God 2. Neither are they competent or capable Judges They cannot possibly passe any certaine true sentence of our Righteousness or unrighteousnesse 3. If they could yet Works are no certain medium or evidence whereby the world can know us to be Righteous For there is no outward work
Law 2. The remote superiour Rule which is the good pleasure and will of the Law-maker 2. The ends which may denominate our righteousnesse more excellent are 1 The glory of Gods justice and mercy 2. The glory of the Mediatours love and the setting up of his kingdom 3 And the good of the creature Or rather all these in one Now these things thus standing I answer thus 1 I acknowledge that the Law made for mankinde doth primarily require obedience and but secondarily suffering and upon supposition of disobedience 2. But you must distinguish betwixt what the law requireth of us and what of the Mediatour the law to the creature and the law to the Mediatour are in severall things different The will of his Father which he came to doe consisted in many things which were never required of us such are all the works proper to the office of Mediatourship Now though the Law required of us meer creatures primarily Obedience active Yet that which was principally imposed upon the Mediatour and undertaken by him was to satisfie for our disobedience And so the principall part of his works was passive obedience and that in him was as excellent or more then Active obedience though in us it would not have been so because the law did not require it of us in the first place as it did of Christ. 3. If you call that most excellent which is best pleasing to God the Law-maker then certainly the satisfaction of Christ did please him better then Adams perseverance in innocencie would have done This needeth no proof but the consideration of the event 4. And for the ends of righteousnesse let us consider them distinctly and see whether Christs satisfaction do not attain them all more eminently and fully then Adams perseverance would have done 1. The glory of Gods justice would not have been manifested so if Adam had stood as it was by Christs sufferings 2 Nor the glory of his mercy and free grace 3 Nor the Mediatours love 4 Nor would the Kingdom of the Mediatour have been set up nor his honour so advanced 5. Nor the saints advanced to so high a dignity and happinesse as now they are and shall be by Christ. So that in what respect is our righteousnesse lesse excellent or who is the looser Not the Father Not the Mediatour All the question is of our selves But that is onely in point of our honour It is acknowledged that to the creature it would have been more honourable to have kept his innocency then to have his disobedience satisfied for by another But here consider these things 1 Gods honour is to be preferred to ours 2 And the Mediatours advancement before our advancement 3 It was the very design of God in the Gospell way of our salvation to take down our honour that the creature might not glory in it self but all might be acknowledged to free grace And shall we think it a wrong if we have not a righteousnesse as honourable to our selves as that which we lost 4 Our happinesse will be greater though our honour will be lesse For we shall have a far greater glory And that is better then meer honour 5 Yea we shall have more honour then we lost A reall honour of being the sons of God and members of Christ and heirs of glory And this is greater then the honour of our perseverance would have been Onely this being all freely given redoundeth to the giver but still the reall honour and happinesse we enjoy therefore is it the everlasting work of Saints to praise the Lamb who hath redeemed them out of aâ—l nations and made them Kings and Priests to God which implyeth an acknowledgement of their former disobedience and misery and so taking dishonour to themselves and yet the greater glory to Christ and happinesse to them 6. Moreover we have now besides the righteousnesse of Christs satisfaction a personall evangelicall righteousnesse consisting in the fulfilling of the conditions of the law of grace So that our little losse of the honour of self-performance you see is in these 6. respects abundantly recompensed So that to our selves a righteousnesse of tisfaction is better then a righteousnes of personall obedience And as it is found in Christ it is also in it self more excellent Yet further that it is not derogatory to Christ doth thus appear 1 He had in himself both sorts of righteousnesse viz. Of obedience to the Precept and of satisfaction to the threatning Though both could not be ours retaining their forms as such because the law requireth but one sort of righteousnes of one person for himself so that we derogate nothing from Christs righteousnesse or perfection 2. Both these sorts in Christ viz. his active and passive as I conceive doe concurre to make up that one sort of righteousnesse necessary for us viz. Or satisfaction to the threatning and so both conjunct are our righteousnesse though not as two sorts of righteousnesse but as one Yet I know that this is somewhat dark and doubtfull because Obedience is a thing commanded and not threatened But yet seeing Christ payed not the Idem but the Tantundem not the very same debt mentioned in the threatning but the value I think therefore that his obedience as such may goe in to his satisfaction 3. I also freely acknowledge that the additionall happinesse which we have by Christ more then we lost in Adam contained in our Adoption Union with Christ and Glorificacation are procured by Christs active obedience as such as well as by his satisfaction in suffering If yet besides all this any will maintain that we fulfilled the precepts of the law in Christ or that his fulfilling of them as such is our righteousnesse let them shew me solidly what neede we have of Christs sufferings and let them answer what is said to the contrary by the formentioned Authors and I shall quickly yeeld To conclude that God accepteth this righteousnesse of satisfaction as being equivalent to that of obedience though obedience be first in the law and the precept the principall part and so that he is as well pleased with us as if we had obeyed may appear from the end nature of satisfactory punishment For the penalty of a perfect just law is supposed to be such that it will make a perfect compensation or satisfaction for all the wrong we have done to the law-maker or the publique so that being paid or suffered we must needs in point of innocency be in statu quo prius I know some object thus If a theef be burnt in the hand and so the law satisfied yet he hath lost his credit and will not be taken or trusted for an honest man Answ. You must distinguish 1. betwixt his breach of mans law and his breach of Gods law 2. Betwixt his actuall fault and his habituall pravity And then you will see that his burning in the hand was for the breach of mans law but the perpetuall infamy is a part of
place Hab. 2. 4. Sop. 649. in the true Gain God doth as it were keep a double Court one of justice the other of Mercy In the Court of justice he gives judgment by the Law accuseth every man that continueth not in all things c. In this Court nothing can stand but the Passion and Righteousnesse of Christ and for the best works that we can doe we may not look for any acceptation or reward but use the plea of David Enter not into iudgement with thy servant O Lord for no flesh shall be justified in thy sight Now in the Court of Grace and Mercy God hath to deall with his own children that stand before him justified and reconciled by Christ and the obedience of such he accepteth in this Court and mercifully regardeth though imperfect for christ Perkins Vol. 1. pag. 124. On the Creed Christ as he is set forth in Word and Sacraments is the object of Faith Faith apprehendeth whole Christ. pag. 125. First it apprehendeth the very body and blood of Christ and then in the second place the vertue and benefits Whereas some are of an opinion that faith is an affiance or confidence that seemes to be otherwise for it is a fruit of Faith That Faith is so large as to contain very many acts see Zanchy on Eph. 1. in loco communi de fide That Word and Sacraments are the instruments of Justification on Gods part Zanchy affirmes on Ephes. 1. loco communi de justificatione That the form of Righteousnesse is conformity to the Law he teacheth on Phil. 1. 11. That there is a necessity of a two-fold Righteousnesse one imputed the other inherent Zanchy ibid freq Dr. Willet on Rom. 2. contr 3. 7. Good workes are required as a condition in those which are to be saved not as a meritorious cause of their salvation The meaning of this sentence the doors of the law shall be justified is the same God will approve justifie reward them that do the works of the Law whether Jew or Gentile Yet it followeth not that a man is therefore justified by the works of the Law But God approveth and rewardeth the workers not the hearers and professours So here the Apostle treateth not of the cause of justification which is faith without the works of the law But of the difference between such as shall be justified and such as are not Faïus They onely which have a lively Faith which worketh and keepeth the Law in part and supplyeth the rest which is wanting in themselves by the perfect obedience of Christ they shall be justified not those which onely professe the Law and keep it not The Apostle then here sheweth who shall be justified not for what By these words it is evident that Dr. Willet and Faius acknowledge sincere obedience to be a condition of justification or of those that shall be justified though not a cause as they say I think mistakingly Faith is Dr. Davenant Animadversions on Gods love to mankind p. 385. 386. The Doctrine of Predestination permitteth no man to perswade himself that his salvation is certain before he finde that he is truly converted truly faithfull truly sanctified Because you will perhaps hear Mr. Owen before Grotius see Mr. Ball on Covenant p 290. There is a two-fold payment of debt one of the thing altogether the same which was in the Obligation and this ipso facto freeth from punishment whether it be paid by the debtor himself or by his surety Another of a thing not altogether the same which is in the Obligation so that some act of the Creditor or Governour must come unto it which is called remission in which case deliverance doth not follow ipso facto upon the satisfaction and of this kind is the satisfaction of Christ. Thus this great learned holy Divine as almost England ever bred doth go on even in Grotius his own words translated betwixt whom had he been living and Mr. Owen would have been but impar congressus Ball on Covenant p. 240. As these false Teachers 2 Pet. 2. 1. were called into the Covenant accepted the condition beleeved in Christ for a time rejoyced in him and brought forth some fruit so we confesse they were bought by the blood of Christ because all these were fruits of Christs Death whereof they were made partakers As in the Parable Mat. 18. 25. the Lord is said to remit to his servant a 1000 talents when he desired him viz. Inchoately or upon condition which was not confirmed because he did not forgive his fellow-servant So the false Prophets are bought by the bloud of Christ in a sort as they beleeved in Christ. We read of Apostates who had bin enlightned c. Heb. 6. 5 6 7. and did revolt from the Faith To these men their sins were remitted in a sort in this world and in a sort they were bought with the blood of Christ but inchoately onely and as they tasted the word of life Had they eaten the word of life had they soundly and truly beleeved in Christ they had received perfect and consummate remission of sins both in this world and in the world to come they had been perfectly redeemed and reconciled to God But because they did not eat but tasted onely they received not perfect Remission they were not perfectly redeemed Idem pag. 225. There is this mutuall respect betwixt the promise and stipulation that the promise is as an argument which God useth that he might obtain of man what he requireth and the performance of the thing required is a condition without which man cannot obtain the promise of God Idem pag. 43. Of this Covenant be two parts 1. a Promise 2. a stipulation The Promise is that God will pardon the sinnes of them that repent unfeignedly and beleeve in his mercy 2. The Stipulation is that they beleeve in him that justifieth the ungodly and walk before him in all well-pleasing See him also delivering the most of Amiraldus doctrine p. 244 245. Molinaeus de elect ex fide p. 316. We know remission is not obtained before Prayers for it But I say that it was decreed before Prayers and that it is sought by Prayers although it be decreed Scarpius symphonia p. 93. The substance of the Covenant lyeth in the promise of grace made in Christ and the Restipulation of Faith and Gratitude Paraeus in Genes 17. p. 1130. The substance of the Covenant lyeth in the promise of free Reconciliation Righteousness and life eternall by and for Christ freely to be given and in the restipulation of our Morall Obedience and Gratitude Bullinger Decad. 1. Serm. 6. pag. 44. We say Faith justifieth for it self not as it is a quality in our minde or our own work but as Faith is a gift of Gods grace having the promise of Righteousnesse and life c. Therefore Faith justifieth for Christ and from the grace and Covenant of God Mr. Ant. Burgesse of Iustif. Lect. 14. p. 117. Scripture maketh no pardon of sin to be but where the subject hath such qualifications as this of forgiving others It is not indeed put as a cause or merit but yet it is as a qualification of the subject therefore our Saviour repeateth Except ye forgive others c. So Act. 10. 43. Rom. 3. 15. So 1 Ioh. 1. 9. If we confesse c. By these and the like Scriptures it is plain That remission of sinne is given us only in the use of these Graces Mr. Burges of Iustif. Lect. 18. pag. 148 149. Prop. 2. Although the Scripture attributes pardon of sin to many qualifications in a man yet repentance is the most expresse and proper duty If we speak of the expresse formall qualification it is repentance of our sins c. Prop. 3. None may beleeve or conclude that their sins are pardoned before they have repented Mat. 3. 2. Luk 13. 3. Prop. 4. There is a necessity of repentance if we would have pardon both by necessity of Precept and of means The Spirit of God worketh this in a man to qualify him for this pardon pag. 150. You see then that Faith is not the only condition of remission and consequently nor of justification Not as an appeal to men but to fill up the vacant pages and satisfy you who charge me with singularity have I added these promiscuous Testimonies supposing you can apply them to their intended uses FINIS
168. that while wee are busie in examining our forefathers inventions and posterity imployed in trying our examinations neither we nor they have much time to adde any thing for the increase of Learned Knowledge Whence you may guesse at one cause why many Sciences for some thousands of yeares have kept one pitch and not growne above that dwarfish stature that they had in their infant invention and also what the reason is that many that read most prove not the deepest Schollers for no greater impediment to exact Learning then to make use of other mens understandings and neglect our owne I speak not this as if I had overcome these impediments any more then others but because I have perhaps more beene hindred by them and so take my selfe bound to warne thee of the pit that I have falne in And with all to let thee know that if godly men themselves while they lye in these snares shall oppose any truth in this Tract it is no wonder but a thing to be expected To give thee the History of the conception and nativity of these Aphorismes the reason why I trouble the world with more Bookes which I blame in others understand that this is but an Appendix to another Treatise going to the Presse on a more excellent Subject Also that having occasion therein to touch upon Matth. 25. 35. I was desired to explaine in what sence it is that Christ giveth the reason of his sentence in judgement from mens works In answer hereto and to cleare some other incident doubts of the like nature I wrote these Positions or Aphorismes which when some had got they complained of obscure brevity and desired some fuller explication which when I had done that which before was but two or three leaves annexed as an Appendix to the fore-mentioned Treatise did swell to this bignesse that I was faine to let it goe alone Could I have got Copies enow for my owne friends whom I am bound to instruct other men had not beene like to have been troubled with it If thou please thou mayest let it passe without thine observation If otherwise it is so small that it will take up but little of thy time to read it nor adde much to the common burden Some few passages here are which I am not so cleare and confident in my selfe As the nature of the Death threatned in the first Covenant The necessity of the punctuall performance or execution of all threatnings The interest of Christs Active Obedience to those Laws which did binde men in innocency in the work of satisfaction as conjoyned with his Passive Obedience to make up the same price But as these are but few so I am not utterly at a losse concerning them but seeme to discerne a strong probability of what I have written therein For you my Friends whom Christ hath committed to my Teaching and Oversight as to an unworthy Vsher under him in his Schoole and Steward in his House and of his Mysteries I publish this for your sakes and use 1. Because I have still thought that points controverted are better written than preached and read than heard especially where the greatest part of the Auditory is uncapable of understanding them 2. Yet is this Doctrine of so great concernment and so neer the Foundation that of all the controversies agitated in the Church there 's few that doe better deserve your study and few that I am so loath you should be ignorant of It is my exceeding joy that God hath kept you in his distracted age from doting about questions that engender strife and hath given you to cleave to the most fundamentall undoubted and practicall Truths and to spend your time in practice and peace and promoting the salvation of the ignorant about you when others are taken up in censuring their brethren renting the Church opposing the truth or wrangling about lesser things which are quite above their understandings Hold on this way and if you have not in it more Communion with Christ more growth in Grace and on your Death-beds a more comfortable review of your lives and at last a better reckoning made thereof then the other then say I have deceived you Yet as I would have you neglect no truth so especially what time â—ou can spare for controversie let it chiefely be spent upon these that are so weighty Be ashamed that men shâ—uld heare you disputing about Circumstantiâ—lls of Discipline Baptisme Supper c. before you know how to bee justified before GOD or understand the Doctrine of the Covenants Redemption Faith Obedience c 3. The Bookes that are written of justification are many and some great which I knew you had not time to read and if you did perhaps would lose much of your labour as I have done Therefore I desired to set the most necessary part before you in a narrower compasse I never intended the full handling of the Doctrine of justification these Apherismes being but for the Answering of a particular Question Especially what is in Master Bradshaw I omit because I expect that you will read and study him the Book being so small and of such singular worth containing as much as the greatest Volumes In some places I have omitted the proofe of my Assertions partly because they seemed plaine or to be the evident consectaries of former Positions partly for brevâ—ty and partly because it is for your use to whom I am yet at hand to cleare what you doubt of and who I hope doe understand that to take upon trust from your Teachers what you cannot yet reach to see in its owne evidence is lesse absurd and more necessary than many doe imagine Moreover knowing that I must shortly put off this Tabernacle and be taken from you I thought good to use this endeavour that you may bee able after my departure to have these things in your understandings and remembrance 2 Pet. 1. 14. 15. And while I am in this flesh I shall not cease to admonish you and pray on your behalfe that you may beware lest yee also being led away with the errour of the wicked fall from your owne stedfastnesse but may grow in Grace and in the Knowledge of our LORD and SAVIOVR JESUS CHRIST Nor shall I desire any greater Honour or Advancement on this Earth than with Abilitie Sinceritie and Successe to be A Servant of Christ in the work of your Salvation RI. BAXTER Kederminster Novemb. 17. 1648. APHORISMES OF JUSTIFICATION With their Explication Annexed Wherein also is opened the Nature of the Covenants Satisfaction Righteousnesse Faith Works c. THESIS I. GOd hath first a Will of purpose whereby he determineth of Events what shall be and what shall not be de facto Secondly And a Legislative or Preceptive Will for the government of the Rationall Creature whereby he determineth what shall be and what shall not be de jure or in point of duty and in order thereto concludeth of Rewards and Punishments EXPLICATION THis
