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
or melancholly maketh you not know your own minde or else you do but dissemble in pretending trouble and sad complaints If you be indeed unwilling I have no comfort for you till you are willing but must turn to perswasions to make you willing I should answer The Condition of the Covenant is not the Perfection but the sincerity of Faith or Consent which way goes the prevailing bent or choyce of your will If Christ were before you would you accept him or reject him If you would heartily accept him for your only Lord and Saviour I dare say you are a true Beleever Thus you see the comfortable use of right understanding what justifying faith is and the great danger and inconvenience that followeth the common mistakes in this point THESIS LXX FAith in the largest sence as it comprehendeth all the Condition of the new Covenant may be thus defined It is when a sinner by the Word and Spirit of Christ being throughly convinced of the Righteousness of the Law the truth of its threatening the evill of his own sin and the greatness of his misery hereupon and with all of the Nature and Offices Sufficiency and Excellency of Iesus Christ the Satisfaction he hath made his willingness to save and his free offer to all that will accept him for their Lord and Saviour doth hereupon believe the truth of this Gospell and accept of Christ as his only Lord and Saviour to bring them to God their chiefest good and to present them pardoned and just before him and to bestow upon them a more glorious inheritance and do accordingly rest on him as their Saviour and sincerely though imperfectly obey him as their Lord forgiving others loving his people bearing what sufferings are imposed diligently using his means and Ordinances and confessing and bewailing their sins against him and praying for pardon and all this sincerely and to the end EXPLICATION THis is the Condition of the new Covevenant at large That all this is sometime called Faith as taking its name from the primary principall vitall part is plain hence 1. In that Faith is oft called the Obeying of the Gospell but the Gospell commandeth all this Rom. 10. 16. 1 Pet. 1. 22. 4. 17. 2 Thes. 1. 8. Gal. 3. 1. 5 7. Heb. 5. 9. 2. The fulfilling of the Conditions of the new Covenant is oft called by the name of Faith so opposed to the fulfilling the Conditions of the old Covenant called works But these forementioned are parts of the Condition of the new Covenant and therefore implyed or included in Faith Gal. 3. 12 23 25. Not that Faith is properly taken for its fruits or confounded with them but as I told you before it is named in the stead of the whole Condition all the rest being implyed as reducible to it in some of the respects mentioned under the 62 Position It may be here demanded 1. Why I do make affiance or recombency an immediate product of Faith when it is commonly taken to be the very justifying Act I answer 1. I have proved already that Consent or acceptance is the principall Act and Affiance doth necessarily follow that 2. For the most of my Reasons that Affiance is a following Act and not the principall they are the same with those of Dr Downame against Mr Pemble and in his Treatise of Justification whither therefore I refer you for Satisfaction 2. Quest. Why do I make sincerity and perseverance to be so near kin to Faith as to be in some sence the same and not rather distinct Graces Answ. It is apparent that they are not reall distinct things but the Modi of Faith 1. Sincerity is the verity of it which is convertible with its Being as it is Metaphysicall Verity and with its Vertuous or Gracious Being as it is Morall or Theologicall Sincerity 2. Perseverance or duration of a Being is nothing really distinct from the Being it self Suarez thinks not so much as a Modus THESIS LXXI 1 THe sincere Performance of the summary great Command of the Law To have the Lord only for our God and so to love obey believe and trust him above all is still naturally implyed in the Conditions of the Gospell as of absolute indispensible necessity 2 and in order of nature and of excellency before Faith it self 3 But it is not commanded in the sence and upon the terms as under the first Covenant EXPLICATION 1 THis Command need not be expressed in the Gospell Conditions it is so naturally necessary implied in all As the ultimate End need not be expressed in directions precepts so as â—he meanes because it is still supposed consultatio est tantum de mediis 2 Love to God and taking him for our God and chiefe Good is both in excellency and order of nature before Faith in Christ the Mediator 1. Because the End is thus before the meanes in excellency and intention But God is the ultimate End and Christ as Mediator is but the meanes Ioh. 14. 6. Christ is the way by which men must come to the Father 2. The Son as God-man or Mediator is lesse then the Father and therefore the duties that respect him as their Object must needs be the lesse excellent duties Ioh 14. 