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
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
remission the Law would seem to lose much of its authority and the Law-giver be esteemed mutable 3. Besides as no good Lawes are lightly to be reversed so much lesse such as are so agreeable to order and the nature of God and so solemnly enacted as this was 4. Though GOD did dispense with his Law as to our impunity because else mankind would have utterly perished and because he is abundant in mercy and compassion Exo. 34. 7. Psal. 103. 8. III. 4 5. 145. 8. Isa. 55. 7. Ier. 31. 20. Luk 6. 36. Rom. 2. 4. yet he is also holy and just and a hater of sinne and how would those his Attributes have been manifested or glorified if he had let so many and great sinnes goe wholly unpunished Prov. 11. 20. Psal. 5. 5. 45. 8. Heb. 11. 2. Rom. 1. 18. 5. It would have encouraged men to sin and contemne the Law if the very first breach and all other should be meerly remitted but when men see that God hath punished his Son when he was our surety they may easily gather that he will not spare them if they continue rebells 6. The very end of the Law else would have been frustrated which now is fulfilled by Christs satisfaction For Proxima sunt idem tantundem 7. Besides the exceeding love of God that is manifested in this suffering of his Son and the great engagemens that are laid upon the sinner They that will avoid all the supposed inconveniencies of this Doctrine of Gods dispencing with his Threatnings must needs affirme that the offenders do suffer as much and the same which was threatned 8. Whether we are justified onely by Christs Passive Righteousnesse or also by his Active is a very great dispute among Divines By his Passive Righteousnesse is meant not onely his death but the whole course of his humiliation from the Assumption of the humane nature to his Resurrection Yea even his Obedientiall Actions so far as there was any suffering in them and as they are considered under the notion of Suffering and not of Duty or Obedience By his Active Righteousnesse is meant the Righteousnesse of his Actions as they were a perfect obedience to the Law The chiefe point of difference and difficulty lyeth higher How the Righteousnesse of Christ is made ours Most of our ordinary Divines say that Christ did as properly obey in our roome and stead as he did suffer in our stead and that in Gods esteem and in point of Law wee were in Christ obeying and suffering and so in him wee did both perfectly fulfill the Commands of the Law by Obedience and the threatnings of it by bearing the penalty and thus say they is Christs Righteousnesse imputed to us viz. his Passive Righteousnesse for the pardon of our sins and delivering us from the penalty his Active Righteousnesse for the making of us righteous and giving us title to the kingdom And some say the habituall Righteousnes of his humane nature instead of our own habituall Righteousnesse yea some adde the righteousnes of the divine nature also This opinion in my judgement containeth a great many of mistakes 1. It supposeth us to have been in Christ at least in legall title before we did beleeve or were born and that not onely in a generall and conditionall sense as all men but in a speciall as the justified indeed we are elected in Christ before the foundation of the world but that is a terme of diminution and therefore doth not prove that we were then in him Neither Gods Decree or foreknowledge gives us any legall title 2. It teacheth imputation of Christ Righteousnesse in so strict a sense as will neither stand with reason nor the Doctrine of Scripture much lesse with the phrase of Scripture which mentioneth no imputation of Christ or his Righteousnesse to us at all and hath given great advantage to the Papists against us in this Doctrine of Justification 3. It seemeth to ascribe to God a mistaking judgement as to esteem us to have been in Christ when wee were not and to have done and suffered in him what we did not 4. It maketh Christ to have paid the Idem and not the Tantundem the same that was due and not the value and so to justifie us by payment of the proper debt and not by strict satisfaction And indeed this is the very core of the mistake to think that we have by delegation paid the proper debt of Obedience to the whole Law or that in Christ we have perfectly obeyed whereas 1. It can neither be said that we did it 2. And that which Christ did was to satisfie for our non-payment and disobedience 5. So it maketh Christ to have fulfilled the preceptive part of the Law in our stead and roome in as strict a sense as he did in our room beare the punishment which will not hold good though for our sakes he did both 6. It supposeth the Law to require both obedience and suffering in respect of the same time and actions which it doth not And whereas they say that the Law requireth suffering for what is past and Obedience for the future this is to deny