THis penalty the offender himselfe could not bear without his everlasting undoing EXPLICATION THat is not the full penalty for part of it hee did beare and the Earth for his sake and as I think all mankind doth beare part of it to this day But the full penalty would have bin a greater and everlasting suffering THESIS VII 1 Iesus Christ at the Will of his Father 2 and upon his own Will 3 being perfectly furnished for this Worke 4 with a Divine power 5 and personall Righteousnesse 6 first undertooke 7 and afterward discharged this debt 8 by suffering what the Law did threaten and the offender himselfe was unable to beare EXPLICATION 1 THe Love of God to the World was the first womb where the worke of Redemption was conceived Ioh. 3. 16. as it is taken conjunct with his own glory The Eternal Wisdome and Love found out and resolved on this way of recovery when it never entered into the thoughts of man to contrive or desire it 2 The Will of the Father and the Son are one The Son was a voluntary undertaker of this task it was not imposed upon him by constraint when he is said to come to do his Fathers Will Heb. 10. 7. 9. it doth also include his own Will And where he is said to do it in obedience to the Father as it is spoken of a voluntary obedience so is it spoken of the execution of our Redemption and in regard to the humane nature especially and not of the undertaking by the divine Nature alone Not only the consent of Christ did make it lawfull that he should be punished being innocent but also that speciall power which as he was God he had over his own life more then any creature hath Ioh. 10. 18. I have power 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith Christ to lay down my Life 3. No meere creature was qualifyed for this worke even the Angels that are righteous do but their duty and therefore cannot supererrogate or merit for us Neither were they able to beare and overcome the penalty 4. It must therefore be God that must satisfy God both for the perfection of the Obedience for dignifying of the duty and suffering for to be capable of meriting for the bearing of the curse and for the overcomming of it and doing the rest of the workes of the Mediatorship which were to be done after the Resurrection Yet meere God it must not be but man also or else it would have been forgivenesse without satisfaction seeing God cannot be said to make satisfaction to himselfe Many other reasons are frequently given by Divines to prove the necessity of Christs Incarnation Act. 20 28. Heb. 1. 1 2 3. 5. Had not Christ been perfectly righteous himselfe he had not been capable of satisfying for others Yet is it not necessary that he must be in all respects a fulfiller of Righteousnesse before he begin the work of satisfaction or that his righteousnesse and satisfaction be so distinct as that the same may not be both righteousnesse and satisfactory Though many great Divines do so distinguish between Iustitiam personae Iustitiam meriti as that the former is only a preparatory to the latter yet I cannot see any reason but the same obedience of Christ to the whole Law may be both personall and meritorious of the righteousnesse of the Divine nature or the habituall righteousnesse of the humane nature I do not now dispute Therefore I do not mean that all Christs personall righteousnesse was only preparatory to his satisfaction and merit when I speak of his being furnished with a personall Righteousnesse though I confesse I was long of that judgement See more after at pag. 45. 6. The undertaking of the Son of God to satisfie was effectuall before his actuall satisfying As a man that makes a purchase may take possession and enjoy the thing purchased upon the meere bargaine made or earnes paid before he have fully paid the sum To this purpose most understand that in Rev. 13. 8. whose names were not written in the book of life of the lambe slaine from the foundation of the World But I doubt not but Weemse his interpretation is the plaine truth that the words from the foundation of the World have reference to the writing of their names in the book of Life and not to the slaying of the Lambe as being thus to be read whose names were not written in the book of life of the slain Lambe from the foundation of the World It hath the same sence with Rev. 17. 8. which doth expound this in leaving out the mention of the slaying of the Lambe 7. I know mans guilt and â—â—â—igation to suffer is but Metaphorically called his debt Therefore when we would search into the nature of these things exactly wee must rather conceive of God as the Lawgiver and Governour of the World then as a creditor lest the Metaphor should mislead us Yet because it is a common a Scripture phrase and conveniently expresseth our Obligation to beare the penalty of the violated Law I use it in that sense But here we are cast upon many and weighty and very difficult Questions Whether Christ did discharge this debt by way of solution or by way of satisfaction 2. whether in his suffering and our escape the threatning of the Law was executed or dispensed with 3. And if dispensed with how it can stand with the truth and justice of God 4. And whether sinners may thence be encouraged to conceive some hope of a relaxation of the threatnings in the Gospell 5. And whether the faithfull may not feare lest God may relaxe a promise as well as a threatning 6. And lastly whether if the Law be relaxable God might not have released his Son from the suffering rather then have put him to so great torment and so have freely pardoned the offendours I shall briefly answer to all these 1. Quest. Meere and proper solution or payment is when the very same thing is paid which wâ—â— in the obligation or suffered which was threatned This payment the creditor cannot refuse nor the Ruler refuse this suffering nor to acquit the person that hath so payed or suffered Satisfaction is the paying of somewhat that was not directly in the Obligation but is given to satisfye the creditor in stead of the debt which payment the Creditor may chuse to accept and if hee do not consent to accept it though it were paid yet the debtour should not be acquit So also in regard of suffering Here we take payment and satisfaction in the strict legall sence and not in the large sence wherein they are confounded And now the Question is whether Christs suffering were the payment of the very debt or of somewhat else in its stead The resolving of this depends upon the resolving of two other quaestions both great and difficult 1. What it was which the Law did threaten 2. What it was that Christ did suffer 1. Various are the judgements
if there must be one cause of introducing light and another of expelling darkness or one cause to take away the crookedness of a line and another to make it streight 11. The like vain distinction it maketh between delivering from death and giving title to life or freeing us from the penalty and giving us the reward For as when all sin of omission and commission is absent there is no unrighteousness so when all the penalty is taken away both that of pain and that of loss the party is restored to his former happiness Indeed there is a greater superadded decree of life and glory procured by Christ more then we lost in Adam But as that life is not opposed to the death or penalty of the Covenant but to that of the second so is it the effect of Christs passive as well as of his active Righteousness So you see the mistakes contained in this first Opinion about the Imputation of Christs Righteousness to us The maintainers of it beside some few able men are the vulgar sort of unstudyed Divines who having not ability or diligence to search deep into so profound a Controversie do still hold that opinion which is most common and in credit If you would see what is said against it read Mr Wotton Pareus Piscator Mr Bradshaw Mr Gataker and Mr. Io Goodwin The other opinion about our Participation of Christs Righteousness is this That God the Father doth accept the sufferings and merits of his Son as a full satisfaction to his violated Law and as a valuable consideration upon which he will wholy forgive and acquit the offenders themselves and receive them again into his favour and give them the addition of a more excellent happiness also so they will but receive his Son upon the terms expressed in the Gospel This Opinion as it is more simple and plain so it avoydeth all the fore-mentioned inconveniences which do accompany the former But yet this difference is betwixt the maintainers of it Most of them think that Christs Passive Righteousness in the latitude before expressed is the whole of this Satisfaction made by Christ which they therefore call Iustitia Meriti and that his Actual Righteousness is but Iustitia Personae qualifying him to be a fit Mediator Of this judgment are many learned and godly Divines of singular esteem in the Church of God the more to blame some of the ignorant sort of their adversaries who so reproach them as Hereticks I have oft wondered when I have read some of them as M. Walker c. to see how strongly they revile and how weakly they dispute Sure if those two famous men Paraeus and Piscator beside Olevian Scultetus Cargius learned Capellus and many other beyond Sea be Hereticks I know not who will shortly be reputed Orthodox and if they be not mistaken all antiquity is on their side beside Calvin Vrsine and most other modern Divines that writ before this Controversie was agitated and sure they are neither unlearned nor ungodly that have in our own Country maintained that opinion witness Mr Anthony Wotten Mr Gataker Mr Iohn Goodwin and as I am informed that excellent Disputant and holy learned judicious Divine Mr Iohn Ball with many other excellent men that I know now living Some others though few do think that though Christs Righteousness be not imputed to us in that strict sense as the first Opinion expresseth but is ours under the fore-explained notion of Satisfaction only yet the Active Righteousness considered as such is part of this Satisfaction also as well as his Passive and Iustitia Meriti as as well as Iustitia Personae and though the Law do not require both obeying and suffering yet Christ paying not the Idem but the Tantundem not the strict debt it self but a valuable Satisfaction might well put the merit of his works into the payment The chief Divines that I know for this Opinion as it is distinguished from the two former are judicious and holy Mr Bradshaw and Grotius if I may call a Lawyer a Divine And for my own part I think it is the truth though I confess I have been ten years of another mind for the sole Passive Righteousness because of the weakness of those grounds which are usually laid to support the opinion for the Active and Passive till discerning more clearly the nature of Satisfaction I perceived that though the sufferings of Christ have the chief place therein yet his obedience as such may also be meritorious and satisfactory The true grounds and proof whereof you may read in Grotius de Satisfact cap. 6. and Bradshaw of Justification in Preface and cap. 13. The chief Objections against it are these 1. Object Christs Passive Righteousness being as much as the Law required on our behalf as satisfaction for its violation therefore the Active is needless except to qualifie him to be a fit Mediator I answer This objection is grounded upon the forementioned Error That Christ paid the Idem and not the Tantundem whereas it being not a proper payment of the debt but satisfaction therefore even his meritorious works might satisfie Many an offender against Prince or State hath been pardoned their offence and escaped punishment for some deserving acceptable service that they have done or that some of their predecessors have done before them And so Rom. 5. 19. By the obedience of one many are made righteous 2. It is objected That Christ being once subject to the Law could do no more but his duty which if he had not done he must have suffered for himself and therefore how could his obedience be satisfactory and meritorious for us I answer 1. You must not here in your conceivings abstract the Humane Nature which was created from the Divine but consider them as composing one person 2. Nor must you look upon the Works of Christ as receiving their valuation and denomination from the Humane Nature alone or principally 3. Nor must you separate in your thoughts the time of Christs servitude and subjection from the time of his freedom before his incarnation and subjection And so take these Answers 1. Christ Jesus did perform severall works which he was not obliged to perform as a meer Subject Such are all the works that are proper to his office of Mediator his assuming the Humane Nature his making Laws to his Church his establishing and sealing the Covenant his working Miracles his sending his Disciples to convert and save the world enduing them with the Spirit his overcoming Death and rising again c. What Law bindeth us to such works as these And what Law to speak properly did binde him to them Yet were the works in themselves so excellent and agreeable to his Fathers Will which he was well acquainted with that they were truly meritorious and satisfactory 2. Some works he performed which were our duty indeed but he was not bound to perform them in regard of himself Such as are all the observances of the
Ceremonial Law his Circumcision Offering and so his Baptism c. Luke 2. 21 24. Gal. 4. 4. Isa. 53. 12. Ioh. 7. 2 10. Mat. 26. 17 18 19. 20. 3. 13. 10. These were the proper duties of sinners which he was not These two are admitted by Mr Gataker and most others 3. Even his obedience to the Moral Law was not his duty till he voluntarily undertook it It being therefore upon his consent and choyce and not due before consent must needs be meritorious And though when he was once a servant he is bound to do the work of a servant yet when he voluntarily put himself in the state of a servant and under the Law not for his own sake but for ours his work is nevertheless meritorious Suppose when a Soulder hath deserved death his Captain should offer himself to the General to do the duty of the private Souldier and to perform some rare exploit against the Enemy though he lose his life in the Service and all this to ransom the Souldier when he hath undertaken the task it becomes due but yet is nevertheless satisfactory As he saith Bradshaw who to satisfie for another becomes a slave to men doth in and by all those acts which the Laws binde a slave unto make satisfaction yea though they be such acts as he becoming a slave is bound upon pain of death to undergo so Christ c. and the greater was the bond that he did undergo for the doing of them the greater was the merit Isa. 42. 1. 53. 11. Phili. 2. 7. Luk. 2. 20. Isa. 53. 9 10. Gal. 4. 4. 2 Corinth 5. 11. Heb. 7. 26. 1 Pet. 2. 22 24. 3. 18. 1 Ioh. 3. 5. 4. Even some works that are due may yet be so excellent for matter and manner and so exceeding pleasing to him that commands them that they may give him satisfaction for former injuries and he may think it his part to encourage the Actor with some reward So Ionathans delivering Israel by that rare exploit did save him from death Abners bringing in the Kingdom to David would have covered his former service against him Many of Ioabs faults were long covered by his good service Such were the actions of David in bringing in the fore-skins of the Philistins and of his Worthies in fetching him of the waters of Bethlehem 1 Sam. 14. 44 45 2 Sam. 2. 3. 1 Sam. 18. 26 27. 2 Sam. 23. 16. It was not onely the suffering or hazard in these actions that was meritorious but also the excellency of the actions themselves 5. The interest of the Divine Nature in all the works of Christ maketh them to be infinitely meritorious and so satisfactory THESIS VIII 1 WHerefore the Father hath delivered all things into the hands of the Son and given him all power in heaven and earth and made him Lord both of the dead and living Ioh. 13. 3. Mat. 28. 18. Ioh. 5. 21 22 23 27. Rom. 14. 9. EXPLICATION 1 FOr Explication of this there are several Questions to be debated 1. Whether the extolling of Christ the Mediator or the restoring and saving of the offendors were Gods more remote end and principal intention 2. Whether this Authority and Dignity of Christ be by Original Natural Right or by Donation or by Purchase 3. Whether Christs Lordship over all do imply or prove his redeeming of all or of all alike 4. Whether God hath delivered things out of his own power in any kinde by delivering them into the power of his Son or whether it be only the substituting him to be Vicegerent to the Father To the first I answer That the saving of sinners was the end both of the Father and the Son is plain through the Gospel and that the exalting of Christ to his Dominion was another end is plain in Rom 14. 9. But which of these was the principal end I think is an unwarrantable question for man to propound I dare not undertake to assert a natural priority or posteriority in any of Gods Decrees de mediis ad finem ultimum much less to determine which hath the first place and which the second Phil. 2. 9. To the second question I answer 1. The Divine Nature of Christ being one with the Godhead of the Father had an absolute soveraignty over all things from their first being and so derivately had the humane nature as soon as assumed by vertue of the Hypostatical Union 2. But there is further a power given him as Mediator to dispose of all at his pleasure to make new laws to the world and to deal with them according to the tenor of those laws This power is partly purchased and partly given but not gratis that is Though God might have refused the tendered fatisfaction and have made the sinner bear the punishment yet he willingly accepted the merits of his Son as a full ransom and delivered up all to the Purchaser as his own And so well was he pleased with the work of Redemption that he also gave a further power to his Son to judge his Enemies and save his people with a far greater Judgment and Salvation So that this power may be said to be given Christ as it was the free act of God without constraint and yet to be purchased because it was given upon a valuable consideration To the third Question I answer This Authority of Christ implieth the purchasing of all things under his power or dominion as is explained in the last But what redemption or benefit is procured to the party I shall shew you more when I come to treat of universal Redemption by it self To the fourth Question I answer This is more then a substituting of Christ to be the Fathers Vicegerent It is also a power of prescribing new terms of Life and Death and judging men according thereto as is said before Yet is nothing properly given out of the Fathers power or possession but a power to suspend or dispense with the strict Covenant of Works is given to the Son and so God having parted with that advantage which his Justice had against the sinning world and having relaxed that Law whereby he might have judged us is therefore said to judge no man but to give all judgment to the Son Ioh. 5. 22 27. THESIS IX 1 IT was not the intenâ— either of the Father or Son that by this satisfaction the offenders should be immediately delivered from the whole curse of the Law and freed from the evil which they had brought upon themselves but some part must be executed on soul and body and the creatures themselves and remain upon them at the pleasure of Christ. Rev. 1. 18. 1 Cor. 15. 26. EXPLICATION THe Questions that are here to be handled for the Explication of this Position are these 1. Quest. Whether the redeemed are immediately upon the price payd delivered from any of the curse of the Law if not from all 2. Quest. Whether the sufferings of the Elect before conversion are