13. The glory of the Son is but a means for the glory of the Father Ioh. 14. 28. My Father is greater then I therefore the Love of the Father is greater then the Love to the Son c. So also in point of necessity it hath the naturall precedency as the End hath before the means for the denying of the End doth immediately cashiere and evacuate all means as such He that maketh not God his chief Good can never desire or Accept of Christ as the way and meanes to recover that chief Good The Apostle therefore knew more reason then meerely for its perpetuity why the chiefest Grace is Love 1. Cor. 13. 13. Though yet the work of Justification is laid chiefely upon faith 3 That this Love of God is not commanded in the sence and on the termes as under the Law is evident For 1. The old Covenant would have condemned us for the very imperfection of the due degree of Love But the Gospell accepteth of Sincerity which lyeth in loving God above all or as the chiefe Good 2. The old Covenant would have destroyed us for one omission of a due Act of Love But the Covenant of Grace accepteth of it if a man that never knew God all his life time doe come in at last Yet the sincere performance of it is as necessary now as then THESIS LXXII AS the accepting of Christ for Lord which is the hearts subjection is as Essentiall a part of Iustifying Faith as the Accepting of him for our Saviour So consequently sincere obedience which is the effect of the former hath as much to doe in justifying us before God as Affiance which is the fruit of the later EXPLICATION I Know this will hardly down with
believed but matter of internall sense or to be known by the reflex act of the understanding 3. Also God should else set his seal to my part or condition of the Covenant as well as his own and seal to the truth of my word as well as to the truth of his own for a justifying and saving us is Gods condition which he undertaketh to perform so believing or accepting Christ is our condition which we there professe to perform So that it is doubtlesse that a Sacrament as it is Gods engaging sign or seal doth not seal to the truth of my faith or sincerity of my heart in Covenanting It were a most grosse conceit to imagine this But withall you must understand that as there is in the Sacrament reciprocall actions Gods giving and our receiving so is the Sacrament accordingly a mutuall engaging sign or seal As it is given it is Gods seal so that as in this full Covenant there is a mutuall engaging so there is a mutuall sealing God saith to us here is my Sonne who hath bought thee take him for thy Lord and Saviour and I will be thy reconciled God and pardon and glorify thee And to this he sets his seal The sinner saith I am willing Lord I here take Christ for my King and Saviour and Husband and deliver up my self accordingly to him And hereto by receiving the offered elements he setteth his engaging sign or seal so that the Sacrament is the seal of the whole Covenant But yet you must remember that in the present controversie we meddle not with it as it is mans seal but onely as it is Gods So then it is clear that as it is Gods seal it sealeth the major proposition and as it is ours to the minor But yet here you must further distinguish betwixt sealing up the promise as true in it self and sealing it with application as true to me And it is the latter that the Sacrament doth the delivery being Gods act of application the receiving ours so that the Proposition which God sealeth to runs thus If thou believe I do pardon thee and will save thee 3. But the great Question is Whether the Sacrament do seal to the conclusion also That I am justified and shall be saved To which I answer No directly and properly it doth not and that is evident from the arguments before laid down whereby I proved that the Sacraments seal not to the minor For 1. this conclusion is now here written in Scripture 2. And therefore is not properly the object of Faith whereas the seals are for confirmation of Faith 3. Otherwise every man rightly receiving the seals must needs be certainly justified saved 4. And no Minister can groundedly administer the Sacraments to any man but himself because he can be certain of no mans justification and salvation being not certain of the sincerity of their Faith And if he should adventure to administer it upon probabilities and charitable conjectures then should he be guilty of prophaning the ordinance and every time he mistaketh he should set the seale of God to a lye And who then durst ever administer a Sacrament being never certaine but that he shall thus abuse it I confesse ingenuously to you that it was the ignorance of this one point which chiefly caused mee to abstaine from administring the Lords Supper so many yeeres I did not understand that it was neither the minor nor conclusion but only the major proposition of the foresaid Argument which God thus sealeth And I am sorry to see what advantage many of our most learned Divines have given the Papists here As one errour