that Christ hath satisfied for future sinnes The time is neere when those future sins will be past also what doth the Law require then If we doe not obey for the future then we sin if we sin the Law requires nothing but suffering for expiation 7. This opinion maketh Christs sufferings by consequence to be in vain both to have been suffered needlesly by him and to be needless also now to us For if we did perfectly obey the Law in Christ or Christ for us according to that strict imputation then therere is no use for suffering for disobedience 8. It fondly supposeth a medium betwixt one that is just and one that is guilty and a difference betwixt one that is just and one that is no sinner one that hath his sin or guiâ—t taken away and one that hath his unrighteousness taken away It is true in bruits and insensibles that are not subjects capable of justice there is a medium betwixt just and unjust and innocency and justice are not the same There is a negative injustice which deneminateth the subject non-justum but not injustuÌ„ where Righteousness is not due But where there is the debitum habendi where Righteousness ought to be is not there is no negative unrighteousness but primative As there is no middle betwixt strait and crooked so neither between Conformity to the Law which is Righteousness and Deviation from it which is unrighteousness 9. It maketh our Righteousness to consist of two parts viz. The putting away of our guilt and the Imputation of Righteousness i. e. 1. Removing the crookedness 2. Making them streight 10. It ascribeth these two supposed parts to two distinct supposed causes the one to Christs fulfilling the Precept by his actual Righteousness the latter to his fulfilling the threatning by his passive Righteousness As
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
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
Sure that Faith which is by many thought to justifie is it that our people do all most easily embrace that is the receiving of Christ for their Saviour and expecting Pardon and Salvation by him but not withall receiving him for their Lord and King nor delivering up themselves to be ruled by him I meet not with one but is resolved in such a Faith till it be overthrown by teaching them better They would all trust Christ for the saving of their souls and that without dissembling for ought any man can discern Are all these men justified You will say They do it not sincerely Ans. There is evident a sincerity opposite to dissimulation But a Morall or Theologicall sincerity there is not Why is that but because they take but half of Christ. Let any Minister but try his ungodly people whether they will not all be perswaded very easily to beleeve that Christ will pardon them and save them and to expect Justification from him alone But whether it be not the hardest thing in the world to perswade them really to take him for their Lord and his Word for their Law and to endeavour faithfull obedience accordingly Surely the easiness of the former and the difficulty of the latter seemeth to tell us that it is a spirituall excellent necessary part of justifying Faith to accept unfeignedly of Christ for our Governour and that part which the world among us will most hardly yeeld to and therefore hath more need to be preached then the other Though some think that nothing is preaching Christ but preaching him as a pardoning justifying Saviour Indeed among the Turks or Indians that entertain not the Gospell it is as necessary to preach his pardoning Office yea and the verity of his Natures and Commission therefore the Apostles when they preached to Jews or Pagans did first chiefly teach them the Person and Offices of Christ the great benefits which they might receive by him but when they preach as Iames to Professors of the Christian Faith they chiefly urge them to strive to enter to fight that they may conquer so to run that they may obtain to lay violent hands upon the Kingdom and take it by force and to be unwearied in laborious obedience to Christ their Lord to be stedfast unmoveable always abounding in the Work of the Lord forasmuch as they know their labour is not in vain in the Lord. 5. Lastly Is not this excluding of sincere Obedience from Justification the great stumbling block of Papists that which hath had a great hand in turning many learned men from the Protestant Religion to Popery When they see the language of Scripture in the forecited places so plain to the contrary When Illyricus Gallus Amsdorfius c. shall account it a heresie in George major to say That good Works are necessary to Salvation And when if Melchior Adamus say true eo dementiae impietatis ventum erat ut non dubitarent quidam haec axiomata propugnare Bona opera non sunt necessaria ad salutem Bona opera officiunt saluti Nova obedientia non est necessaria When even Melancthons credit is blasted for being too great a friend to good Works though he ascribe not to them the least part