promise for it 3. Their sufferings if they will be ruled shall turn to their advantage To the sixth Question The last enemy to be overcome is death 1 Cor. 15 26. This enemy will be overcome perfectly at the Resurrection then also shall we be perfectly acquit from the charge of the Law and accusation of Satan Therefore not till the day of Resurrection and Judgment will all the Effects of Sin and Law and Wrath be perfectly removed 1 Cor. 15. 24. THESIS X. 1 MAn having not only broken this first Covenant but disabled himself to perform its Conditions for the future and so being out of all hope of attaining Righteousness and Life thereby 2 It pleased the Father aud the Mediator to prescribe unto him a new Law 3 and tender him a new Covenant 4 the Conditions whereof should be more easie to the Sinner and yet more abasing 5 and should more cleerly manifest and more highly honour the unconceiveable Love of the Father and Redeemer EXPLICATION 1 WHether Man were only the meritorious Cause of this his disability or also the Efficient is a great dispute but of no great moment as long as we are agreed that Man is the only faulty cause Whether he cast away Gods image or whether God took it from him for sin whether God only could annihilate it Or whether Man may annihilate a Quality though not a Substance I will not meddle with But too sure it is that we are naturally deprived of it and so disabled to fulfill the Law If Christ therefore should have pardoned all that was past and renewed the first violated Covenant again and set Man in the same estate that he fell from in poynt of guilt yet would he have fallen as desperately the next temptation yea though he had restored to him his primitive strength and holinesse yet experience hath shewed on how slippery and uncertain a ground his happiness would have stood and how soon he was likely to play the Prodigal again with his stock 2 God the Father and Christ the Mediator who have one will did therefore resolve upon a more suitable way of happines 3 This way as the former is by both a Law and Covenant As it is a Law it is by Christ prescribed and flatly enjoyned and either obedience or the penalty shall be exacted As it is a Covenant it is only tendered and not enforced It is called a Covenant as it is in Scripture written and offered as is said before improperly because it containeth the matter of the Covenant though yet it want the form Even as a Bond or Obligation before the sealing or agreement is called a Bond Or as a form of prayer as it is written in a book is called a prayer because it containeth the matter that we should pray for though to speak strictly it is no prayer till it be sent up to God from a desiring Soul 4 Though without Grace we can no more beleeve then perfectly obey as a dead man can no more remove a straw then a mountain yet the conditions of the Gospel considered in themselves or in reference to the strength which God will bestow are far more facile then the old conditions Mat. 11. 29 30. 1 Ioh. 5. 3. And more abasing they are to the sinner in that he hath far lesse to doe in the work of his salvation And also in that they contain the acknowledgement of his lost estate through his own former self destroying folly 5 Such incomprehensible amazing Love of God the Father and of Christ is manifested in this New Covenant that the glorifying thereof doth seem to be the main end in this design Oh sweet and blessed End should not then the searching into it be our main study and the contemplating of it and admiring it be our main employment Rom. 5. 8. Tit. 3. 4. 1 Ioh. 4. 9. Eph. 3. 18. 19. Ioh. 15. 13. No wonder therefore that God did not prevent the fall of man though he foresaw it when he could make it an occasionall preparative to such happy ends THESIS XI NOt that Christ doth absolutely null or repeal the old Covenant hereby but he super-addeth this as the only possible way of Life The former still continueth to command prohibite promise threaten So that the sins even of the justified are still breaches of that Law and are threatned and cursed thereby EXPLICATION I Acknowledge that this Assertion is disputable and dificult and many places of Scripture are usually produced which seem to contradict it I know also that it the judgement of learned and godly men that the Law as it a Covenant of works is quite null and repealed in regard of the Sins of beleevers yea many do beleeve that the Covenant of works is repealed to all the world and only the Covenant of grace in force Against both these I maintain this Assertion by the Arguments which you finde under the following Position 13. And I hope not withstanding that I extoll free Grace as much and preach the Law as little in a forbidden sence as though I held the contraty opinion THESIS XII THerefore we must not plead the repeal of the Law for our Iustification but must refer it to our Surety who by the value and efficacy of his once offering and merits doth continually satisfie EXPLICATION I Shall here explain to you in what sence and how far the Law is in force and how far not and then prove it in and under the next head You must here distinguish betwixt 1. The repealing of the Law and the relaxing of it 2. Between a dispensation absolute and respective 3. Between the alteration of the Law and the alteration of the Subjects relation to it 4. Between a Discharge conditional with a suspension of execution and a Discharge absolute And so I resolve the question thus 1. The Law of Works is not abrogated or repealed but dispensed with or relaxed A Dispensation is as Grotius defineth it an act of a Superior whereby the obligation of a Law in force is taken away as to certain persons and things 2. This Dispensation therefore is not total or absolute but respective For 1. though it dispence with the rigorous execution yet not with every degree of execution 2. Though the Law be dispenced with as it containeth the proper subjects of the penalty viz. the parties offending and also the circumstances of duration c. Yet in regard of the meer punishment abstracted from person and circumstances it is not dispenced with for to Christ it was not dispenced with His satisfaction was by paying the full value 3. Though by this Dispensation our Freedom may be as full as upon a Repeal yet the Alteration is not made in the Law but in our estate and relation to the Law 4. So far is the Law dispenced with to all as to suspend the rigorous execution for a time and a Liberation or Discharge conditional procured and granted them But an absolute Discharge is granted to
Righteousness Here carefully observe That this Law hath two parts 1. The Precept and Prohibition prescribing and requiring Duty 2. The Promise and Commination determining of the reward of Obedience and penalty of Disobedience As the Precept is the principall part and the Penalty annexed but for the Precepts sake so the primary intent of the Law-giver is the obeying of his Precepts and our suffering of the Penalty is but a secondary for the attaining of the former So is there accordingly a two-fold Righteousness or fulfilling of this Law which is the thing I would have observed the primary most excellent and most proper Righteousness lyeth in the conformity of our actions to the precept The secondary less excellent Righteousness yet fitly enough so called see Pemble of Iustificat pag. â— is when though we have broke the precepts yet we have satisfied for our breach either by our own suffering or some other way The first hath reference to the Commands when none can accuse us to have broak the Law The second hath reference to the Penalty when though we have broke the law yet it hath nothing against us for so doing because it is satisfyed These two kinds of Righteousnesse cannot stand together in the same person in regard of the same Law and Actions he that hath one hath not the other he that hath the First need not the Second There must be a fault or no satisfaction this fault must be confessed and so the first kind of Righteousnesse disclaimed before Satisfaction can be pleaded and Satisfaction must be pleaded before a Dilinquent can be justified This well understood would give a clearer insight into the nature of our Righteousness and Justification then many have yet attained The great Question is of which sort is our Righteousness whereby we are justified I answer of the second sort which yet is no derogation from it for though it be not a Righteousness so honouring our selves yet is it as excellent in Christ and honourable to him And this first kinde of Righteousness as it is in Christ cannot retaining its own form be made ours And to that the Papists arguments will hold good The Law commanded our own personall obedience and not another for us We did not so personally obey we did not really obey in Christ and God doth not judge us to do what we did not If we had yet it would not have made us just for one sin will make us unjust though we were never so obedient before and after Therefore if we had obeyed in Christ and yet sinned in our selves we are breakers of the Law still And so our Righteousness cannot be of the first sort This Breach therefore must be satisfied for and consequently our Righteousness must be of the second sort seeing both cannot stand in one person as beforesaid Christ indeed had both these kinds of righteousness viz. the righteousness of perfect Obedience and the righteousness of Satisfaction for Disobedience But the former only was his own personall Righteousnes not communicable to another under that notion and in that form of a Righteousness by obeying The latter was his righteousness as he stood in our room and was by imputation a sinner and so is also our Righteousness in and through him Yet the former as I have proved before c. is ours too and our Righteousness too though many Divines think otherwise but how Not as retaining its form in the former sence but as it is also in a further consideration a part of the Righteousness by Satisfaction seeing that Christs very personall obedientiall righteousness was also in a further respect satisfactory I intreat thee Reader do not pass over this distinct representation of Righteousness as curious or needless for thou canst not tell how thou art righteous or justified without it Nor do thou through prejudice reject it as unsound till thou have first well studied the Nature of Righteousness in generall and of Christian Righteousness in speciall THESIS XVII THerefore as there are two Covenants with their distinct Conditions so is there a twofold Righteousness and both of them absolutely necessary to Salvation EXPLICATION AS Sin is defined to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Trangression of the Law 1. Ioh. 3. 4. So Righteousness is a Conformity to the Law Therefore as there is a twofold Law or Covenant so must there be accordingly a two-fold Righteousness whether both these be to us necessary is all the doubt If the first Covenant be totally repealed then indeed we need not care for the righteousness of that Covenant in respect of any of our personall actions but only in respect of Adams first and ours in him But I have proved before that it is not repealed otherwise the righteousness of Christ imputed to us would not be of a very narrow extent if it were a covering only to our first transgression I take it for granted therefore that he must have a two-fold Righteousness answerable to the two Covenants that expecteth to be justifyed And the usuall confounding of these two distinct Righteousnesses doth much darken the controversies about Justification THESIS XVIII OVr Legal Righteousness or righteousness of the first Covenant is not personall or consisteth not in any qualifications of our own persons or actions performed by us For we never fulfilled nor personally satisfied the Law but it is wholly without us in Christ. And in this sence it is that the Apostle and every Christian disclaimeth his own Righteousness or his own Works as being no true legall Righteousness Phil. 3. 7 8. EXPLICATION Object 1 DOth not the Apostle say that as touching the Righteousness which is in the Law he was blameless Phil. 3. 6. Ans. That is He â—o exactly observed the Ceremoniall Law and the externall part of the Morall Law that no man could blame him for the breach of them But this is nothing to such a keeping of the whole Covenant as might render him blameless in the sight of God otherwise he would not have esteemed it so lightly Object 2. There are degrees of Sin He that is not yet a sinner in the highest degree is he not so far Righteous by a personall Righteousness Christ satisfied only for our sin so far as our actions are not sinfull so far they need no pardon nor satisfaction And consequently Christs righteousness and our own works do concur to the composing of our perfect Righteousness Ans. Though this objection doth puzle some as if there were no escaping this Popish self-exalting Consequence yet by the help of the fore-going grounds the vanity of it may be easily discovered And that thus 1. An Action is not righteous which is not conformable to the Law if in some respects it be conformable and in some not it cannot be called a conformable or righteous Action So that we having no actions perfectly conformed to the Law have therefore no one righteous action 2. If we had Yet many righteous Actions if but one were unrighteous will
not serve to denominate the person Righteous according to the Law of Works And that these joyned with Christs Righteousness do not make up one Righteousness for us is plainthus The Righteousness which we have in Christ is not of the same sort witht his pretended partial Righteousness For this pretendeth to be a Righteousness in part of the first kinde mentioned formerly viz. Obedientiall consisting in conformity to the Precept Now Christs Righteousness imputed to us being only that of the second sort viz. By satisfaction for nonconformity or for our disobedience cannot therefore possible be joyned with our imperfect Obedience to make up one Righteousness for us I acknowledge that some actions of ours may in some respects be good though that respect cannot denominate it strictly in the sence of the old Covenant a good Work I acknowledge also that so far it is pleasing to God yet the Action cannot be said to please him much less the person but only that respective Goodness Also that Christ dyed only to satisfie for our actions so far as they were sinfull and not in those respects wherein they are good and lawfull Yet that these good works so commonly called can be no part of our Righteousness I think is fully proved by the fore-going Argument Though I much question whether they that stand for the imputation of Christs moral Righteousness in the rigid rejected sence as if as if in him we had paid the primary proper debt of perfect obedience can so well rid their hands of this objection THESIS XIX THe Righteousness of the new Covenant is the only Condition of our interest in and enjoyment f the Righteousness of the old Or thus These onely shall have part in Christs satisfaction and so in him be legally righteous who do beleeve and obey the Gospel and so are in themselves Evangelically Righteous THESIS XX. OVr Evangelicall Righteousness is not without us in Christ as our leg all Righteousness is but consisteth in our own actions of Faith and Gospel Obedience Or thus Though Christ performed the conditions of the Law and satisfied for our non-performance yet it is our selves that must perform the conditions of the Gospel EXPLICATION THe contents of these two Positions being of so neer nature I shall explain them here together though they seem to me so plain and clear that they need not much explication and less confirmation yet because some Antinomians do down-right oppose theÌ„ and some that are no Antinomians have starâ—led at the expressions as if they had conteined some self-exalting horrid doctrine I shall say somthing hereto Though for my part I do so much wonder that any able Divines should deny them that me thinks they should be Articles of our Creed and a part of Childrens Catechisms and understood and believed by every man that is a Christian I mean the matter of them if not the Phrase though I think it to be agreeable to the matter also That there may be no contention about words you must take my phrase of Legall and Evangelicall Righteousness in the sence before explained viz. as they take their name from that Covenant which is their rule and I know not how any righteousness should be called Legall or Evangelicall in a sence more strict and proper nor whence the denomination can be better taken then from the formall reason of the thing Yet I know that the observance of the Law of Ceremonies and the seeking of life by the works of the Law are both commonly called Legall Righteousness but in a very improper sence in a comparison of this I know also that Christs Legall Righteousness imputed to us is commonly called Evangelicall Righteousness but that is from a more aliene extrinsecall respect to wit because the Gospel declareth and offereth this Righteousness and because it is a way to Justification which only the Gospel revealeth I do not quarrel with any of these forms of speech only explain my own which I knew not how to express more properly that I be not mis-understood The Righteousness of the new Covenant then being the performance of its conditions and its conditions being our obeying the Gospel or beleeving it must needs be plain That on no other terms do we partake of the Legal Righteousness of Christ. To affirm therefore that our Evangelicall or new Covenant-Righteousness is in Christ and not in our selves or performed by Christ and not by our selves is such a monstrous piece of Antinomian doctrine that no man who knows the nature and difference of the Covenant can possibly entertain and which every Christian should abhor as unsufferable For 1. It implyeth blasphemy against Christ as if he had sin to repent of or pardon to accept and a Lord that redeemed him to receive and submit to for these are the conditions of the new Covenant 2. It implyeth that Jews and Pagans and every man shall be saved Do not say that I odiously wring out these consequences they are as plain as can be expected For if any be damned it must be either for breaking the first Covenant or the second If the former be charged upon him he may escape by pleading the second fulfilled If the latter the same plea will serve so that if Christ have fulfilled both Covenants for all men then none can perish If they say that he hath performed the new Covenant conditions only for the elect 3. Then this followeth howsoever That they are righteous and justified before they beleeve which what Scripture doth speak 4. And that beleeving is needless not only as to our Justification but to any other use For what need one thing be so twice done If Christ have fulfilled the new Covenant for us as well as the old what need we do it again Shall we come after him to do the work he hath perfected Except we would think with the Socinians and as Sir Kenolm Digby That Christ was but our pattern to follow and but set us a copy in obeying according to right Reason 5. That the saved and the damned are alike in themselves but the difference is only in Election and Christs intention For the saved have broke the old Covenant as well as the damned and if it be not they but Christ that fulfill their conditions of the new then the difference is all without them 6. It confoundeth Law and Gospel it overthroweth all the Laws Precepts of Christ by removing their end it contradicteth the whole scope of the Scripture which telleth us That Christ was made under the Law not under the Gospel fulfilled the Law but not the Gospel Covenant bore the curse of the but not of the Gospel and which imposeth a necessity of fulfilling the conditions of the Gospel themselves upon all that will be justified and saved To quote the Scriptures that assert this would be to transcribe almost all the doctrinall part of the New Testament What unsavory stuff then is that of Mr. Saltmarsh of free Grace pag. 83.