drawes on many and leadeth a man into a labyrinth of absurdities so our Divines being first mistaken in the nature of justifying faith thinking that it consisteth in A Beliefe of the pardon of my owne sinnes which is this conclusion have therefore thought that this is it which the Sacrament sealeth And when the Papists alledge that it is no where written that such or such a man is justified we answer them that it being written That he that beleeveth is justified this is equivalent A grosse mistake As if the major proposition alone were equivalent to the conclusion or as if the conclusion must or can be meerly Credenda a proper object of Faith when but one of the promises is matter of faith the other of sence or knowledge The truth is the major He that believeth shall be saved is received by Faith The minor that I do sincerely believe is known by inward sence and self-reflexion And the conclusion therefore I shall be saved is neither properly to be believed nor felt but known by reason deducing it from the two former so that faith sense and reason are all necessary to the producing our assurance So you see what it is that is sealed to 2. Now let us consider how it sealeth Whether absolutely or conditionally And I answer It sealeth absolutely For the promise of God which it sealeth is not conditionally but absolutely true So that the summe of all I have said is this which answereth the severall questions 1. The Sacrament sealeth not the absolute Covenant or Promise but the conditionall Believe and live 2. It sealeth not the truth of my Covenant as it is Gods seal or it sealeth not to the truth of my faith 3. It sealeth not to the certainty of my justification and salvation 4. But it sealeth to Gods part of the conditionall Covenant 5. And sealeth this conditionall promise not conditionally but absolutely as of undoubted truth 6. And not only as true in it self but true with application to me So that by this time you may discern what is their meaning who say that the Sacraments do seal but conditionally that is as it sealeth to the truth of the major which is the promise so thereby it may be said to seal conditionally to the conclusion for the conclusion is as it were therein contained upon condition or supposition of the minor proposition He that saith All Believers shall be saved saith as much as that I shall be saved it being supposed that I am a Believer And so you must understand our Divines in this Yet this speech is lesse proper For to speak properly it doth not seal to the conclusion at all yet it is very usefull to help us in raising that conclusion and to be perswaded that we are justified because it so confirmeth our belief of that promise which is one of the grounds of the Conclusion For your inference in the last words of your objection then let all come that will If you mean All that will though they come to mock or abuse the ordinance then it will no way follow from the doctrine which I have now opened But if you mean Let all come that will seriously really or apparently enter or renew their Covenant with Christ. I think that to be no dangerous or absurd consequence If Christ when he offereth himself
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
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
believe a lye to make it a truth Also doth not the Scripture bid us Repent believe and be baptized for the remission of sinnes but not first to believe the Remission of our sinnes I have proved already that justifying Faith is another matter and this which he calleth Faith is properly no Faith at all but the knowledge of a conclusion one of whose permises is afforded by Faith and the other by Sense If therefore the Preacher had said that he would not have men accept Christ and so believe for Remission before their lives be reformed then I should have subscribed to this mans censure of him 2. I desire him to tell me whether he can prove that any mans sinnes are pardoned before they have accepted Christ for their Lord that is before Faith If not 3. Whether this be not the subjection of the soul to Christ to be governed by him and so a heart-reformation 4. Whether the reformation of the life doth not immediately even the same moment follow the hearts reformation And if all this be so as I know it is then the ignorant Preachers doctrine must stand good that Reformation of life must go before the belief or knowledge of pardon though not before justifying Faith Many other intolerable errours I could shew you in that Book as his making the New Covenant to threaten nothing but present Afflictions and losse of our present communion with God page 208. and that we may pray for no other kind of pardon pag 206 210. contrary to Mar. 16. 16. Heb. 10 26 27 28 29 30 31. Heb. 2. 3. Ioh. 15. 