of the Work or Office of Christ And when to this day many Antinomian Teachers who are magnified as the only Preachers of Free Grace do assert proclaim That there is no more required to the perfect irrevocable justification of the vilest Murderer or Whoremaster but to beleeve that he is justified or to be perswaded that God loveth him And when such a Book as that stiled the Marrow of Moderne Divinity have so many applauding Epistles of such Divines when the Doctrine of it is That we must not Act for justification or salvation but onely in thankfulness for it contrary to the main drift of the Scripture which so presseth men to pray for pardon to pardon others that they may receive pardon themselves and to strive to enter run that they may obtain doe Christ Commandements that they may have right to the Tree of life enter in by the gate into the City Revel 22. 14. Doe these men thinke that we are perfectly justified and saved already before the absolving sentence at the great Tribunall or the possession of the Kingdome for which we wait in Hope Indeed when we have that perfect salvation we shall not need to seek it or labour to attain it but must everlastingly be thankfull to him that hath purchased it and to him that hath bestowed it But in the mean time he that seeketh not shall not find he that runs not shall not obtain No nor all that seek and run neither Luk. 13. 24. Luk. 12. 31. 2 Tim. 2. 5. This Doctrine was one that helped to turn off Grotius to Cassandrian Popery See Grotii votum Pag. 21. 22. 23. 115. And was offensive to Melancthon Bucer other Moderate Divines of our own And all ariseth hence That men understand not the difference betwixt Christs part of the work which he performeth himself that which he requireth and enableth us to perform nor know they that true justifying Faith doth at once receive Christ both as Lord and Saviour and that sincere Obedience to Christ is part of the Condition of the New Covenant Works or a purpose to walke with God saith Mr. Ball on the Covenant pag. 73. doe justifie as the Passive qualification of the subject capable of Justification See Calvin on Luke 1. 6. The common assertion then That good Works do follow Iustification but not go before it must be thus understood or it is false viz. Actuall obedience goeth not before the first moment of Justification But yet it is as true 1. That the taking of Christ for our Lord and so delivering up our selves to his Government which is the subjection of the heart resolution for further obedience indeed an essentiall part of Faith doth in order of nature goe before our first justification 2. That Actuall Obedience as part of the Condition doth in order of Nature goe before our Justification as continued and confirmed For though our Marriage contract with Christ doe give us the first possession yet it is the Marriage faithfulness and duties which must continue that possession 3. That perseverance in faithfull obedience doth both in nature time go before our full compleat and finall Justification and that as part of the Condition of obtaining it If we walk in the light as he is in the light we have fellow ship one with another and the blood of Iesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin 1 Joh. 1. 7. So Isai. 1. 16. 17. 18. 19. Wash you make you clean put away the evill of your doings cease to do evill learne to doe well c. Come now c. though your sins be as scarlet they shall be as white as snow and though they be red like crimson
the terms of the first severer Covenant and make him pay the uttermost farthing Sure the Covenant whose curse Christ did bear did know no mercy to transgressors Again the Covenant is also a Law and Christ himself is stiled the Law-giver therefore can he not be under the Law or under the Covenant He is not King and Subject too Moreover as I said before he is the Mediator and therefore not he to whom the Covenant is made Perhaps you will say was not Moses both To which I answer 1. Moses was but a Typicall improper Mediator 2. Moses was in another respect a Subject to the Law whereof he himself was the Mediator as he was one that had a soul and body to save or lose upon the same terms with the rest of the people But it was not so with our Lord Jesus He was only a Mediator as being a middle Person betwixt the offended Majesty and the offending Subjects But Moses was one of the offending Subjects chosen out to supply the place of a true Mediator as his Type So that though Moses was both Mediator and also a Subject to that Law and Covenant yet it is not so with Christ. But the words and tenor of the Covenant it self are so plain an Argument that I need to say no more Yet do I acknowledge that there are severall Promises in the Scriptures made only to Christ As That he shall see of the travell of his soul and be satisfied and by his knowledge justifie many Isai. 53. 