84. Who directeth those that doubt of their Gospel sincerity to see it in Christ because Christ hath beleeved perfectly he hath sorrowed for sin perfectly he hath repented perfectly he hath obeyed perfectly he hath mortisied sin perfectly and all is ours c. If this be meant of Gospel-beleeving repenting sorrowing obeying and mortifying then it is no uncharitable language to say It is blasphemy in its clear consequence as if Christ had a Saviour to beleeve in for pardon and life or sin to repent of and sorrow for and mortifie But if he meant it of legall beleeving in God or repenting sorrowing for mortifying of sin in us and not in himself then is it no more to the business he hath in hand then a Harp to a Harrow as they say It is not legall beleeving which is the evidence doubted of or enquired after and sure Christs repenting and sorrowing for our sin is no clearing to us that we repent of our own nor any acquitting of us for not doing it And for his mortifying sin in us that is the doubt whether it be done in the doubting soul or not If he mean it of destroying the guilt of sin meritoriously on the Cross that is but a strange evidence of the death of it in a particular soul except he think as divers that I met with in Glocestershire and Wilt-shire That Christ took our naturall pravity and corruption together with our flesh But I let go this sort of men as being fitter first to learn the grounds of Religion in a Cathechism then to a manage those Disputes wherewith they trouble the World THESIS XXI NOt that we can perform these Conditions without Grace for without Christ we can do nothing But that he enableth us to perform them our selves and doth not himself repent beleeve love Christ obey the Gospel for us as he did satisfie the Law for us EXPLICATION THis prevention of an Objection I add because some think it is a self-ascribing and derogating from Christ to affirm our selves to be but the Actors of these duties though we profess to do it only by the strength of Grace But that it is Christ that repenteth and beleeveth and not we is language somewhat strange to those ears that have been used to the language of Scripture or Reason Though I know there is a sort of sublime Platonick Plotinian Divines of late sprung up among us who think all things be but one and those branches or beams of Gods Essence which had their Being in him before their Creation and shall at their dissolution return into God again and so the souls of men are but so many parcels of God given out into so many bodies or at least but beams streaming from him by a fancyed Emanation These men will say not only that it is Christ in us that doth beleeve but the meer Godhead in essence considered But it sufficeth sober men to beleeve that Christ dwelleth in us 1. By his graces or spirituall workings 2. By our constant love to him and thinking of him as the person or thing that we are still affectionately thinking on is said to dwell in our mindes or hearts because their idea is still there or our mindes and hearts to dwell upon them But in regard of the Divine Essence which is every where as it dwells no otherwise for ought I know or have seen proved in the Saints then in the wicked and devils so I think as Sir Kenelm Digby thinks of the Soul That the Body is more properly said to be in the Soul then the Soul in the Body so we are more properly said to live and move have our Being in God then God to live and move and have his Being in us I will not digress from my intended subject so far as to enter here into a disquisition after the nature or workings of that Grace which doth enable us to perform these Conditions I refer you to Parkers Theses de Traductione Peccatoris ad vit THESIS XXII IN this fore-explained sence it is that men in Scripture are said to be personally righteous And in this sence it is that the Faith and duties of Beleevers are said to please God viz. as they are related to the Covenant of Grace and not as they are measured by the Covenant of Works EXPLICATION THose that will not acknowledg that the godly are called righteous in the Scripture by reason of a personal Righteousness consisting in the rectitude of their own dispositions actions as well as in regard of their imputed righteousness may be convinced from these Scriptures if they will beleeve them Gen. 7. 2. 18. 23 24. Iob 17. 9. Psa. 1. 5 6. 37. 17 21 c Eccl. 9. 1 2. Ezek. 18. 20 24. 33. 12 13 18. Mat. 9. 13. 13. 43. 25 37 46. Luk. 1. 6. Heb. 11. 4. 1 Pet. 4. 18. 2 Pet. 2. 8. 1 Ioh. 3. 7 12. Rev. 22. 11. Mat. 10. 41. Rom. 5. 7. So their ways are called Righteousness Psal. 15. 2. 23. 3. 45. 7. c. Mat. 5. 20. 21. 32. Luke 1. 75. Act. 10. 35. Rom. 6. 13. 16 18 19 20. 1 Cor. 15. 34. 1 Ioh. 2. 29. 3. 10. Eph. 4. 24. c. That men are sometime called righteous in reference to the Laws and Judgments of men I acknowledge Also in regard of some of their particular actions which are for the substance good And perhaps sometimes in a comparative sense as they are compared with the ungodly As a line less-crooked should be called streight in comparison of one more crooked But how improper an expression that is you may easily perceive The ordinary phrase of Scripture hath more truth and aptitude then so Therefore it must needs be that men are called Righteous in reference to the new Covenant only Which is plain thus Righteousness is but the denomination of our actions or persons as they relate to some rule This rule when it is the Law of man and our actions suit thereto we are then righteous before men When this Rule is Gods Law it is either that of Works or that of Grace In relation to the former there is none righteous no not one for all have sinned and come short of the glory of God Only in Christ who hath obeyed and satisfied we are righteous But if you consider our actions and persons in relation to the rule of the new Covenant so all the Regenerate are personally righteous because they all perform the conditions of this Covenant and are poperly ponounced righteous thereby Neither can it be conceived how the works of Beleevers should either please God or be called righteousness as they relate to that old Rule which doth pronounce them unrighteous hatefull and accursed Two sorts among us therefore do discover intolerable Ignorance in this point 1. Those that commonly use and understand the words Righteous and Righteousness as they relate to the old Rule as if the Godly were called righteous
besides their imputed Righteousness only because their Sanctification and good Works have some imperfect agreement to the Law of Works As if it were a streight line which is in one place streight and another crooked much less that which is in every part crooked in some degree I have been sorry to hear many learned Teachers speak thus most they say to maintain it is in this simple objection If we are called holy because of an imperfect Holiness then why not righteous because of an imperfect Righteousness Ans. Holiness signifieth no more but a Dedication to God either by separation only or by qualifying the subject first with an aptitude to its Divine imployment and then separating or devoting it as in our Sanctification Now a person imperfectly so qualified is yet truly and really so qualified and therefore may truly be called holy so far But Righteousness signifying a Conformity to the Rule and a Conformity with a quatenus or an imperfect Rectitude being not a true Conformity or Rectitude at all because the denomination is of the whole Action or Person and not of a certain part or respect therefore imperfect Righteousness is not Righteousness but Unrighteousness It is a contradiction in adjecto Object But is our personal Righteousness perfect as it is measured by the New Rule Ans. Yes as I shall open to you by and by I could here heap up a mulitude of orthodox Writers that do call our personall Righteousness by the title of Evangelicall as signifying from what Rule it doth receive its Name The second sort that shew their gross ignorance of the nature of Righteousness are the Antinomians and some other simple ones whom they have misled who if they doe but hear a man talk of a Righteousness in himself or in any thing he can do or making his own duty either his Righteousness or conducible thereto they startle at such Doctrine and even gnash the teeth as if we preached flat Popery yea as if we cryed down Christ and set up our selves The ignorant wretches not understanding the difference between the two sorts of Righteousness that of the old Covenant which is all out of us in Christ and that of the New Covenant which is all out of Christ in our selves though wrought by the power of the Spirit of Christ. Quest. But how then is Ahabs and Nineve's humiliation accepted and such other works of those that are not in Christ seeing they are yet under the Law Ans. 1. No man is now under the Law as Adam was before the new Covenant was made that is not so under the Law alone as to have nothing to do with the Gospel or so under the old Covenant as to have no benefit by the new 2. So that wicked men may now find that tender and mercifull dealing from God that even those works which are less unjust and sinfull and draw neerest to the rectitude required by the Gospel shall be so far accepted as that for their further encouragement some kind of reward or suspension of wrath shall be annexed to them and God will countenance in them that which is good though it be not so much as may denominate it a good work 3. But yet the best of an unregenerate mans works have more matter in them to provoke God then to please him and he never accepteth them as Evangelically Righteous for they that are in the flesh and are without faith cannot possibly so please God Rom. 8. 8. Heb. 11. 6. As their righteousness is but a less degree of unrighteousness and therefore is most improperly called righteousness so their pleasing God is but a lower degree of displeasing him and therefore but improperly called pleasing him THESIS XXIII IN this sence also it is so far from being an error to affirm that Faith it self is our Righteousness that it is a truth necessary for every Christian to know that is Faith is our Evangelicall Righteousness in the sence before explained as Christ is our Legall Righteousness EXPLICATION THis Assertion so odious those that understand not its grounds is yet so clear from what is said before that I need to add no more to prove it For 1. I have cleared before that there must be a personall Righteousness besides that imputed in all that are justified And that 2. The fulfilling of the conditions of each Covenant is our Righteousness in reference to that Covenant But Faith is the fulfilling of the conditions of the new Covenant therefore it is our Righteousnes in relation to that Covenant I do not here take Faith for any one single Act but as I shall afterward explain it Quest. In what sence then is Faith said to be imputed to us for righteousness if it be our Righteousness it self Answ. Plainly thus Man is become unrighteous by breaking the Law of Righteousness that was given him Christ fully satisfieth for this transgression and buyeth the prisoners into his own hands and maketh with them a new Covenant That whosoever will accept of him and beleeve in him who hath thus satisfied it shall be as effectual for their Justification as if they had fulfilled the Law of Works themselves A Tenant forfeiteth his Lease to his Landlord by not paying his rent he runs deep in debt to him and is disabled to pay him any more rent for the future whereupon he is put out of his house and cast into prison till he pay the debt his Landlords son payeth it for him taketh him out of prison and putteth him in his house again as his Tenant having purchased house and all to himself he maketh him a new Lease in this Tenor that paying but a pepper corn yearly to him he shall be acquit both from his debt and from all other rent for the future which by his old Lease was to be paid yet doth he not cancel the old Lease but keepeth it in his hands to put in suite against the Tenant if he should be so foolish as to deny the payment of the pepper corn In this case the payment of the grain of pepper is imputed to the Tenant as if he had payed the rent of the old Lease Yet this imputation doth not extoll the pepper corn nor vilifie the benefit of his Benefactor who redeemed him Nor can it be said that the purchase did only serve to advance the value and efficacy of that grain of pepper But thus A personall rent must be paid for the testification of his homage he was never redeemed to be independent as his own Landlord and Master the old rent he cannot pay his new Landlords clemency is such that he hath resolved this grain shall serve the turn Do I need to apply this in the present case or cannot every man apply it Even so is our Evangelicall Righteousness or Faith imputed to us for as reall Righteousness as perfect Obedience Two things are considerable in this debt of Righteousness The value and the personall performance or interest The value of Christs
Satisfaction is imputed to us instead of the value of a perfect Obedience of our own performing and the value of our Faith is not so imputed But because there must be some personall performance of homage therefore the personall performance of Faith shall be imputed to us for a sufficient personall payment as if we had paid the full rent because Christ whom we believe in hath paid it he will take this for satisfactory homage so it is in point of personall performance and not of value that Faith is imputed THESIS XXIV THis personall Gospell Righteousness is in its kind a perfect Righteousness and so far we may admit the doctrine of personall Perfection EXPLICATION OUr Righteousness may be considered either in regard of the matter and the acts denominated righteous or else in respect of the form which gives them that denomination Also our Faculties and Actions are considerable either in regard of their Being or of their Quality 1. The perfection of the Being of our Faculties or Acts is nothing to our present purpose as falling under a physicall consideration only 2. In regard of their Quality they may be called perfect or imperfect in severall sences 1 As Perfection is taken for the transcendentall perfection of Being so they are perfect 2. And as it is taken for the compleat number of all parts it is perfect 3. But as it is taken for that which is perfect Efficienter or Participaliter that is for a work that is finished for the Author so our holiness is still imperfect here 4. And as it is taken for accidentall perction so called in Metaphysicks when it wants nothing which beyond the Essence is also requisite to the integrity ornament and well being of it so our holiness is here imperfect 5. As perfection is taken pro sanitate for soundness so our holiness is imperfect 6. And as it is taken pro maturitate for ripeness so it is imperfect 7. In respect of the admixture of contrary qualities our holiness is imperfect 8. But whether all this imperfection be privative and sinfull or meerly negative and only our misery whether it be a privation physicall or morall is a question that will be cleared when I come to shew the extent of the Commands or Rule But not any of these kinds of perfection is that which I mean in the Position Holiness is a quality may be intended and remitted in creased decreased but it is the relative consideration of these qualities of our faculties and acts as they are compared with the Rule of the new Covenant so it is not the perfection of our holiness that we enquire after but of our righteousness which righteousness is not a quality as holiness is but the modification of our acts as to the Rule which is not varyed secundum majus minus See Schibl Metaph. li. 2 c. 9. Tit. 7. Art 2. Therefore our Divines usually say That our Justification is perfect though our Sanctification be not and then I am sure our Righteousness must be perfect A two-fold perfection is here implyed 1. A Metaphysical Perfection of Being 2. A Perfection of Sufficiency in order to its end 1. The being of our Righteousness formally consisting in our relative conformity to the rule either it must be perfect or not at all He that is not perfectly innocent in the very point that he is accused is not innocent truly but guilty Sincerity is usually said to be our Gospel-Perfection not as it is accepted in stead of perfection but as it is truly so for sincere Faith is our conformity to the Rule of Perfection viz. the new Covenant as it is a Covenant yet as it is sincere Faith it is only materially our Righteousness and Perfection but formally as it is relatively our conformity to the said Rule 2. Our Righteousness is perfect as in its Being so also in order to its end The end is to be the condition of our Justification c. This end it shall perfectly attain The Tenor of the new Covenant is not Believe in the highest degree and you shall be justified But believe sincerely and you shall be justified so that our Righteousness 1. formally considered in relation to the condition of the new Covenant is perfect or none 2. But considered materially as it is holiness either in reference to the degree it should attain or the degree which it shall attain or in reference to the excellent object which it is excercised about or in reference to the old Covenant or the directive and in some sence the preceptive part of the new Covenant in all these respects it is imperfect I speak not all this while of that perfection in Christs Satisfaction which is also our perfect Righteousness because few will question the perfection of that THESIS XXV YEt is it an improper speech of some Divines That Christ first justifieth our persons and then our duties and actions And except by justifying they mean his esteeming them to be a fulfilling of the Gospell Conditions and so unjust it is unsound and dangerous as well as improper EXPLICATION 1. IT is improper in the best sence 1. Because it is contrary to the Scripture use of the word Iustifying which is the acquitting of us from the charge of breaking the Law and not from the charge of violating the new Covenant 2 It is against the nature of the thing seeing Justification as you shall see anon implyeth Accusation but the esteeming of a righteous action to be as it is doth not imply any accusation 3. This speech joyning Justification of Persons and Actions together doth seem to intimate the same kinde of justification of both and so doth tend to seduce the hearers to a dangerous error 2. For if it be understood in the worst sence it will overthrow the Righteousness of Christ imputed and the whole scope of the Gospell and will set up the doctrine of Justification by Works For if God do justifie our Works from any legall Accusation as he doth our persons then it will follow That our Works are just and consequently we are to be justified by them There is no room for Scripture-justification where our own Works are not first acknowledged unjustifiable because there is no place for Satisfaction and Justification thereby from another where we plead the Justification of our own Works in respect of the same Law Justification of Works is a sufficient ground for Iustification by Works seeing the justness of his dispositions and actions is the ground of denominating the person just and that according to the primary and most proper kinde of Righteousness as is expressed in the distinction of it pag. 98 99. THESIS XXVI 1 NEither can our performance of the conditions of the Gospel in the most proper and strict sence be said to merit the reward seeing there is nothing in the value of it or any benefit that God receiveth by it which may so entitle it meritorious neither is there any
proportion betwixt it and the reward 2 But in a larger fence as Promise is an Obligation and the thing promised is called Debt so the performers of the Condition are called Worthy and their performance Merit Though properly it is all of Grace and not of Debt 1 Rom. 4. 4 10. 5. 15 16 17. Hose 14. 4. Mat. 10. 8. Rom. 3. 24. 8 32. 1 Cor. 2. 12. Rev. 21. 6. 22. 18. Rom. 11. 6. Gal. 5. 4. Eph. 2. 5 7 8. Gen. 32. 10. 2 Mat. 10. 11 12 13 37. 22 8. Luk. 20. 35. 21. 36. 2 Thes. 1. 5. 11. Rev. 3. 4 c. EXPLICATION IN the strictest sence he is said to Merit who performeth somewhat of that worth in it self to another which bindeth that other in strict justice to requite him This work must not be due and so the performer not under the absolute soveraignty of another for else he is not in a capacity of thus Meriting It is naturall Justice which here bindeth to Reward All that we can merit at the hands of Gods naturall Justice is but these two things 1. The escape of punishment in that respect or consideration wherein our actions are not sinfull or the not punishing of us in a greater degree then sin deserves Though indeed it is questionable whether we are capable of suffering more 2. Our actions thus deserve the honour of acknowledgment of that good which is in them yea though the evil be more then the good As a merciful Thief that gives a poor man half his mony again when he hath robbed him as he deserveth a less degree of punishment so that good which was in his action deserveth an answerable acknowledgment and praise though he dye for the fact But this is a poor kinde of meriting and little to the honour or benefit of the party And is more properly called a less desert of punishment then a desert of reward 2. The second kind of Merit is that whereby a Governor for the promoting of the ends of Government is obliged to reward the Obedience of the Governed That when Disobedience is grown common the Obedience may be encouraged and a difference made Among men even Justice bindeth to such reward at least to afford the obedience the benefit of protection and freedom though he do no more then his duty But that is because no man hath an absolute soveraignty de jure over his subjects as God hath but is indebted to his subjects as well as they are to him If our obedience were perfect in respect of the Law of Works yet all the Obligation that would lie upon God to reward us any further then the foresaid forbearing to punish us and acknowledging our obedience would be but his own wisdom as he discerneth such a Reward would tend to the well-governing of the World working morally with voluntary agents agreeable to their natures And when we had done all we must say we are unprofitable servants we have done nothing but what was our duty Therefore this Obligation to reward from the wisdom of God as it is in his own brest known to himself alone so is it drawn from himself and not properly from the worth of our Works and therefore this is improperly called Merit 3. The third kinde of Meriting is sufficiently explained in the Position where the Obligation to reward is Gods ordinate Justice and the truth of his Promise and the worthiness lieth in our performance of the Conditions on our part This is improperly called Merit This kinde of Meriting is no diminution to the greatness or freeness of the gift or reward because it was a free and gracious Act of God to make our performance capable of that title and to engage himself in the foresaid promise to us and not for any gain that he expected by us or that our performance can bring him THESIS XXVII 1 AS it was possible for Adam to have fulfilled the Law of Works by that power which he received by nature 2 So is it possible for us to perform the Conditions of the new Covenant by the 3 Power which we receive from the Grace of Christ. EXPLICATION 1 THat it may be possible which is not future A thing is termed possible when there is nothing in the nature of the thing it self which may so hinder its production as to necessitate its non-futurity Though from extrinsecall Reasons the same non-futurity may be certain and in some respect necessary And all things considered the futurity of it may be termed impossible yet the thing it self be possible So it was possible for Adam to have stood And so if you should take the word possible absolutely and abstracted from the consideration of the strength of the Actor even the Commands of the Law are yet possible to be fulfilled But such a use of the word is here improper it being ordinarily spoken with relation to the strength of the Agent 2 But in the relative sence the Conditions of the new Covenant are possible to them that have the assistance of grace I intend not here to enter upon an Explication of the nature of that Grace which is necessary to this performance my purpose being chiefly to open those things wherein the relative change of our estates doth consist rather then the reall Whether then this Grace be Physicall or Morall Whether there be a Morall Suasion of the Spirit distinct from the Suasion of the Word and other outward means Whether that which is commonly called the Work of Conscience be also from such an internall suasory work of the Spirit How far this Grace is resistible Or whether all have sufficient Grace to beleeve either given or internally offered with multitudes of such questions I shall here pass by Referring you to those many Volumes that have already handled them All that I shall say of this shall be when I come to open the Nature of Faith See Parkers Theses before mentioned THESIS XXVIII THe Precepts of the Covenants as meer Precepts must be distinguished from the same Precepts considered as Conditions upon performance whereof we must live or dye for non performance THESIS XXIX AS all Precepts are delivered upon Covenant-terms or as belonging to one of the Covenants and not independently So have the same Precepts various ends and uses according to the tenor and ends of the distinct Covenants to which they do belong EXPLICATION THerefore it is one thing to ask whether the Covenant of Works be abolished and another thing whether the Morall Law be abolished Yet that no one Precept of either Morall or Ceremoniall Law was delivered without reference to one of the Covenants is very evident For if the breach of that Command be a sin and to be punished then either according to the rigorous threatening of the old Covenant or according to the way and justice of the new For the Law as it was delivered by Moses may be reduced in several respects to each of these Covenants and