2 6. and many other places so his affirming that we sinne not against the Covenant of works which I have confuted in the Aphorismes So his making the Law of Christ and the Law of Faith to be two Lawes or Covenants when that which he calleth the Law of Christ is but part of the matter of the New Covenant But this is not my businesse only because you urged me I have given you a grain of salt wherewith to season some passages in your reading that and such like Books And that passage in M. Shepheards Select cases page 96 102. that no unregenerate man is within the compasse of any conditionall promise had need of a grain too To the twelfth Objection WHat you object concerning my making a necessity of publick covenanting I wholly acknowledge And I heartily wish that instead of our large mixt Nationall Covenant and instead of the Independants Politicall Church-making Covenant we had the Gospel or New Covenant conditions formally in publick rendered to all the people of this Land that the same being opened to them they might knowingly and seriously professe their consent if they subscribed their names it would be more solemnly engaging and this before they receive the Sacrament of the Lords Supper This 1. would take off most Arguments which are brought for a necessity of Re-baptizing 2. And would tend much to engage men to their obedience to Christ when they have so solemnly promised it under their hands 3. And I think that as an unfeigned heart covenanting with Christ is true faith and of the Essence of our Christianity so is this publike covenanting of our visible Christianity Though other mens promises on our behalfe may be of use to infants yet when we come to age we are bound of absolute necessity to a personall Faith and covenanting This also would answer the ends of the ancient custom of Confirmation And to this end is it that the Church hath still used to rehearse the Greed or Articles of Faith and to require the people to stand up to signifie their Assent and Consent which for my part I think not onely a laudable custome but for the substance of it a matter of necessity so we do but carefully keep away that Customarinesse ceremoniousnesse and formality which spoileth the most necessary and weighty duties I could wish therefore that this practice were established by Authority And for my self I do administer the Sacrament to none that do not solemnly professe their assent to every fundamentall Article of Faith expresly mentioned to them and their consent that Christ shall be their Lord and Saviour and that they will faithfully and sincerely obey his Scripture Lawes To the thirteenth and fourteenth Objections YOur 13. and 14. Objections which charge me not with errour but only with singularity I will answer together And I am the lesse carefull to answer you in this matter because I resolve to stand or fall to the Judgement of Scripture only And to tell you the truth while I busily read what other men say in these controversies my mind was so prepossessed with their notions that I could not possibly see the truth in its own nature and naked evidence and when I entered into publick disputations concerning it though I was truely willing to know the truth yet my mind was so forestalled with borrowed notions that I chiefly studied how to make good the opinions which I had received and ran further still from the truth yea when I read the truth in Doctor Preston and other means writings I did not consider and understand it and when I heard it from them whom I opposed in wrangling disputations or read it in books of controversie I discerned it least of all but only was sharpened the more against it till at last being in my sicknesse cast far from home where I had no book but my Bible I set to study the truth from thence and from the nature of the things and naked evidence and so by the blessing of God discovered more in one week then I had done before in seventeen yeares reading hearing and wrangling Not that I therefore repent of reading other mens writings for without that I had not been capable of those latter studies So that as I fetched not this doctrine from man So you must bear with me if I give you the lesse of man to attest it Yet that you may see I am not singular as you conceive I will shew you the concurrent judgements of one or two Mr. Wallis a man of singular worth I am confident by his own writing though I know him not in his answer to the Lord Brook pag. 94. saith That Faith is an accepting of Christ offered rather then a believing of a Proposition affirmed But because I will not fill my pages with other mens words I will alledge but one more and that one who is beyond all exception for piety Orthodoxnesse and Learning even Dr. Preston 1. That Faith containeth severall acts 2. That it is both in the understanding and will 3. That the principal act is accepting or consent 4. That it is the accepting of Christ for Lord as well as Saviour 5. That the object is Christ himself and not his benefits but in a remote sence and secondarily 6. That Faith consisteth in Covenanting or Marriage contract All these he is so plain and full in that
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
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.