10 11. That the Heathen shall be given for his inheritance and the utmost parts of the earth for his possession c. Psa. 2. But 1. These not be the Covenant made with us 2. And for my part I take it not to be any part of Gods Legislative Will as it referreth to Christ but only as it belongeth to us as a prophesie what God would do in the advancing of Christ and his Kingdom and so of us and so hath partly the nature of a promise to us also For that which is commonly called the Covenant betwixt the Father and the Son is part of Gods purpose or decree rather then of his Law The Covenant betwixt the Father and Son was from Eternity So is not the Law or Covenant written The Divine Nature which undertook the Mediatorship could not be subject to Laws or proper Covenants Christ had no need of engagement from the Father by word or writing for his encouragement or confirmation So that all the Promises to Christ in Scripture are either meer Prophesies or do also intimate some Promise to the Church and so are written for our sakes and also for the spreading of the Meditators Glory but not for proper Covenant ends betwixt the Father and him And this interpretation Christ himself hath taught me Iohn 12. 28. 30. Christ prayeth to the Father to glorifie his Name viz. in the Sons Death and Resurrection He is answered by a voyce from Heaven I have glorified it and will glorifie it Christ telleth the people that stood by That this voyce came not because of him but for their sakes I conclude therefore That the Gospell-Covenant properly and usually so called is made betwixt God and man by the means of a Mediator and so delivered to us in the hands of a Mediator and may also fitly be said to be betwixt Christ and us But not properly that it is betwixt the Father and the Son Much less is the Son the only person covenanted with God doth indeed give up the World to Christ and more especially the Elect to be saved by him But these are not the work of a written or temporary Covenant but of an eternall Decree To the sixth and seventh Objections THe same Answer will serve to your sixth and seventh Questions viz. How Faith and Repentance are both promised of God and required of us Can they be his conditions and ours too And then whether the new Covenant be not absolute I told you before that the Scripture mentioneth two sorts of Covenants absolute and conditionall The Absolute Covenant is found in Ezek. 11. 17 18. Ier. 31. 31 32 33 34. Ier. 32 37 38 39 40 41 42. mentioned by the Apostle in Heb. 8. 10. Concerning this Covenant you must understand that as in the first promise of it here by the Prophets it seemeth to be made to the particular Nation of the Jews and is joyned with the promise of their temporall Restauration so some do question whether it be yet to them fulfilled or whether it be not a promise of some extraordinary permanent happiness which they shall receive at their last and great deliverance by the Messias whether by coming personally to raign among them or not I now dispute not Yet as the Apostle in Heb. 8. 8 9. doth extend it further then to the Jews so must we but whether the Apostle mention it as an absolute promise is a great doubt or whether he only respect the spirituallity of the benefits and so oppose the writing of the Law in our hearts which the new Covenant promiseth to the writing of it in stone and revealing mercy in the dark way of Ceremonies But yet for my part I think you may call it an absolute Promise But then understand that this is not the new Law or Covenant made with mankind revealing to them their duties and the terms on which they must live or dye This is made to the elect only this speaketh nothing of duty No man can have any comfort by this Covenant till it be performed to him and till he have received the promised benefits for no man till then can tell whether it be made for him or not It is made to the elect only and no man can know himself to be elect till he be sanctified and when he is sanctified this promise is fulfilled therfore the benefits of this promise are not to be received by Faith for Faith is part of the promised Good as it is contained in a new a soft heart seminally and therefore to receive this promise by Faith were to believe that we may receive grace and power to believe then which what can be more absurd No man therefore can say before-hand that he shall have a new and soft heart because God hath promised it for he cannot know that it is promised to him So that I conclude that this is most properly but a prophesie what God will do de eventu as it hath reference to the parties on whom it shall be fulfilled and so is the revealed part of Gods purposing Will and belongeth not at all to his Preceptive or Legislative Will by which he doth govern and will judge the world But as it is revealed to the Church visible in generall and so in regard of the subject is indefinite intended only to reveall the quality and spirituall excellency of the Mercy of the New Covenant procured by Christ that so Christ may be honoured and men drawn to seek