cannot constitute a third Covenant wholy distinct from both these and therefore Camero doth more fitly call it a subservient Covenant then a third Covenant For either God intended in that Covenant to proceed with sinners in strict rigor of Justice for every sin and then it is reducible to the first Covenant Or else to pardon sin upon certain conditions and to dispence with the rigor of that first Covenant And then it must imply satisfaction for those sins and so be reducible to the second Covenant For I cannot yet digest the Doctrine of Grotius and Vossius concerning satisfaction by sacrifice for temporall punishment without subordination to the satisfaction by Christ Or if it seem in severall phrases to savour of the language of the severall Covenants as indeed it doth that is because they are yet both in force and in severall respects it is reducible to both So that when we demand whether the Morall Law do yet binde the question is ambiguous from the ambiguity of the term Binde For it is one thing to ask whether it binde upon the old Covenant terms another whether upon new Covenant terms and a third whether as a meer Precept Here a question or two must be answered 1 Quest. How could the Precepts delivered by Moses when the old Covenant was violated and the new established belong to that old Covenant 2 Quest. In what sence doth the Decalogue belong to the new Covenant 3 Quest. Whether the Precepts of the Gospel do belong to the Decalogue 4 Quest. Whether the Precepts of the Gospel belong also to the old Covenant But all these will be cleared under the following Positions where they shall be distinctly answered THESIS XXX THere is no sin prohibited in the Gospel which is not a breach of some Precept in the Decalogue and which is not threatned by the Covenant of Works as offending against and so falling under the Iustice thereof For the threatening of that Covenant extendeth to all sin that then was or after should be forbidden God still reserved the prerogative of adding to his Laws without altering the Covenant terms else every new Precept would imply a new Covenant And so there should be a multitude of Covenants EXPLICATION 1. THough the Decalogue doth not mention each particular duty in the Gospel yet doth it command obedience to all that are or shall be specified and expresseth the genus of every particular duty And though it were not a duty from the generall precept till it was specified in the Gospel yet when it once is a duty the neglect of it is a sin against the Decalogue For instance The Law saith Thou shalt take the Lord for thy God and consequently beleeve all that he saith to be true and obey him in all that he shall particularly command you The Gospel revealeth what it is that is to be beleeved and saith This is the work of God that ye beleeve in him whom the Father hath sent Ioh. 6. 28 29. The affirmative part of the second Commandment is Thou shalt worship God according to his own institution The Gospell specifieth some of this instituted Worship viz. Sacraments c. So that the neglect of Sacraments is a breach of the second Commandment And Unbelief is a breach of the first This may help you to answer that question Whether the Law without the Gospell be a sufficient Rule of Life Answ. As the Lords Prayer is a sufficient Rule of Prayer It is sufficient in its own kinde or to its own purposes It is a sufficient generall Rule for duty but it doth not enumerate all the particular instituted species Yet here the Gospell revealing these institutions is not only the new Covenant it self but the doctrine of Christ which is an adjunct of that Covenant also 2. That every sin against the precepts of the Gospell and decalogue are also sins against the Covenant of Works and condemned by it will appear thus 1. The threatening of that Covenant is against all sin as well as one though none but eating the forbidden fruit be named But these are sins and therefore threatned by that Covenant The major appears by the recitall afterwards Cursed is he that doth not al things written 2. I have proved before that the old Covenant is not repealed but onely relaxed to Beleevers upon Christs satisfaction And then it must needs be in force against every sin 3. The penalty in that Covenant is still executed against such sins So that every sin against the Gospel is a breach of the Conditions of the Law of Works But every sin against that Law is not a breach of the Conditions of the Gospel And it hinders not this That the Morall Law by Moses and the Gospel by Christ were delivered since the Covenant with Adam For though that Covenant did not specifie each duty and sin yet it doth condemn the sin when it is so specified But the great Objection is this How can Unbelief be a breach of the Covenant of Works when the very duty of beleeving for pardon is inconsistent with the Tenor of that Covenant which knoweth no pardon Ans. 1. Pardon of sin is not so contradictory to the truth of that Covenant but that they may consist upon satisfaction made Though it is true that the Covenant it self doth give no hopes of it yet it doth not make it impossible 2. Unbelief in respect of pardon and recovery is a Sin against the Covenant of Works not formaliter but eminenter 3. Not also as it is the neglect of a duty with such and such ends and uses but as it is the neglect of duty in the generall considered and so as it is a sin in generall and not as it is a sin consisting in such or such an act or omission The form of the sin lieth in its pravity or deviation from the Rule So far Unbelief is condemned by the Law The substrate act is but the matter improperly so called The review of the comparison before lay'd down will explain this to you A Prince bestoweth a Lordship upon a Slave and maketh him a Lease of it the tenor where of is That he shall perform exact obedience to all that is commanded him and when he fails of this he shall forfeit his Lease The Tenant disobeyeth and maketh the forfeiture The Son of this Prince interposeth and buyeth the Lordship and satisfieth for all the damage that came by the Tenants disobedience Whereupon the Land and Tenant and Lease are all delivered up to him and he becomes Landlord He findeth the Tenant upon his forfeiture dispossessed of the choycest rooms of the house and chief benefits of the Land and confined to a ruinous corner and was to have been deprived of all had not he thus interposed Whereupon he maketh him a new Leaâ—e in this Tenor That if in acknowledgment of the favour of his Redemption he will but pay a pepper corn he shall be restored to his former possession and much more In this
case now the non-payment of the pepper corn is a breach of both Leases Of the old because though he had forfeited his title to the benefits of it yet he could not disanull the duty of it which was obedience during his life especially when the penalty was not fully executed on him but he was permitted still to enjoy some of the benefits So that as it is an act of disobedience in generall his non-payment is a further forfeiture of his old Lease But as it is the non-payment of a pepper-corn required of him in stead of his former Rent so it is a breach of his new Lease only Even so is Unbelief a violation of both Covenants THESIS XXXI THe Gospell doth establish and not repeall the Morall Law and so is perfect obedience commanded and every sin forbidden now as exactly as under the Covenant of Works But this is but an adjunct of the new Covenant and not a proper part of it Neither is it on the same terms or to the same ends as in the first Covenant EXPLICATION THat the Morall Law is yet in force I will not stand to prove because so many have written of it already See Mr. Anthony Burgesses Lectures But to what ends and in what sence the Gospell continueth that Law and commandeth perfect obedience thereto is a Question not very easie 1. Whether Christ did first repeall that Law and then re-establish it to other ends So some think 2. Or whether he hath at all made the Morall Law to be the preceptive part of the new Covenant And so whether the new Covenant do at all command us perfect obedience or only sincere 3. Or whether the Morall Law be continued only as the precepts of the old Covenant and so used by the new Covenant meerly for a directive Rule To the first I answer 1. That it is not repealed at all I have proved already even concerning the Covenant of Works it self and others enough have proved at large of the Morall Law 2. Yet that Christ useth it to other ends for the advantage of his Kingdom I grant To the other second Question I answer 1. That the Morall Law as it is the perceptive part of the Covenant of works is but delivered over into the hands of Christ and so continued in the sence before expressed seems plain to me 2. That the same Morall Law doth therefore so continue to command even believers and that the perfect obeying of it is therefore their duty and the not obeying their sin deserving the death threatened in that Covenant 3. That Jesus Christ hath further made use of the same Morall Law for a direction to his Subjects whereby they may know his Will That whereas your sincere subjection and obedience to Christ is part of the condition of the new Covenant that we may know what his Will is which we must endeavour to obey and what Rule our actions must be sincerely fitted to and guided by he hath therefore left us this Morall Law as part of this direction having added a more particular enumeration of some duties in his Gospel That as when the old Covenant said Thou shalt obey perfectly the Morall Law did Partly tell them wherein they should obey So when the new Covenant saith Thou shalt obey sincerely the Morall Law doth tell us wherein or what we must endeavour to do 4. But that the Morall Law without respect to either Covenant should command us perfect obedience or that Christ as the Mediator of the new Covenant should command us not only sincere but also perfect obedience to the Morall Law and so hath made it a proper part of his Gospel not only as a Directory and Instruction but also as a Command I am not yet convinced though I will not contend with any that think otherwise my Reason is because I know not to what end Christ should command us that obedience which he never doth enable any man in this life to perform If it were to convince us of our disability and sin that is the work of the Law and the continuing of it upon the old terms as is before explained is sufficient to that But I judge this Question to be of greater difficult then moment THESIS XXXII IF there be any particular sins against the new Covenant which are not also against the old or if any sins be considerable in any of their respects as against the Gospel only then Christs death was not to satisfie for any such sins so considered For where no death is threatened there none is explicitely due nor should be executed and where it is not so due to the sinner nor should have been executed on him there it could not be required of Christ nor executed on him But the Gospel threateneth not death to any sin but final unbelief and rebellion and for that Christ never dyed as I shall shew anon therefore Christ died not for any sin as against the Gospell nor suffered that which is no where threatened EXPLICATION A Sin may be said to be against the Gospel 1. As Christ and his Gospel are the object of it 2. Or as it breaketh the conditions of the Gospel In the latter sence only I here take it To prove the point in hand there needs no more then the Argument mentioned For to all that unbelief and other sins of the godly which are forgiven the Gospel doth no where threaten death and therefore Christ could not bear it as to satisfie the Gospel-threatening Though I confess I have been long in this point of another judgment while I considered not the Tenor of the Covenants distinctly some further proof you shall have in the next conclusion Read Heb. 9. 15. THESIS XXXIII AS the Active Obedience of Christ was not the Righteousness of the second Covenant or the performing of it Conditions but of the first properly called a Legall Righteousness so also his Passive Obedience and Merit was only to satisfie for the violation of the Covenant of Works but not at all for the violation of the Covenâ—nt of Grace for that there is no satisfaction made and there remaineth no sacrifice EXPLICATION THat Christ did not fulfill the conditions of the new Covenant for us I have proved already That he hath not satisfied for its violation I think to the considerate will need no proof If you think otherwise consider 1. Christ is said to be made under the Law to have born the curse of the Law to have freed us from the curse of it but no where is this affirmed of him in respect of the Gospel 2. There be terms by him propounded upon which men must partake of the benefits of his Satisfaction but these terms are onely conditions of the new Covenant therefore he never satisfied for the non-performance of those conditions 3. If he did upon what conditions is that satisfaction enjoyed by us 4. But the Question is out of doubt because that every man that performeth not the
Gospel-conditions doth bear the punishment himself in eternall fire and therefore Christ did not bear it So that as it was not so grievous a death which was threatened in the first Covenant as that is which is threatened in the second so it was not so grievous a kind of death which Christ did bear as that is which finall unbelievers shall bear except as â—he accumulation of sins of so many might increase it Therefore when we say That Christ suffered in his Soul the pains of hell or that which is equall we must not mean the pains which is threatned in the Gospell and the damned unbelievers must endure but only of that death which the Law of Works did threaten Wo therefore to the rebellious unbelieving world that must bear this second death themselves For of how much soever punishment shall they be thought worthy who tread under foot the blood of the Covenant Heb. 10. 29. THESIS XXXIV THe Covenant of Grace is not properly said to be violated or its conditions broken except they be finally broken For the violation consisteth in non performance of the conditions and if they are performed at last they are truly performed if performed then the Covenant is not so violated as that the offendor should fall under the threatening thereof EXPLICATION I Deny not but the new Covenant may be said to be neglected and sinned against and the Command of Christ broken by our long standing out in unbelief though we come home at last But the Covenant conditions are not broken when ever the precept of the Gospel is transgressed or the Covenant neglected except it be finall The Condition is Who ever believeth shall be saved not limitting it to a particular season Though both the precept of Christ common Reason requireth that we be speedy in the performance because we have no promise that the day of Grace shall continue and because our neglect will increase our disability and our frequent resisting Will grieve the Spirit So that the new Covenant doth not threaten death to every particular act of disobedience or unbelief nor to any but what is finall though the precept require that we believe immediately and every degree of unbelief be forbidden THESIS XXXV YEt the sins of Beleevers against the Gospel Precepts have need of pardon and are properly said to be pardoned in reference to their deserved punishment 1. Both because the punishment which naturally and implicitely is due to them is not so much as threatened in this gentle Covenant and so becomes not explicitely due or in point of Law 2. But specially because the old Covenant condemning all sin is yet unrepealed which would be executed on us even for our sins against GRACE did not the efficacy of CHRISTS Satisfaction dayly interpose which makes us therefore have continuall need of that Satisfaction EXPLICATION THis is layd down to prevent the Objection which might arise from the fore-going Doctrine For many are ready to ask If Christ dyed not for sin as it is against the Gospell-Covenant then how are such sins pardoned to Beleevers I answer in the fore-expressed way For certainly the Gospel cannot be said to remit the punishment which it never threatened further then as it is only implicitely due And that which it doth threaten it doth never remit THESIS XXXVI THe pardoning of sin is a gracious act of God discharging the Offender by the Gospell-Promise or grant from the Obligation to punishment upon consideration of the satisfaction made by Christ accepted by the sinner and pleaded with God EXPLICATION THe true definition of Pardon and of Justification doth much conduce to the understanding of this whole mysterious Doctrine The former I have here laid down as neer as I can I shall briefly explain the whole Definition 1. I call it an Act of God for so the Scripture ordinarily doth Mat. 6. 12. 14 15. Mar. 11. 24. 26. Luk. 23. 34. Ephes. 3. 32. Some may object If all things be delivered into the hands of Christ the Redeemer and all Judgement committed to the Son as is shewed before then the Son should forgive rather then the Father I answer 1. So the Son is said to forgive also Mar. 2. 7 10. Luk. 5. 24. 2. I shewed you before That the Father giveth not away any power from himself by giving it to the Son but onely doth manage it in another way upon other terms 3. As the Mediator is a middle person interposing between God and the world for their reconciliation so the Acceptance Pardon and Kingdom of the Mediator is as it were a Mean or step towards the Pardon Acceptance and Kingdom of God First Christ doth cleanse men by his Spirit and Blood and then offereth them blameless and undefiled without spot or wrinkle to God who so accepts them at his hands and even the Kingdom also will he deliver up to the Father Ephes. 5. 27. Col. 1. 22 28. Iude 24. 1 Cor. 15. 24. Therefore the Sons pardoning and accepting being first in order of Nature and so but a mean to Gods pardoning and accepting where the whole work is compleatly perfected when the sinner is fully brought home by Christ to God from whom he first fell the act of pardoning is therefore most usually and fitly ascribed to the Father that being the ultimate perfecting pardon and we are said to ask it of him through Christ. 2. I call this Pardon a gracious Act For if it were not in some sort gratuitous or free it were no Pardon Let those think of this who say We have perfectly obeyed the Law in Christ and are therefore righteous If the proper debt either of obedience or suffering be payd either by our selves or by another then there is no place left for Pardon For when the Debt is payd we owe nothing except obedience de novo and therefore can have nothing forgiven us For the Creditor cannot refuse the proper Debt nor deny an Acquittance upon receit thereof But Christ having payd the Tantundem and not the Idem the Value and not the strict Debt this satisfaction the Father might have chosen to accept or to have discharged us upon Christs sufferings which yet because he freely doth therefore is his gracious Act properly called Pardon The ignorant Antinomians think it cannot be a Free Act of Grace if there be any Condition on our part for enjoying it As if in the fore-mentioned comparison pag. 153. the Tenants redemption were the less free because his new Lease requires the Rent of a pepper corn in token of homage As if when a pardon is procured for a condemned Malefactor upon condition that he shall not reject it when it is offered him but shall take him that procured it for his Lord that this were therefore no free pardon Indeed if we payd but a mite in part of the debt it self so far our pardon were the less free But I will not further trouble the Reader with these senceless conceits the confutation whereof