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
is so easie and obvious 3. I call this Act a Discharging as being the proper term in Law to express it by We were before charged by the Law we are by this Act discharged 4. I call it a discharge of the Offender For an offender is the only capable object or recipient of it There can be no pardon where there is no offender 5. I call it a discharging from the Obligation to Punishment For. 1. You must look at this whole process as legall and not as referring chiefly to Gods secret judgment or thoughts Therefore when it is called a freeing man from the wrath of God you must understand it onely of the wrath threatened in the Covenant and so from the obligation to Punishment You must not conceive of the change in God but in the sinners relation and consequently in the sence and sentence of the Law as to him 2. The common word by which this terminus a quo or rather the evil which this pardon doth directly free us from is expressed is Guilt But because the word Guilt is variously used sometimes referring onely to the Fact sometimes to the desert of Punishment and sometime to the dueness of Punishment or the Laws obliging the Offendor to bear it I have therefore here taken it in this last expression because I think that Guilt is taken away only in this last sence as I shall further open anon Therefore many define Guilt only in this last sence Reatus est Obligatio ad Poenam This Obligation though expressed only in the Covenant yet ariseth also from the Fact For if the Covenant had not been broken it had not obliged to suffering but still to duty only 6. I call it a Discharging by the Gospell-promise or grant It is called a Promise in reference to the benefit as future but more properly a Grant in reference to the benefit as present or past either in the conferring or already conferred This I do for these Reasons 1. To clear the nature of this Act. 2. To divert your thoughts from Gods secret judgment where most suppose this Act performed and to turn them right and free God from the imputation of change A great question it is Whether Remission and Justification be immanent or transient Acts of God The mistake of this one point was it that led those two most excellent famous Divines Dr. Twisse and Mr. Pemble to that error and pillar of Antinomianism viz. Iustification from Eternity For saith Dr. Twisse often All Acts immanent in God are from Eternity but Justification and remission of sin are immanent Acts therefore c. by immanent in God they must needs mean Negatively not Positively For Acts have not the respect of an Adjunct to its subject but an effect to its cause Now whether all such immanent Acts are any more eternall then transient Acts is much questioned As for God to know that the world doth now exist That such a man is sanctified or just c. Gods fore-knowledg is not a knowing that such a thing is which is not but that such a thing will be which is not Yet doth this make no change in God no more then the Sun is changed by the variety of Creatures which it doth enlighten and warm or the Glass by the variety of faces which it represents or the eye by the variety of the colours which it beholdeth For whatsoever some say I do not think that every variation of the object maketh a reall change in the eye or that the beholding of ten distinct colours at one view doth make ten distinct acts of the sight or alterations on it Much less do the objects of Gods knowledg make such alterations But grant that all Gods immanent Acts are Eternall which I think is quite beyond our understanding to know Yet most Divines will deny the Minor and tell you that Remission and Justification are transient Acts Which is true But a Truth which I never had the happiness to see or hear well cleared by any For to prove it a transient act they tell us no more but that it doth transire in subjectum extraneum by making a morall change on our Relation though not a reall upon our persons as Sanctification doth But this is only to affirm and not to prove and that in generall only not telling us what Act it is that maketh this change Relations are not capable of being the Patients or subjects of any Act seeing they are but meer Entia Rationis and no reall Beings Neither are they the immediate product or effect of any Act but in order of Nature are consequentiall to the direct effects The proper effect of the Act is to lay the Foundation from whence the Relation doth arise And the same Act which layeth the Foundation doth cause the Relation without the intervention of any other Suppose but the subjectum fundamentum terminus and the Relation will unavoydably follow by a meer resultancy The direct effect therefore of Gods Active Justification must be a reall effect though not upon the sinner yet upon something else for him and thence will his Passive Justification follow Now what transient Act this is and what its immediate reall Effect who hath unfolded I dare not be to confident in so dark a point but it seemeth to me that this justifying transient Act is the enacting or promulgation of the new Covenant wherein Justification is conferred upon every Beleever Here 1. The passing and enacting this Grant is a transient Act. 2. So may the continuance of it as I think 3. This Law or Grant hath a morall improper Action whereby it may be said to pardon or justifie which properly is but virtuall justifying 4. By this Grant God doth 1. Give us the Righteousness of Christ to be ours when we beleeve 2. And disableth the Law to oblige us to punishment or to condemn us 3. Which reall Foundation being thus layd our Relations of Justified and Pardoned in title of Law do necessarily result Object But this Act of God in granting Pardon to Beleevers was performed