Blessed inherit the Kingdom c. For I was hungry c. So 1 Pet. 1. 17. Who without respect of persons judgeth according to every mans work So 2 Cor. 5. 10. We must all appear before the Iudgment seat of Christ that every one may receive the things done in his body according to that he hath done whether good or bad So Rev. 20. 12. 13. They were judged every man according to his Works Heb. 13. 17. Phil. 4. 17. Mat. 12. 36. c. But this is evident already 2. As it is beyond doubt that Christ will then justifie men according to their Works So that this is not onely to discover the sincerity of their Faith is as evident but that it is also as they are parts of that Evangelicall Righteousness which is the Condition of their Justification 1. The very phrases of the Text import as much Mat. 25. 21 23. Well done good faithfull servant c. Mat. 25. 34 35. For I was hungry c. And in the rest According to their Works Can any more be said of Faith then that we are justified or judged to Life both for it and according to it 2. If Works be not then considered as part of the Condition how then 1. Not as the Righteousness which the Law requireth For so shall no man living be justified in the sight of God Rom. 3. 20. Psa. 143. 2. 2. Not as a meer sign whereby God doth discern mens faith For he seeth it immediately and needeth no sign 3. Not as a meer sign to satisfie the justified person himself For 1. There is no such intimation in the Text. 2. Then it should be no further usefull then men remain doubtfull of their sincerity 3. The godly then know the sincerity of their Faith 4. Neither is the business of that Day to satisfie the doubting about the sincerity of their Faith by Arguments drawn from their former works But to judg and justifie them and so put them out of doubt by the Sentence and by their Glory 4. But the common opinion is That it is to satisfie the condemned World of the sincerity of the Faith of the godly But this cannot stand with the Truth For 1. It is clearly expressed a ground or reason of the Sentence 2. And to the Consolation Justification of the justified and not to the satisfaction or conviction of others onely or chiefly 3. The poor world will have somewhat else to take up their thoughts as the Text sheweth to wit the excusing of the sin for which they are condemned themselves Mat 25. 44 4. It seemeth that Christ doth in the Text call them Righteous in reference to this personall Evangelicall Righteousness mentioned in their Justifying Sentence vers 46. The Righteous into life Eternall 5. If Gods Justice engage him not to forget their work and labour of Love Heb. 6. 10 11 12. If the dead in Christ are blessed because their Works follow them Rev. 14. 13. If in every Nation he that feareth God and worketh Righteousnes be Accepted of him Act. 10. 35. If men shall reap the fruit of well-doing in due time Gal. 6. 7 8 9. If Ministers save themselves in taking heed to themselves and to doctrine 1 Tim. 4. 16. If he that doth Righteousness is righteous 1 Ioh. 3. 7. If whatsoever good thing any man doth the same he shall receive of the Lord Ephes. 6. 8. If hearing and doing be building on a Rock Mat. 7. 24. If the doers of Gods Will be the mothers sisters and brothers of Christ Mat. 12. 50 c. Then the mention of these works at judgment is more then to signifie their sincerity to the condemned world 6. If Christ mentioned these works to convince the world 1. Either it must be his own Testimony of these works that they are sincere evidences of a sincere Faith 2. Or else by the discovery which the works doe make themselves But 1. Christ may testifie of their faith immediately as well 2. Works are no certain signes of Faith to any stander-by who knoweth not whether Works themselves are sincere or not See more under the 76. Position If any say that it is to silence the Accusacion of Satan that these works are mentioned at judgement The same Answer will serve as to the last Besides Scripture giveth us no intimation of any such accusation but onely the managing the Laws Accusation But if he should Accuse us falsely of Hypocrisie as he did Iob It must be onely Gods heart-searthing knowledg of our sincerity that can cleare us Yet do I not deny in all this but that Works are effects of Faith and to the person himself who knoweth their sincerity they may be some Argument of the sincerity of Faith and God will vindicate his peoples Righteousness before all and be admired in them But his Justification primarily respecteth the Law and his own Justice and the Righteousness and Salvation of the Justified and but remotely the beholders Let me conclude with two or three cautionary Quaeries concerning the inconvenience of the contrary doctrine 1 Qu. Doth it not needlesly constrain men to wrest most plain and frequent expressions of Scripture 2 Qu. Doth it not uphold that dangerous pillar of the Antinomian Doctrine that we must not work or perform our duties for Life and Salvation but only from Life and Salvation That we must not make the attaining of Justification or Salvation an end of our Endeavours but obey in thankfulness only because we are saved and justified A doctrine which I have elsewhere confuted and if it were reduced to practise by all that hold it as I hope it is not would undoubtedly damn them For he that seeks not and that striveth not to enter shall never enter Now if good Works or sincere Obedience to Christ our Lord be no part of the Condition of our full Justification and Salvation Who will use them to that end For how it can procure Justification as a means and not by way of Condition I cannot conceive 3 Qu. Whether this doctrine doth not tend to drive Obedience out of the world For if men do once beleeve that it is not so much as a part of the Condition of their Justification will it not much tend to relax their diligence I know meer love and thankfulness should be enough And so it will when all our ends are attained in our Ultimate End then we shall act for these ends no more we shall have nothing to do but to love and joy and praise and be thankfull but that it is not yet Sure as God hath given us the affections of Fear and Desire and Hope and so Care so he would have us use them for the attainment of our great Ends. Therefore he that taketh down but one of all our Motives to Obedience he helps to destroy Obedience it self seeing we have need of every Motive that God hath left us 4 Qu. Doth it not much confirm the world in their soul-cozening Faith
they shall be like wooll So Ezek. 33. 14. 15 16. 18. 21. 22. Neither let any object that this is the Law of works For certainly that hath no promises of forgivenesse And though the discoveries of the way of Justification be delivered in the old Testament in a more dark and Legall language then in the New yet not in termes contradictory to the truth in the New Testament Thus you may see in what sence it is that Christ will judge men according to their Works will say Come ye blessed of my Father inherit the kingdome c. For I was hungry ye fed me c. Well done good faithfull Servant thou hast been faithfull in few things I will make thee Ruler over many things Enter thou into the joy of thy Lord Matth. 25. For being made perfect he became the Author of Eternall salvation to all them that obey him Hebr. 5. 9. Of whom it shall be said when they are glorified with him These are they that come out of great tribulation and have washed their robes in the blood of the Lambe and made them white Therefore are they before the throne of God and serve him day and night in his temple and he that siâ—teth on the throne shall dwell among them Revel 7. 14. 15. To whom be Glory for ever Amen REader because an exact Index would contain a great part of the Book I shall omit it and instead of it I here lay thee down some of the chief Distinctions upon which this Discourse dependeth desiring thee to understand them and keep them in memory You must distinguish 1. BEtwixt Gods Decretive or Purposing Will And his Legislative or Preceptive Will The 1. is his Determining of Events The 2. of Duty and Reward 2. Betwixt 1. the Covenant or Law of Works which saith Obey perfectly and Live or sin and Dye 2. And the Covenant or Law of Grace which saith Beleeve and be saved c. 3. Betwixt the two parts of each Covenant viz. 1. The Primary discovering the duty in Precepts and prohibiting the Sin 2. The secondary discovering the Rewards and Penalties in Promises and Threatnings 4. Betwixt a two-fold Righteousness of one and the same Covenant 1. Of perfect Obedience or performance of the Condition 2. Of suffering or satisfaction for disobedience or non-performance which maketh the Law to have nothing against us though we disobeyed See Pemble of Iustification pag. 2. Our Legall Righteousness is of this last sort not of the first Both these sorts of Righteousnesse are not possible to be found in any one person except Christ who had the former Righteousness as his own incommunicable to us in that form The second he had for us as he was by imputation a sinner And so we have it in or by him Mark this 5. Betwixt two kinds of Righteousness suitable to the two Covenants and their Conditions 1. Legall Righteousness which is our Conformity or satisfaction to the Law 2. And Evangelicall Righteousness which is our Conformity to the new Covenant Note that 1. Every Christian must have both these 2. That our Legall righteousness is onely that of Satisfaction but our Evangelicall is only that of obedience or performance of the Condition 3. That our Legall Righteousnesse is all without us in Christ the other in our selves 6. Betwixt Evangelicall Righteousness improll perly so called viz. because the Gospell doth reveain and offer it This is our Legall righteousness o Christ. 2. And Evangelicall righteousness prnt perly so called viz. Because the new Covenar is the Rule to which it is conformed This is ou performance of the new Covenants Conditions 7. Betwixt the Life or Reward in the first Covenant viz. Adams paradise happiness 2. And the Life of the second Covenant which is Eternall glory in heaven 8. Betwixt the death or curse of the old Covenant which is opposite to its reward This onely was laid on Christ and is due to Infants by nature 2. And the death of the second Covenant opposite to its life called the second death and far sorer punishment This finall unbeleevers suffer 9. Betwixt sins against the first Covenant For these Christ died 2. And sins against the second Covenant For these he dyed not 10. Betwixt sinning against Christ and the Gospell as the object of our sin only So Christ died for them 2. And sinning against the new Covenant as such or as a threatning Law So Christ dyed not for them 11. Betwixt delaying to perform the conditions of the new Covenant This is not threatned with death 2. And finall non-performance This is proper violation of the Covenant and a sin that leaveth no hope of recovery 12. Betwixt paying the proper debt of obedience as Christ did himself or of suffering as the damned do 2. And satisfying for non-payment as Christ did for us 13 Betwixt repealing the Law or Covenant which is not done 2. And relaxing it or dispensing with it which is done 14. Betwixt relaxation or dispensation in the proper subject and circumstances of the Penalty This is done in removing it from us to Christ. 2. And dispencing with the Penalty it self This is not done for Christ did bear it 15. Betwixt the change of the Law 2. And of the sinners relation to the Law 16. Betwixt the Lawes forbidding and condemning the sin so it doth still 2. And its condemning the sinner So it doth not to the justified because Christ hath born the curse 17. Betwixt the Precepts as abstracted from the Covenant termes which really they are not at all 2. And as belonging to the severall Covenants 18. Betwixt perfection of Holinesse which is a quality This is not in this life 2. And Perfection of Righteousness which is a Relation This is perfect or none at all 19. Betwixt recalling the Fact or the evil of the Fact or its desert of punishment These are never done nor are possible 2. And removing the duenesse of punishment from the Offendor This is done 20. Betwixt Pardon and Iustification Condiditionall which is an immediate effect of Christs Death and Resurrection or rather of the making of the new Covenant 2. And Pardon Iustification Absolute when we have performed all the Conditions 21. Betwixt Conditionall Pardon and Iustification which is only Potentiall Such is that which immediately followeth the enacting of the new Covenant to men before Faith or before they have sinned 2. And Conditionall Iustification which is actual of which the person hath true possession such is our Iustification after Faith till the last Iudgement which is ours actually but yet upon condition of perseverance in Faith and sincere Obedience 22. Betwixt Pardon and Iustification as they are Immanent Acts in God improperly and without Scripture called Pardon or Iustification 2. And Pardon and Iustification as they are Transient Acts performed by the Gospell-Promise as Gods Instrument This is the true Scripture Iustification 23. Betwixt Iustification in Title and Sence of Law which is
in this Life 2. And Iustification in sentence of the Iudge which is at the last Iudgement 24. Betwixt justifying us against a true Accusation as of breaking the Law Thus Christ justifieth us and here it is that we must plead his Safaction 2. And justifying us against a false Accusation as of not performing the Conditions of the Gospell Here we must plead not guilty and not plead the Satisfaction of Christ. 25. Betwixt the Accusation of the Law from Christ doth justifie believers 2. And the Accusation of the Gospell or new Covenant for not per forming its Conditions at all from which no man can be justified and for which there is no sacrifice 26. Betwixt those Acts which recover us to the state of Relation which we fell from that is Pardon Reconciliation and Iustification 2. And those which advance us to a far higher state that is Adoption and Vnion with Christ. 27. Betwixt our first Possession of Iustification which is upon our contract with Christ or meer Faith 2. And the Confirmation Continuation and Accomplishment of it whose Condition is also sincere Obedience and Perseverance 28. Betwixt the great summary duty of the Gospell to which the rest are reducible which is Faith 2. And the Condition fully expressed in all its parts where of Faith is the Epitome 29. Betwixt the word Faith as it is taken Physically and for some one single Act 2. And as it is taken Morally Politically and Theologically here for the receiving of Christ with the whole soul. 30. Betwixt the accepting of Christ as a Saviour only which is no true Faith nor can justifie 2. And Accepting him for Lord also which is true Iustifying Faith 31. Betwixt the foresaid Receiving of Christ himself in his offices which is the Act that Iustifieth 2. And Receiving his Promises and Benefits a consequent of the former Or betwixt accepting him for Iustification 2. And beleeving that we are justified 32. Betwixt the Metaphysicall Truth of our Faith 2. And the Morall Truth 33. Betwixt the Nature of the Act of Faith which justifieth or its Aptitude for its office which is its receiving Christ 2. And the proper formall Reason of its Iustifying power which is because it is the Condition upon which God will give us Christs Righteousness 34. Betwixt Works of the Law which is perfect Obedience 2. And Works of the Gospell Covenant which is Faith and sincere Obedience to Christ that bought us 35. Betwixt Works of the Gospell used as Works of the Gospell i.e. in subordination to Christ as Conditions of our full Iustification and Salvation by him 2. And Works commanded in the Gospell used a-Works of the Law or to legall ends viz. to make up in whole or in part our proper legall Righteousness and so in opposition to Christs Righteousness or in co-ordination with it In the first sence they are necessary to Salvation In the second Damnable 36. Betwixt receiving Christ and loving him as Redeemer which is the Condition it self 2. And taking the Lord for our God and chief Good and loving him accordingly Which is still implyed in the Covenant as its End and Perfection And so as more excellent then the proper Conditions of the Covenant Glory to God in the highest and on Earth Peace Good-will towards men Luk. 2. 14. Postscript WHereas there is in this Book an intimation of something which I have written of Vniversall Redemption Understand that I am writing indeed a few pages on that subject onely by way of Explication as an Essay for the Reconciling of the great differences in the Church thereabouts But being hindered by continuall sickness and also observing how many lately are set a work on the same subject as Whitfield Stalham Howe Owen and some men of note that I hear are now upon it I shall a while forbear to see if something may come forth which may make my endeavour in this kinde useless and save me the labour Which if it come not to pass you shall shortly have it if God will enable me Farewell AN APPENDIX to the fore-going TREATISE BEING An Answer to the Objections of a Friend concerning some Points therein contained And at his own Desire annexed for the sake of others that may have the same thoughts Zanchius in Philip. 3. 13. What can be more pernicious to a Student yea to a Teacher then to think that he knoweth all things and no knowledge can be wanting in him For being once puft up vvith this false opinion he vvill profit no more The same is much truer in Christian Religion and in the Knovvledge of Christ. Rom. 3. 25. Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through Faith in his blood for Remission of sins that are past through the forbearance of God READER THe disorder of the Interrogations and Objections which extorted from me this whole Tractate by pieces one after another hath caused me an unfeigned lover of method to give thee such a disorderly immethodicall Miscellany Also the quality of these Objections hath occasioned me to answer many things triviall whilest I know more difficult and weighty points are overlooked these things need no excuse but this information That I was to follow and not to lead and that I write only for those who know less than my self if thou know more thank God and joyn with me for the instruction of the ignorant whose information reformation and salvation and thereby Gods glory is the top of my ambition R. B. AN ANSWER to some Objections and Questions OF One that perused this small TRACTATE before it went to the Press The sum of the Objections is as followeth 1. IT seemeth strange to me that you make the death which the first Covenant did threaten to be only in the everlasting suffering of soul seperated from the body and that the body should de turned to earth and suffer no more but the pains of death and consequently not whole man but only part of him should de damned 2. Though you seem to take in the Active Righteousness of Christ with the Passive into the work of Justification yet it is on such grounds as that you do in the main agree with them who are for the Passive Righteousness alone against the stream of Orthodox Divines 3. I pray you clear to me a little more fully in what sence you mean that no sin but finall unbelief is a breach or violation of the new Covenant and how you can make it good that temporary unbelief and gross sin is no violation of it seeing We Covenant against these 4. Whether it will not follow from this doctrine of yours that the new covenant is never violated by any for the regenerate do never finally and totally renounce Christ and so they violate it not the unregenerate were never truly in covenant and therefore cannot be said to violate the Covenant which they never made 5. How you will make it appear that the new Covenant is not made with Christ only 6.
thought word or deed they break the Covenant which they made in Baptism Did ever any sober man make such a Covenant with Christ as to promise him never to sin against him Or doth Christ call us to such a Covenant Doth his Law threaten or did we in our Covenant consent that we should be condemned if ever we committed a gross sin I conclude therefore that those sins which do consist with true faith can be no breaches of the Covenant of Grace For else Faith being the condition we should both keep it and break it at the same time 2. But all the doubt is about the sins which are inconsistent with Faith Those are either 1. Disobedience to the Law of Works but that cannot violate the Covenant of Grace as such 2. Or else Refusall of Christ by Rebellion and Unbelief privative for of negative unbelief I will not speak And that Refusall is either 1. Temporary of that I have spoken already Or 2. Finall and that I acknowledg is the violation of the Covenant Perhaps you will object That the sin against the Holy Ghost also is a damning sin and so a breach of the Covenant To which I answer Finall Unbelief is the Genus and hath under it these three sorts 1. Ordinary finall Unbelief viz. against Ordinary means 2. The sin against the Holy Ghost 3. Totall Apostacy All these are unpardonable sins I have in another Treatise adventured to tell you my judgment concerning the sin against the Holy Ghost viz. That it is when a man will not beleeve in Christ notwithstanding all the testimoniall miracles of the Holy Ghost which he is convinced de facto were wrought but yet denyeth the validity of their Testimony This is the unpardonable unbelief because uncureable for it is the last or greatest Testimony which Christ will afford to convince the unbeleeving world and therefore he that deliberately refuseth this and will not be convinced by it is left by God as a hopeless wretch So that the sin against the Holy Ghost is but a sort of finall unbelief Lay by your prejudice against the singularity of this interpretation and exactly consider what the occasion of Christs mentioning this sin was and what was the sin which those Pharisees did commit and then judge Lastly For the sin of total Apostacy I confess it is the most proper violation of the Covenant not only as it is a Law and Covenant offered but also as it is a Covenant entred and accepted But it is unbelief which Apostates do fall to for it is only an explicite or implicite renouncing of Christ either as Lord or Saviour or both which is the unpardonable sin of Apostacy which is called falling away that is from Christ and the Covenant and crucifying the Son of God afresh and putting him to open shame Heb. 6. 6. And which is called Heb. 10. 26 29. sinning wilfully that is considerate resolved rejecting Christ or refusing his Government and so called treading under foot the Son of God and counting the blood of the Covenant vvherevvith they vvere sanctified an unholy thing and doing despight to the Spirit of Grace As the nature of this Apostacy lyeth in returning to infidelity so being Totall it is alwayes also Finall God having in his just Judgement resolved to withold from all such the grace that should recover them and so this is a sort of finall unbelief A second distinction which I must here mind you of is betwixt 1. the main Covenant of Grace and 2. Particular subordinate inferiour Covenants which may be made between God and a believer The former is not violated but as I have shewed before The latter is ordinarily broken by us If any man make a vow like Saul's or Ieptha's he may break it possibly and not be damned but recover by repentance If in your sickness or other affliction or at Sacrament or on dayes of Humiliation or Thanksgiving you should Covenant with God to forsake such a sin or to perform such a duty to mend your lives to be more holy and heavenly c. this Covenant you may perhaps break and yet recover And of such Covenants it is that I mean when in confession I do bewail my Covenant-breaking with Christ and not of the main Covenant of Grace for then I should confess my self a totall irrecoverable Apostate The Covenant which ought to be made with Christ in Baptism and which Baptism is the professing sign and seal of is the main Covenant of Grace Therefore is there no use for re-baptizing because such Apostacy is an unrecoverable sin So you see what Covenant it is that the godly break and what breach it is that they use to confess To the fourth Objection YOur fourth Objection that from this doctrine it will follow that the Covenant is never broken is easily answered 1. I think it is true that the regenerate do never break the Covenant But yet the breach in it self and in respect of our strength is more then possible and the controversie de eventu will hold much dispute Austin seemeth to me to be of this opinion That there are some effectually called that yet may fall away but the elect cannot so that he distinguisheth of calling according to purpose or election and that he thinketh cannot be lost and calling not following election which he thinketh may be lost so that he placeth not the difference in the calling but in the decree I do not recite this as assenting to it nor yet can I assent to them who make the very nature of Grace to be immortall and from thence do argue the certainty of perseverance I think to be naturally Immortall is Gods Prerogative and properly imcommunicable to any creature Even Angels and souls of men are Immortall only from the will and continued sustentation of God and if God did withdraw his hand and not continually uphold it the whole Creation would fall to nothing much more the quality of holiness in the soul To subsist of himself without continuall influx from another is proper to God the first naturall necessary absolute Independent Being Yet I acknowledge that when God will perpetuate any Being he fitteth the nature of it accordingly and maketh it more simple pure spirituall and less subject to corruption But yet to say that therefore it is a Nature Immortall or that cannot dye I think improper But I know Philosophers and Divines do think otherwise and therefore I do dissent qâ—asi coactus petitâ veniâ 2. But whether the Regenerate may break the Covenant or not certain I am the unregenerate may and do And whereas you object That they were never in Covenant and therefore cannot be said to break it I must desire you besides the former distinctions to remember these two more 1. Betwixt the Covenant as promulgate and only offered on Gods part 2. And the Covenant as accepted and entered by the sinner The former is most properly called The Law of Christ or new Law as