long ago But our Justification is not till we beleeve Answ. Though the effects of Causes as Physicall do follow them immediately yet as Morall they do not so but at what distance the Agent pleases sometimes A man makes his son a Deed of Gift of certain Lands to be his at such an age or upon the performance of some eminent Action Here the Deed of gift is the fathers instrument by which he giveth these Lands The passing this Deed is the proper Act and time of Donation Yet the son hath no possession till the time prefixed or till the Condition be performed At which time the conditionall Grant becoming absolute and giving him right to present possession it is not unfitly said that his father doth even then bestow the Lands though by no new intervening act at all but only the continuation of the former Deed of gift in force So here the conditionall grant
so as Idolatry is that violation of the law of Nature which doth eminentér containe all the rest in it So is Unbeliefe in respect of the Law of Grace And as the formall Nature of Idolatry lyeth in disclayming God from being God or form being our God or from being our alone God Even so the formall nature of Unbeliefe lyeth in disclaiming Christ either from being a Redeemer and Lord or from being Our Redeemer and Lord or from being Our onely Redeemer and Lord. This being well considered will direct you truly and punctually where to find the very formall being and nature of Faith Not in beleeving the pardon of sin or the favour of God or our salvation nor in Affiance or recumbency though that be a most immediate product of it Nor in Assurance as Divines were wont to teach 80. yeares agoe Nor in Obedience or following of Christ as a guide to Heaven or as a Captaine or meere Patterne and Law-giver as the wretched Socinians teach But in the three Acts above mentioned 1. Taking Christ for a Redeemer and Lord which is by Assent 2. Taking him for our Redeemer Saviour and Lord which is by consent 3. Taking him for our onely Redeemer Saviour and Lord which is the Morall sincerity of the former And the essentiall differencing property of it Not whereby Faith is differenced from Love or joy c. But whereby that faith in Christ which is the Gospell condition is differenced from all other Faith in Christ. So that as Corpus Anima Rationale doe speake the whole essence of man Even so this Assent Consent and Preference of Christ before all others do speak the whole Essence of Faith For the common opinion that justifying Faith as justifying doth consist in any one single Act is a wretched mistake as I shall shew you further anon THESIS LXV SCripture doth not take the word Faith as strictly as a Philosopher would doe for any one single Act of the soul nor yet for various Acts of one onely Faculty But for a compleat entire Motion of the whole Soul to Christ its Object THESIS LXVI NEither is Christ in respect of any one part or work of his Office alone the Object of Iustifying Faith as such But Christ in his entire office considered in this Object viz. as he is Redeemer Lord and Saviour THESIS LXVII MVch lesse are any Promises or benefits of Christ the proper Object of justifying Faith as many Divines do mistakingly conceive THESIS LXVIII NOr is Christs person considered as such or for it self the object of this Faith But the person of Christ as cloathed with his Office and Authority is this Object EXPLICATION I Put all these together as ayming at one scope I shall now explain them distinctly To the 65. First that Faith is not taken for any one single Act I prove thus 1. If it were but one single Act I mean specifically not numerically then it could not according to the common opinion of Philosophers be the Act of the whole Soul But Faith must be the Act of the whole Soul or else part of the Soul would receive Christ and part would not and part of it would entertain him and part not Some think the soul is as the body which hath a hand to receive things in the name and for the use of the whole But it is not so Christ is not onely taken into the hand But as the blood and spirits which are received into every living part Though I intend not the comparison should reach to the manner of receiving Neither is the soul so divisible into parts as the body is and therefore hath not severall parts for severall offices 2. The most of our accurate studious Divines of late doe take Faith to be seated in both faculties Understanding and Will But if so according to the common Philosophie it cannot be any one single Act. Neither Secondly is it in various Acts of one single faculty For 1. It will in my judgement never be proved that the soul hath faculties which are really distinct from it self or from each other These Faculties are but the soul it self able to doe thus and thus from its naturall being Vide Scaliger Exercit. 107. Sect. 3. Understanding and Willing are its immediate Acts And perhaps those very Acts are more diversified or distinct in their objects then in themselves The souls apprehension of an objects as true we call Understanding in regard of its Metaphysicall Truth it is a simple apprehension as we receive this Truth upon the word of another it is Assent and Beliefe as this Object is considered as Good our motion toward it is called Willing if absent Desiring Hoping if present Complacency Joying when we Will a thing as Good any thing strongly and apprehend its Goodnesse any thing cleerely this we call Love c. But whether all these be really distinct kinds of Acts of the Soul is very doubtfull Much more whether they proceed from distinct Faculties As I am not of my Lord Brook's minde concerning the Unity of all things So neither would I unnecessarily admit of any division especially in so spirituall and perfect a piece as the Sould knowing how much of Perfection lyeth in Unity and remembring the Pythagorean curse of the Number Two because it was the first that durst depart from Unity frustra fit per plura c. 2. But if it were proved that the Souls Faculties are really distinct yet both these Faculties are capable of receiving Christ and Christ is an Object suited to both and then what doubt is it whether Faith be in both 1. For the Will no man will question it that it is capable of receiving Christ and Christ a suitable Object for it 2. And for the Understanding it doth as much incline to Truth as the Will to Goodness and as truely receive its Object under the notion of True as the Will doth receive its Object as Good If you would see it proved fully That Assent is an Essentiall part of justifying Faith read Dr. Downame of Iustification on that Subject and his Appendix to the Covenant of Grace in Answer to Mr. Pemble Where though his Argument will not reach their intended scope to prove that Assent is the onely proper Act of justifying Faith yet they do conclude that it is a reall part And he well confuteth his opposer though he do not well confirm that his own opinion 3. Consider further that Christ doth not treat of Faith in sensu Physico sed morali Politico not as a Naturall Philosopher but as a Law-giver to his Church Now in Politicks we doe not take the names of Actions in so narrow and strict a sense as in Physicks and Logicke If a Town doe agree to take or receive such a man for their Mayor or a Kingdome take or receive such a one as their King The words Take or Receive here doe not note any one single Act of soul or body alone but a
How make you Faith and Repentance to be â—â—â—ditions of the Covenant on our part seeing the bestowing of them is part of the condition on Gods part Can they be our conditions and Gods too 7. Seeing God hath promised us these which you call conditions is not the Covenant therefore rather absolute and more properly a promise 8. In making a generall Covenant to all you bring wicked men under promise whereas all the promises are Yea and Amen in Christ and so belong only to those in Christ I find no promise in Scripture made to a wicked man 9. May you not else as well give the seals to wicked men as the Covenant Except you will evade as Mr Blake and say the Sacrament seals but conditionally and then let all come that will 10. How can you make it appear that Do this and live is not the proper voyce of the Covenant of Works Or that according to the new Covenant we must act for life and not only from life or that a man may make his attaining of life the end of his work and not rather obey only out of thankfulness and love 11. Why do you single out the book called The marrow of modern Divinity to oppose in this point 12. Seeing you make faith and covenanting with Christ to be the same thing do you not make him to be no reall Christian that never so covenanted and consequently him to be no visible Christian who never professed such a Covenant and so you bring in a greater necessity of publique covenanting then those who are for Church-making Covenants 13. Do you not go against the stream af all Divines in denying the proper act of Faith as it justifieth to be either Recumbency Affiance Perswasion or Assurance but placing it in Consent or Acceptance 14. Do you not go against the stream of all Divines in making the Acceptance of Christ for Lord to be as properly a justifying act as the accepting him for Saviour and all that you may lay a ground work for Justification by Gospell obedience or Works so do you also in making the Acceptance of Christs Person and Offices to be the justifying act and not the receiving of his Righteousness and of pardon 16. How can you reconcile your Justification by Works with that of Rom. 3. 24 4. 4 5 6 11. I desire some satisfaction in that which Maccovius and Mr owen oppose in the places which I mentioned THE ANSWER TO the first Objection about the death threatened in the first Covenant I answer 1. I told you I was not peremptory in my opinion but inclined to it for want of a better 2. I told you that the Objections seem more strong which are against all the rest and therefore I was constrained to make choice of this to avoid greater absurdities then that which you object For 1. If you say that Adam should have gone quick to Hell you contradict many Scriptures which make our temporall death to be the wages of sin 2. If you say that He should have dyed and rose again to torment 1. What Scripture saith so 2. When should He have risen 3. You contradict many Scriptures which make Christ the Mediator the only procurer of the Resurrection 3. If you say He should have lived in perpetuall misery on earth then you dash on the same Rock with the first opinion 4. If you say He should have dyed only a temporall death and his soul be annihilated then 1. you make Christ to have redeemed us only from the grave and not from hell contrary to 1 Thes. 1. 