and the thing signified do say Let him that is athirst come and whoever will let him take the water of life freely Rev. 22. 17. Why may not I say so of the sign and seal to those that seriously professe their thirst Sure I shall speak but as Christ hath taught me and that according to the very scope of the Gospel and the nature of the Covenant of free grace And I wonder that those men who cry up the nature of free grace so much should yet so oppose this free offer of it and the sealing the free Covenant to them that lay claim to it upon Christs invitation To the tenth and eleventh Objections YOur 10. and 11. objections you raise upon my exceptions against the book called The Marrow of Modern Divinity And first you mention the Doctrine and then the Book 1. You think that Do this and live is the voice of the Law of works only and not of the Law or Covenant of Grace and that we may not make the obtaining of life salvation the end of duty but must obey in meer love and from thankfulnesse for the life we have received To all which I answer 1. By way of explication and 2. of probation of my assertions 1. Do this and live in severall senses is the language of both Law and Gospel 1. When the Law speaketh it the sense is this If thou perfectly keep the Laws that I have given thee or shall give thee so long thou shalt continue this life in the earthly Paradise which I have given thee But if once thou sinne thou shalt dye 2. When the Gospel speaketh it the sense is thus Though thou hast incurred the penalty of the Law by thy sinne yet Christ hath made satisfaction Do but accept him for Lord and Saviour and renouncing all other deliver up thy self unreservedly to him and love him above all and obey him sincerely both in doing and suffering and overcome persevere herein to the end and thou shalt be justified from all that the Law can accuse of and restored to the favour and blessings which thou hast lost and to a farre greater Thus the Gospel saith Do this and live That the Gospel commandeth all this I know you will not question and that this is doing you must needs acknowledge But all the question is whether we may do it that we may live I have fully explained to you in this Treatise already in what sense our doing is required and to what ends viz. not to be any part of a legall Righteousnesse nor any part of satisfaction for our unrighteousnesse but to be our Gospel righteousnesse or the condition of our participation in Christ who is our legall Righteousnesse and so of all the benefits that come with him In these severall respects and senses following the Gospel commandeth us to act for life 1. A wicked man or unbeliever may and must hear the Word pray enquire of others c. that so he may obtain the first life of grace and faith This I now prove Isa. 55. 3. 6 7. Ionas 3. 8 9. 10. Pro. 1. 23 24. 25. Amos 5. 4. Act. 2. 37. Isa. 1. 16. Mat. 11. 15. 13. 43. Luk. 16. 29. 31. Ioh. 5. 25. Act. 10. 1 2. 22. 23. Rom. 10. 13. 14 1 Tim. 4. 16. Heb. 3 7. Rev. 3 20. Yet do not I affirm that God never preventeth mens endeavours he is sometime found of them that sought him not Nor do I say that God hath promised the life of Grace to the endeavours of nature But their duty is to seek life and half promises and many encouragements God hath given them such as that in Joel 2. 12 13 14. who knoweth but God will c So Zeph. 2. 3. Exod. 32. 30. And that in Act. 8. 7. 2. Pray therefore if perhaps the thoughts of thy heart may be forgiven thee 2. That a man may act for the increase of this spirituall life when he hath it methinks you should not doubt if you do see 1 Pet. 2. 1 2. 1. 22. 2 Pet. 1. 5 6 7 8. 3. 18. And the Parable of the Talents Mat. 25 26 27. 28. 30. 3. That we may and must act for the life of Reconciliation and Iustification and Adoption is beyond dispute How oft doth Scripture call on men to Repent to Believe to Pray to forgive others and to reform that their sinnes may be forgiven them I have quoted the Scriptures before when I opened the conditions of justification Isa. 1. 16 17 18. Isa. 55. 6 7. Act. 8. 22. Iam. 5. 15. And we are still said to be justified by faith which is an act of ours 4. That we may act for to obtain assurance both of our justification and sanctification is undeniable 2 Pet. 1. 10. 2 Cor. 13. 5. c 5. That we may act for eternall life and salvation methinks he that beareth the face of a Christian should not deny and that both for 1. Title to it 2. Assurance of our enjoying it 3. for possession it self I shall but quote the Scriptures for brevity sake desiring you to read them and save me the labour of transcribing them Rev. 22 14. Iohn 5. 39 40. Mat. 11. 12. and 7. 13. Luke 13. 24. Phil. 2. 17. Rom. 2. 7 10. 1 Cor. 9. 24. 2 Tim. 2. 5 12. 1 Tim. 6. 12 18 19. Phil. 3. 14 Mat. 25. 1 Cor. 15. last 2 Cor. 4. 17. and 5. 10 11. 2 Pet. 1. 10 11. Luke 11. 28. Heb. 4. 1. Luke 12. 5. 1 Cor. 9. 17. These last places shew that the escaping hell and damnation is a necessary end of our actings and duties as well as the obtaining of heaven If when you have read and weighed these Scriptures you be not convinced that we may act or do for life and salvation and so that Do this and live is in some sense the language of the Gospell I shall question whether you make the Scripture the Rule of your faith or be not rather one of them that can force upon themselves a faith of one or others making Object But it is not the most excellent and Gospel-like frame of spirit to do all out of meer love to God and from Thankfulnesse for life obtained by Christ and given us Answ. 1. If it come not from love to God it is not sincere 2. Yet doth not the Gospell any where set our love to God and to our own souls in opposition nor teach us to love God and not our selves but contrarily joineth them both together and commandeth us both The love of our selves and desire of our preservation would never have been planted so deeply in our natures by the God of nature if it had been unlawfull I conclude therefore that to love God and not our selves and so to do all without respect to our own good is no Gospell frame of spirit 2. Thankfulnesse for what we have received either in possession title or promise must be a singular spur to put us on
bring it into subjection lest when he had preached to others himself should be a cast-away 1 Cor. 9. 27. what can be plainer Did not Abraham obey because he looked for a Citie which had foundations Heb. 11. 10. And Moses because he had respect to the recompence of Reward 26. And all that cloud of witnesses obey and suffer that they might attain a better Resurrection 35. and did they not seek a better Countrey that is an heavenlie and therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God for he hath prepared for them a City ver 16. Do not all that confesse themselves strangers on earth plainlie declare that they seek another Countrie ver 13 14. Whosoever therefore shall hereafter tell you that you must not do good to attain salvation or escape damnation as being too mercenarie and slavish for a Sonne of God abhorre his Doctrine though he were an Angel from heaven And if this satisfie you not look to Jesus the Authour and Finisher of your Faith who for the joy that was set before him endured the Crosse despising the shame and is set down at the right hand of God Heb. 12. 12. Rom. 14 9. And as Adam fell to be liker the Devil when he needs would be as God so take heed whither you are falling when you will be better then Jesus Christ. And do I after all this need to answer the Common objections that it is mercenarie and slavish to labour for salvation Must I be put to prove that the Apostles and Christ himself were not mercenarie slaves or that Gods Word hath not prescribed us a slavish task Indeed if we did all for a reward distant from God and for that alone without any conjunction of Filiall love and expected this Reward for the worth of our work then it might be well called Mercenary and slavish But who among us plead for such a working FRom all this you may gather part of the Answer to your next Question why I except against the book called The Marrow of Modern Divinity Because it is guiltie of this hainous Doctrine Yet further let me tell you that I much value the greatest part of that Book and commend the industrie of the Authour and judge him a man of godlinesse and Moderation by his writing And had I thought as meanlie of it as I do of Colyer Sprigs Hobsons and manie such abominable Pamphlets that now fly abroad I should not have thought it worthy the taking so much notice of But because it is otherwise usefull I thought meet to give you warning that you drink not in the evill with the good And especially because the names that so applaud it may be a probable snare to entangle you herein And I conjecture the Authours ingenuity to be such that he will be glad to know his own mistakes and to correct them Otherwise I am unfeignedly tender of depraving or carping at any mans labours Some of these mistaking passages I will shew you briefly As page 174. Quest. Would you not have believers to escâ—ew evill and do good for fear of Hell or for hope of Heaven Ans. No indeed I would not have any beleiver doe the one or the other for so farre as they do so their obedience is but slavish c. To which end he alledgeth Luke 1. 74. 75. But that speaks of Freedome from fear of our Enemies such as Christ forbids in Luke 12. 5. where yet he commandeth the fearing of God And consequently even that fear of enemies is forbidden as they stand in opposition to God and not as his instrnments in subordination Or if it be even a fear of God that is there meant yet it cannot be all fear of him or his displeasure so far as we are in danger of sin or suffering we must fear it and so farre as our assurance is still imperfect a jealousie of our own hearts and a dreadfull reverence of God also are necessary But not the Legall terrours of our former bondage such as arise from the apprehension of sin unpardoned and of God as being our Enemy In the 180 Page he denieth the plain sence of the Text. Mat. 10. 28. In the 155 page he makes this the difference between the two Covenants One saith Do this and Live the other saith Live and do this The one saith Do this for life The other saith Do this from life But I have proved fully that the Gospel also saith Do this for life So in his second part page 190. His great note to know the voice of the Law by is this that when in Scripture there is any morall work commanded to be done either for the eschuing of punishment or upon promise of any reward temporall or eternall or else when any promise is made with the condition of any work to be done which is commanded in the Law there is to be understood the voice of the Law A notorious and dangerous mistake which would make almost all the New Testament and the very Sermons of Christ himself to be nothing but the Law of works I have fully proved before that morall duties as part of our sincere obedience to Christ are part of the condition of our Salvation and for it to be performed And even Faith is a morall duty It is pitty that any Christian should no better know the Law from the Gospel especially one that pretendeth to discover it to others So in the next page 191 he intolerably abuseth the Scripture in affirming that of 2 Thes. 2. 12. 10. to be the voice of the Law and so making Paul a Legall Preacher And as shamefully doth he abuse 1 Cor. 6. 9 10. As if the Apostle when he biddeth them not to be decived were deceiving them himself in telling them that no unrighteous person fornicators adulterers c. shall inherit the Kingdom of God Is this Law Then let me be a Preacher of the Law If Paul be a Legalist I will be one too But these men know not that the Apostle speaketh of those that die such and that these sinnes exclude men the Kingdom as they are Rebellion against Christ their Lord and so a violation of the New Covenant So in part first page 189. He mentioneth a Preacher that said he durst not exhort nor perswade sinners to believe their sinnes were pardoned before he saw their lives reformed for fear they should take more liberty to sin And he censureth that Preacher to be ignorant in the Mystery of faith I confesse I am such an ignorant Preacher my self and therefore shall desire this knowing man to resolve me in a few doubts 1. Where he learned or how he can prove that Justifying Faith is a believing that our sinnes are pardoned when Scripture so often telleth us that we are justified by Faith and sure the Object must go before the Act and therefore that which followeth the Act is not the Object If we must believe that we are pardoned that so we may be pardoned then we must
I find him speaking my own thoughts in my own words and begun to think when I read him that men would think I borrowed all from Dr. Preston Read him in his Treatise of Faith pag. 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 89 97. Also Of Effectull Faith pag. 40 41. 87 And Treatise of Faith pag. 14 15 16 20 21. 56 57 58. 7. But especially the chief point that I stand upon am like to be opposed most in he handleth so fully and asserteth so frequently as if it were the choicest notion which he desired to divulge viz. That justifying faith as such is a taking of Christ for Lord as well as for Saviour Of so many places I will transcribe two or three And first his definition of the active part of faith is the very same with mine Of Faith pag. 44. It is to Believe not onely that Christ is offered to us but also to take and receive him as a Lord and Saviour that is both to be saved by him and to obey him Mark it saith he I put them together to take him as a Lord and Saviour for you shall finde that in the ordinary phrase of Scripture they are put together Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour therefore we must take heed of disjoyning those that God hath joyned together We must take Christ as well for a Lord as a Saviour let a man do this and he may be assured that his faith is a justifying faith therefore mark it diligently if a man will take Christ for a Saviour onely that will not serve the turn Christ giveth not himself to any upon that condition only to save him but we must take him as a Lord too to be subject to him and obey him and to square our actions according to his will c. pag. 45. So of Effectuall Faith pag. 92. Now faith is nothing but this We come and tell you that Christ is offered if you will be content to let all these things go and to turn your hearts to him then the whole bent of a mans mind is turned the contrary way and set upon Christ this is such Faith indeed c. Now iâ— we were not mistaken in it there would be no question of this We think that faith is nothing but a perswasion that our sins are forgiven a perswasion that the promises are true and the Scripture true a perswasion that Christ died for my sins And thence it is that men are apt to be deceived in it If they took Faith as it is in its self a Marriage of our selves to Christ with all our heart and affections when he hath given himself to us as in Marriage and we are given to him in doing this we should never be deceived So in his Treatise of the New Covenant pag. 458. you must know that the Covenant is then dissolved when that is dissolved that did make the Covenant Lock what it is that puts a man into the Covenant of Grace at the first when that is taken away then the Covenant is disannulled between God and us but till then the Covenant remaines sure Now what is it that makes the Covenant Mark it This is that which makes the Covenant when Jesus Christ offereth himself to us and makes known his consent c. when we again come and take him and give our consent to make him our Lord and we subject our selves to him to be his when we say to the promised seed He shall be my God and my Governour and I will be among his people and be subject to him I say when the heart gives a full consent to this c. now the Covenant and contract is made between them Now as long as this union continues between Christ and us the Covenant is not disannulled So that in a word the Covenant is never nullified till thou hast chosen to thy self another husband till thou hast taken to thy self another Lord c. pag. 459. So that here you see 8ly that every infirmity breaks not the Covenant See also Treatise of Love pag. 147. 9 That there is a Gospel curse following the breach of the Gospel Law and that it is unrepealable and more terrible then that of the Law pag. 19 20. 10 What near conjunction love hath with Faith in justifying See Treatise of Effectuall Faith 41 42. 11 That the promise and offer of Christ is generall see Treatise of Faith pag. 9 10. I will transcribe but one more Treatise of the New Covenant pag. 317 318. You must know there is a two-fold Covenant one of works another of grace c The Covenant of grace runs in these termes Thou shalt believe thou shalt take my Sonne for thy Lord and thy Saviour and thou shalt likewise receive the gift of Righteousnesse which was was wrought by him for an absolution for thy sinnes for a reconciliation with me and thereupon thou shalt grow up in love obedience towards me Then I will be thy God and thou shalt be my people This is the Covenant of grace c. In this you see also 12ly That love and sincere obedience are parts of the condition of the New Coveuant Thus you see I am not in these 12. points singular and in more could I also prove his context though in some things I confesse he differeth as in making Faith an instrument in our justification pag. 54. Of Faith But as I take that to be a small difference so it is apparent by the forecited places that he took Faith to justifie as the condition of the Covenant and so the difference is but verball yet speaking in the common phrase put him upon that absurdity pag. 56. Treatise of Faith viz. to say That reconciling and justifying are acts of Faith If he had said but that they are effects of Faith it had been more then in proper strict sence taken can be proved To the fifteenth Objections TO your fifteenth Objection I answer 1. The Apostle in those places dealeth with the Jews who trusted to works without and against Christ This is nothing against them that set not up works in opposition nor coordination but onely in subordination to Christ. 2. If I affirmed that works are the least part of that Righteousnesse which the Law requireth and which must be so pleaded to our justification then I should offend against the freenesse of grace But when I affirme that all our legall Righteousnesse is onely in Christ then doe I not make the reward to be of debt or lesse free 3. The Apostle in the same verse Rom. 4. 5. saith that his Faith is counted for Righteousnesse and I have proved before that subjection is a part of Faith 4. The Apostle plainly speaketh of that Righteousnesse whereby we are formally righteous and which we must plead that we may be justified from the accusation of the Law and this is neither in Faith nor works but in Christ But he nowhere speaketh against that which is only the condition of our
participation of that and whereby we must escape the condemnation of the Gospell which is Faith as I have opened before 5. If the Apostle should meane otherwise it were as much against your Doctrine as mine For is not Faith a work or act of ours But you will say That though Faith which is a work do justifie yet not as a work but as an instrument I answer 1. To be an actuall apprehension of Christ which you call its instrumentality is to bee a work Therefore if it justifie as it is such an apprehension it justifieth as a work 2. So also say I that subjection and obedience justifie 1. Not as works simply considered 2. Nor as legall works 3. Nor as meritorious works 4. Nor as Good works which God is pleased with 5. But as the conditions to which the free Law-giver hath promised justification and life Nay your Doctrine ascribeth farre more of the work to man then mine for you make justification an effect of your own Faith and your Faith the instrumentall cause of it and so make your selfe your owne justifier And you say your Faith justifieth as it apprehendeth Christ which is the most intrinsecall essentiall consideration of Faith and so Faith hath much of the honour But while I affirm that it justifieth onely as a condition which is an extrinsecall consideration and aliene from its essence or nature I give the glory to him that freely giveth me life and that made so sweet a condition to his Covenant and that enableth me to performe the said condition And thus I have according to my measure of understanding answered your Objections as fully as necessitated brevity would permit And for that question which you propounded about Relaxation Abrogation c. of the Law which you confesse you doe not well understand I refer you to Vossius Defens Grotii de Satisf cap. 27. where among other things hee telleth you that Apud Romanos seu ferenda esset Lex populus rogabatur an ferrivellet seu tollendae rogabatur an tolli eam placeret Hinc rogari lex dicebatur quae ferrebatur ut dicit Vlp. Tit. 1. Regal Eâdemque de causâ abrogari dicebatur cum antiquaretur c. And then he explaineth all those phrases to you out of Vlpian Lex rogatur id est fertur vel abrogatur idest prior lex tollitur vel Derogatur id est pars primae tollitur aut subrogatur id est adjicitur aliquid primae legi aut Obrogatur id est mutatur aliquid ex primâlege And so concludeth that the first Law was not abrogated but relaxed dispensed with and obrogate How farre it was executed I have shewed you in the Treatise But the last task you set me is of all the rest most ungratefull endlesse and in my judgement unnecessary viz. To answer what other men have written against some doctrines which I have here asserted 1. It is a work ungratefull to search into other mens weaknesse and mistakes to handle the truth in a way of contention or to speak in way of derogation of the labours of the learned and godly 2. And should I fall upon a confutation of every man that hath written contrary to any thing in my Book the task would be endlesse and I might stuffe a great deale of paper with words against words and perhaps adde little matter to what is already written which is a work unfit me for to undertake who have so much better work to doe and am like to have so short a time to doe it in 3. And it seemes to me a needlesse task partly because from the cleering and confirmation of the positive truth you may be enabled to answer opposers your selfe 2. The Authors which you mention doe so easily and effectually assault the doctrines mentioned that I should think no judicious man can thereby be staggered But at your request I will briefly consider them particularly The Authors which you refer me to are two D. Maccovius and Mr. Owen The points which they contradict are three 1. That our legall Righteousnesse which we have in Christ consisteth not formally in obedience to the Precept of the first Covenant but onely in satisfaction for our Disobedience This Maccovius opposeth in Colleg. Theol. par 1 Disp. 10. par 4. Disp. 9. 2. That Christ payed not the same debt which was in the first obligation but the value and so the Law was not properly and fully executed but relaxed This you say Mr. Owen confuteth in Grotius in his late Treatise of Vniversall Redemption lib. 3 cap. 7. p. 140. 3. That no man is actually and absolutely justified no not so much as in point of Right either from eternity or upon the meere payment of the bebt by Christ till themselves doe beleeve This you say is confuted by both of them Maccov par 3. Disp. 16. par 1. Disp. 17. Et owen ubi supra If mens names did not more take with you then their Arguments you might have spared me this labour But briefly to the first of these I answer 1. Most passages in Maccovius doe affirm but that Christ obeyed for us as well as suffered for us and who denyeth that 2. Of those passages which yet goe further there is few of them that say any more then this that Christs active Righteousnesse did merit for us that life and glory which is given by the New Covenant more then we lost by breaking the Old But this is nothing to our Question which is onely about justification For I have cleared to you before that Justification is properly and strictly taken one of those acts whereby we are recovered from the condemnation of the Law and set in statu quo prius and not one of those acts which give us that additionall glory which is Adoption Union Glorification 3. Those few Arguments which yet doe drive higher then this are so fully answered already by Mr. Gataker against Lucius Gomarrus c. and Mr. Goodwin notwithstanding Mr. Roboroughs Answer and divers others that I am resolved not to lose so much time and labour as to doe that which is better done already then can be expected from me 4. Onely one argument more then usuall I finde in part 1 Disput. 10. And which I confesse deserveth a speciall consideration And that is this If Christ onely suffered for us then the righteousnesse of Adam had hee continued in innocency would have been more excellent then the righteousnesse of Christ For the law requireth obedience principally and suffering but per accidens But the consequence is false because else Christ hath not set us in as good a state as we fell from To this I answer 1. This righteousnesse may be termed excellent in severall respects 1 In reference to its Rule 2. Or in reference to its Ends. The 1. denominateth it Good in it self The second denominateth it good to us Now the Rules to measure it by are two 1. The neerest inferiour Rule which is the
acknowledgeth that the payment is not made by the party to whom remission is granted and so saith every man that is a Christian 2. He saith It was a full valuable compensation therefore not of the same 3. That by reason of the Obligation upon us we our selves were bound to undergo the punishment therefore Christs punishment was not in the Obligation but only ours so the Law was not fully executed but relaxed 4. He saith he meaneth not that Christ bore the same punishment due to us in all accidents of duration and the like but the same in weight and pressure therefore not the same in the Obligation because not fully the same Not the same numerically nor perhaps specifically in all respects if the losse of Gods Love and Image and incurring his hatred the corruption of the body the losse of right to and use of all the creatures and the losse of all comforts corporall or spirituall c. were any part of the curse yet that it was in the greatest respects of the same kinde I doubt not 5. He saith God had power so farre to relax his owne Law as to have the name of a surety put into the Obligation which before was not there and then to require the whole debt of that surety And what saith Grotius more then this If the same thing in the Obligation be paid then the Law is executed and if executed properly and fully then not relaxed Here he confesseth that the sureties name was not in the Obligation and that God relaxed the Law to put it in Now the maine businesse that Grotius there drives at is but to prove this relaxation of the Law and the non-execution of it on the offenders threatned I Iudge that Mr. Owen hath no better successe in his next assault of Grotius on that question whether God manage this work of relaxing the Law punishing Christ for us c. as a Creditor or as an absolute Master or as a Judge under Lawes or as the supreme Rector the last of which Grotius maintaineth He that readeth Grotius and Vossius own words doth need no further defensative against the force of Mr. Owens Answers But this is nothing to me Onely I would not have any truth to fare the worse for Grotius his defection It was himself that deserved the discredit and not the Truth of God The third and last contradicted Article is That no man is actually and absolutely justified upon the meer payment of the debt by Christ till they become Beleevers Against this you send me to both the forementioned Authors Answ. 1. When I first cast my eye upon the two fore-cited Disputations in Maccowski I had thought he had spoke onely of the universall conditionall Justification of men when he saith that active Iustification was at the begining of the first promise But my charitable thoughts I soon saw were mistaken But I find as his Doctrine is very strange so are his proofs as slender as any mans you could have sent me to 1. Is it not strange that Active justification should be perfected 5000. yeares before Passive justification is in being I thought Passive justification had been the mediate effect of the Active And that God had justified no man who is not thereby justified 2. And as strange and abhorred to me is the other part of his doctrine viz. That Faith onely taketh knowledge of justification formerly wrought And his Arguments are as weak as the doctrine erroneous 1. The first is Because the Object must needs go before the Act. Answ. But is it not pity that so excellent a Doctor should think that justification that not only in offer but in actuall being should be the object of justifying Faith I am ashamed to confute so sencelesse an assertion Sure it is Christ and not actuall justification that is the object When the Scripture saith that Whosoever beleeveth shall be justified is it a learned Exposition which thus interpreteth it You that are elect are already justified and if you will beleeve it you shall know it 2. He citeth Paraeus saying that Faith doth not effect justification but accept it Answ. 1. They that say Faith is the instrumentall cause of justification must needs say that Faith effectth it 2. Faith accepteth Christ for justification 3. It accepteth not justification as being actually and absolutely our owne before the acceptance But it accepteth a conditionall justification offered to me that by the acceptance it may become absolutely mine His citing of Tossanus words is nothing for him For when hee saith that All the Elect are justified in Christ in respect of the merit thereof it is no more then to say that Christ hath merited their justification which who denyeth But the great Argument which he and all of his judgement do trust to is this If the surety so undertake or discharge the debt that the creditor rest satisfied with that undertaking or discharge then is the debtor free from the debt But Christ hath so undertaken and discharged the particular debts of the Elect therefore the Elect are freed Answ. 1. Payment is refusable or not refusable That payment which is of the same thing in the Obligation either by our selves or our Delegate is not by the Creditor refusable so that if we had paid it or Christ had been our Delegate appointed by us to pay the same that was due then God could not have refused to take that payment But Christ being appointed to this by the Father and not by us and also paying not the very same but the value God might have refused the payment 2. Where the payment is not refusable there the discharge of the debtor is not refusable but doth follow ipse facto But where the payment is refusable as here it was the Creditor may accept it upon what termes he pleases and chuse to give the Debtor an absolute discharge so that it being the full agreement and pleasure both of the Creditor and the Surety the father and the sonne that the Debtor should have no discharge by the payment but upon a certaine condition by him to be performed no doubt he shall have none till he have performed it 3. So that Gods accepting the payment and being satisfied with it may be understood 1. In respect to the Surety and the value of his payment and so God was well pleased and fully satisfied in Christs payment as bein the full value that his justice did require and beyond which he expected no more at his hands 2. Or it may be spoken in reference to the debtor the sinner and the effecting of his freedome And so God was not immediately upon Christs payment so satisfied or well pleased with the particular offenders as to deliver and discharge them without requiring any thing at their hands 1. For he will first have them perform the imposed condition of taking Christ who hath bought them for their only Saviour Husband and Lord. To these of Maccovius Mr. Owen in
the place against Grotius which you referre me to addeth some more As 1. By death he deliver us from death Answ. Not immediately nor absolutely nor by his Death alone but by that as the price supposing other causes on his part and conditions on ours to concurre before the actuall deliverance 2. He saith The Elect are said to dye and rise with him Answ. Not in respect of time as if we dyed rose at the same time either really or in Gods esteem Nor that we dyed in his dying rose in his rising But it is spoken of the distant mediate effects of his death the immediate effects of his Spirit on us rising by regeneration to union and Communion with Christ. 3. He saith Christ hath redeemed us from the curse being made a curse for us Gal. 3. 13. Answ. I explained before how farre we are freed by Redemption He hath redeemed us that is paid the price but with no intent that we should by that Redemption be immediately or absolutely freed Yet when we are freed it is to be ascribed to his death as the meritorious cause but not as the onely cause 4. He saith The hand-writing that was against us even the whole obligation is taken out of the way and nailed to his Crosse. Answ. 1. By the hand-writing of Ordinances is especially meant the Law of Ceremonies 2. If it be meant also of the curse of the Old Covenant then it cannot be so understood as if the Covenant it self were abrogate for the reasons I have before given in the Treatise 3. Nor yet that any are absolutely discharged from the curse till they perform the condition required for their discharge 4. But thus farre the Law is taken down that our Redeemer hath bought us from that necessity of perishing that lay upon us for our transgressing that Law so that no man is now condemned for the meer violation of that first Covenant and so he hath taken the Law into his owne hands to charge only upon those that break the conditions of the New Covenant 5. And so he hath taken downe the condemning power of the Law as it standeth by it selfe and not as it is under the Covenant of grace And hee hath freed us from the curse conditionally and the condition is easie and reasonable 6. So that quoad meritum the work is done All the satisfaction is made and price paid and therefore in Heb. 1. 3. it is said to be done If a man where a 1000 l. in debt and had tryed all meanes and had no hope left to procure his discharge And if a stranger to him goe to the Creditor and buy the Debtor who is in prison into his owne hands by paying all the debt yet resolving that if he refuse his kindnesse hee shall have no benefit by it but lye and rot there May it not be fitly said that the debtor is delivered because the great difficulty which hindered is removed and the condition of his freedome is so reasonable that common reason supposeth he will not stick at it and if he doe it is utterly against reason and humanity for hee may be freed if he will Therefore it is no unfit phrase to say the man is freed as soon as his debt is payed But yet he is not absolutely freed nor actually neither in point of personall right nor of possession And for his humane refusall of the kindnesse of his Redeemer may lye and perish there and be never the better but the worse for all this 7. Yet it being the absolute purpose both of the Father and Mediator to cause all the Elect to perform this condition of their discharge therefore Redemption is a cause of their certaine future discharge and a linke in the inviolable chaine of the causes of their salvation But to the rest of the world it is not so But I doe not well understand the meaning of the Author you referre me to For he saith That Christ did actually and ipso facto deliver us from the curse and obligation yet we do not instantly apprehend and perceive it nor yet possesse it but only we have actuall right to all the fruits of his death As a prisoner in a farre Countrey who is ransomed but knoweth it not nor can enjoy liberty till a Warrant be produced c. But 1. Whether a man may fitly be said actually and ipso facto to be delivered and discharged who is not at all delivered but onely hath right to deliverance I doubt 2. Knowledge and posiession of a deliverance are farre different things A man may have possession and no knowledge in some cases or if he have both yet the procuring of knowledge is a small matter in comparison of possession 3. Our knowledge therefore doth not give us possession so that the similitude failes for it is the Creditors knowledge and satisfaction that is requisite to deliverance And our Creditour was not in a farre and strange countrey but knew immediately and could either have made us quickly know or turned us free before we had knowne the cause 4. Nor can it easily be understood how God can so long deny us the possession of Heaven if wee had such absolute actuall Right as he speaketh so long ago which seemeth to expresse a jus ad rem in re If it be said wee are yet in our minority and not fit for present possession I answer That this fitnesse and our maturity is part of the deliverance or benefit which he saith de facto we had right to And so we should have had that also in present possession 4. But if he doe meane onely a right to future possession for such there is yet I confesse it is beyond my conceiving how in regard of the relative part of our deliverance that right and the possession should stand at so many yeeres distance To have right to Gods favour and acceptance and to have possession of that favour to have right to the remission of sinne and adoption to have possession of these do seeme to me to be of neerer kin Except he should think that possession of favour is nothing but the knowledge or feeling of it and that possession of pardon is the like that Faith justifieth us but in foro conscientiae But I will not censure so hardly till I know it Indeed there is a justification by publike declaration at the great judgement which much differeth from a meer Right But our justification by faith here is but a justifying in the sence of the Law or giving us right to that full justification So that To have right to it and to have possession of it in point of Law or Right is to me all one For what doth Faith give us possession of in its justifying Act but this legall right 5. And indeed it seemeth to me a full definition of all pardon and justification which is here to bee expected which he layeth downe Hee saith Christ did deliver us from
it in its Promise And as where there is no Law there is no Transgression nor Condemnation because sin is formally a transgression of the Law and Condemnation is but the execution of its Threatning so where there is no fulfilling the new Law there is no Righteousnesse nor Iustification because Righteousnesse is formally a conformity to the Law of Righteousnesse and Iustification is but the performing of part of its Promise 5. That Faith 's receiving Christ and his righteousnesse is the remote of secondary and not the formall Reason why it doth Iustifie appeareth thus 1. I would ask any dissenter this Question Suppose that Christ had done all that he did for sinners and they had believed in him thereupon without any Covenant promising Iustification to this faith Would this faith have justified them By what Law Or whence will they plead their Iustification at the barr of God Well but suppose that Christ having done what he did for us that he should in framing the New Covenant have put in any other Condition and said whosoever loveth God shall by vertue of my satisfaction be Iustified Would not this love have Iustified No doubt of it I conclude then thus The receiving of Christ is as the silver of this coin the Gospell-promise is as the Kings stamp which maketh it currant for justifying If God had seen meet to have stamped any thing else it would have passed currantly Yet take this Faith is even to our own apprehension the most apt and suitable condition that God could have chosen for as far as we can reach to know There cannot be a more Rationall apt condition of delivering a redeemed Malefactor from Torment then that he thankfully accept the pardon and favour of redemption and hereafter take his Redeemer for his Lord. So that if you ask me what is the formall Reason why Faith Iustifieth I answer Because Christ hath made it the condition of the New Covenant and promised Iustification upon that Condition But 2. If you ask me further Why did Christ chuse this rather then any thing else for the Condition I. Answer 1. To ask a Reason of Christs choice and commands is not alway wise or safe 2. But here the reason is so apparent that a posteriore we may safely adventure to say That this is the most self-denying and Christ advancing work Nothing could be more proportionable to our poverty who have nothing to buy with then thus freely to receive Nothing could be more reasonable then to acknowledge him who hath redeemed us and to take him for our Redeemer and Lord many more such Reasons might be given In a word then Faith Justifieth primarily and properly as it is the Condition of the New Covenant that is the formall reason And secondarily remotely as it is the receiving of Christ and his righteousnesse that is the aptitude of it to this use to which it hath pleased Cod to destinate it I stand the more on this because it is the foundation of that which followeth THESIS LVIII THe ground of this is because Christs Righteousness doth not Iustifie us properly and formerly because we Beleeve or receive it but because it is ours in Law by Divine Donation or Imputation THis is plain in it self and in that which is said before THESIS LIX IVstification is not a momentaneous Act begun and ended immediately upon our Believing bnt a continued Act which though it be in its kind compleat from the first yet is it still in doing till the finall Iustification at the Iudgement day EXPLICATION THis is evident from the nature of the Act it being as I shewed before an Act of God by his Gospell Now 1. God still continueth that Gospell-Covenant in force 2. That Covenant still continueth Justifying Believers 3. God himself doth continue to esteem them accordingly and to Will their Absolution 1. This sheweth you therefore with what limitation to receive the Assersion of our Divines that Remission and Justification are simul semel performed 2. And that the Justified pardoned may pray for the continuance of their pardon and Justification 3. That of Christs satisfaction and our Faith are of continuall use and not to be laid by when we are once Justified as if the work were done See Dr. Downame of Iustific of this point THESIS LX. THe bare Act of beleeving is not the onely Condition of the New Covenant but severall other duties also are part of that Condition EXPLICATION I Desire no more of those that deny this but that Scripture may be Iudge and that they will put by no one Text to that end produced till they can give some other commodious and not forced Interpretation 1. Then that pardon of sin and salvation are promised upon condition of Repenting as well as beleeving is undeniably asserted from these Scriptures Prov. 1. 23. 28. 13. Mar. 1. 15. 6. 12. Luk. 13. 3 5. Act. 2. 38. 3. 19. 8. 22. 17. 30. 26. 20. 5. 31. 11. 18. Luk. 24. 47. Heb. 6. 1. 2 Pet. 3. 9. Ezek. 18. 27 28. 33. 12. Hose 14. 2. Ioel 2. 14 15. Deut. 4. 30. 30. 10. 2 That praying for Pardon and forgiving others are Conditions of Pardon is plain 1 King 8. 30 39. Mat. 6. 12 14 15. 18. 35. Mar. 11. 25 26. Luke 6. 37. 11. 4. 1 Ioh. 1. 9. Iam. 5. 15. Io. 14. 13 14. 1 Ioh. 5. 15. Act. 8. 22. 3. That Love and sincere Obedience and Works of Love are also parts of the Condition appeareth in these Scriptures Luk. 7. 47. though I know in Mr Pinks Interpretation of that Ma. 5. 44. Lu. 6. 27. 35. 10. 11. 12. 17. 1 Cor. 2. 9. Rom. 8. 28. Ephes. 6. 24. 1 Cor. 16 22. Iam. 1. 12. 2. 5. Ioh. 14. 21. Pro. 8. 17 21. Ioh. 16. 27. Ma. 10. 37. Luk. 13. 24. Phil. 2. 12. Rom. 2. 7. 10. 1 Corinth 24. 9. 2 Tim. 2. 5. 12. 1 Tim. 6. 18. 19. Rev. 22. 14. Luk. 11. 28. Mat. 25. 41 42. Iam. 2. 2 22 23 24 26. THESIS LXI THerefore though the non-performance of any one of these be threatned with certain death yet there must be a Concurrence of them all to make up the Conditions which have the promise of life EXPLICATION THerefore we oftner read death threatned to those that repent not then Life promised to them that Repent And when you do read of Life promised of any one of these you must understand it caeteris partibus or in sensu composito as it stands conjunct with the rest and not as it is divided Though I think that in regard of their existence they never are divided For where God giveth one he giveth all yet in case they were separated the Gospell would not so own them as its intire Conditions THESIS LXII YEt Faith may be called the onely Condition of the new Covenant 1. Because it is the principall Condition and the other but the less principall And so as