10. Who hath delivered us from the wrath to come 2. You make not hell but only temporall death to be due too or deserved by the sins of believers seeing the Gospell only according to this opinion should threaten eternall death and not the Law but the Gospell threateneth it to none but unbelievers You might easily have spared me this labour and gathered all this Answer from the place in the book where I handled it but because other Readers may need as many words as you I grudg not my pains TO your second Objection about Christs active and passive Righteousness You should have overthrown my grounds and not only urge my going against the stream of Divines As I take it for no honour to be the first inventing a new opinion in Religion so neither to be the last in embracing the truth I never thought that my faith must follow the major vote I value Divines also by weight and not by number perhaps I may think that one Pareus Piscator Scultetus Alstedius Capellus Gataker or Bradshaw is of more authority then many Writers and Readers View their Writings and answer their Arguments and then judg TO your third about the violation of the Covenant I shall willingly clear my meaning to you as well as I can though I thought what is said had cleared it The 34 Aphorism which is it you object against doth thus far explain it 1. That I speak of Gods Covenant of Grace only or his new Law containing the terms on which men live or dye 2. That by Violation I mean the breaking or non-performance of its conditions or such a violation as bringeth the offendor under the threatning of it and so maketh the penalty of that Covenant breaking due to him 3. I there tell you that the new Covenant may be neglected long and sinned against objectively and Christs Commands may be broken when yet the Covenant is not so violated The Tenor of the Covenant me-think should put you quite out of doubt of all this which is He that believeth shall be saved and he that believeth not shall be damned The unbelief and rebellion against Christ which the godly were guilty of before believing is a neglect or refusall of the Covenant and I acknowledg that all that while they were in a damnable state that is in a state wherein they should have been damned if they had so dyed for then their unbelief had been finall But your doubt may be whether they did not deserve damnation while they were in their unbelief for resisting Grace I answer you as before 1. I look upon no punishment as deserved in sensu forensi in the sense of the Law but what is threatened by that Law Now you may easily resolve the Question your self Whether the new Covenant do threaten damnation to that their unbelief If they believe not at all before death it pronounceth them condemned otherwise not 2. Yet might they in this following sense be said to deserve the great condemnation before they obeyed the Gospell viz. as their unbelief is that sin for which the Gospell condemneth men wanting nothing but the circumstance of finality or continuance to have made them the proper subjects of the curse and it was no thanks to them that it proved not finall for God did make them no promise of one hour of time and patience and therefore it was meerly his mercy in not cutting
to them before they return Object the Promise is onely to Beleevers therefore not to all Answ. Either you speak of the making or of the fulfilling of it It is fulfilled onely to Beleevers but it is made and offered to all that heare it on condition of Beleeving as is proved Object Beleeving is not the condition of the promise but onely the qualification of the persons to whom it is made Answ. This Objection hath more subtilty then sence Is not Beleeving in plaine English a Duty required in the Promise by the free Promiser and Law-giver of him to whom the Promise is made and sent and that upon these termes that if he performe it the thing promised shall be his otherwise it shall not And is not this properly a condition required of the party if he will enjoy the thing promised When you say It is a qualification of the person to whom the Promise is made you speak in the darknesse of ambiguity For 1. Doe you meane it is a qualification which he hath before the Promise is made to him If so I have proved the contrary already Or is it his qualification afterwards so it is indeed But not of all to whom it is made but of all to whom it shall be fulfilled Againe doe you meane an habituall qualification or an Actuall I doubt not but you know it is the act of Faith which we dispute of And what is the difference betwixt such an active qualification required on the termes before mentioned and a proper condition But I perceive that which you stick at is that the Promises are all Yea and Amen in Christ and therefore are made to none but those in Christ. Answ. It will be long before you will prove the Consequence They are made onely on the ground of Christs undertaking and he is the Mediatour of them and in him they are sure But doth it therefore follow that Christ dispenseth then to none but those that are in him Wicked men have benefits by Christ even those that are not in him so much as by a visible profession And why then may they not have some promises Yet I know that beleevers are oft called in Scripture the Children and Heires of the Promise But to understand this you must know 1. That the Holy Ghost hath chiefly the respect to the Thing promised and of that Beleevers are the onely Heires If you also consider that he speakes chiefly of the great Promises of Reconciliation Remission Sanctification Adoption glorification 2. I told you before that the promise before we performe the Condition doth give a remote imperfect loosable title to the good promised And so the wicked are children of promise But the Promise when we have performed the Condition as also the absolute promises doth give an immediate proper certain Title to the good promised so that a man may say it is mine And thus onely the faithfull are the heires of the Promise They onely have a propriety in the spirituall and speciall Mercies there promised But a wicked Israelite may have propriety in his Inheritance by vertue of Divine Promise and Donation For Christ hath led captivity captive and recived gifts for men even for the Rebellious that the Lord might dwell among them psal 68. 18. To the 9. Objection YOur 9. Objection is That if I make the Covenant to belong to wicked men I may as well give them the seales To which I answer you 1. You must meane onely the main Covenant of grace and not inferiour promises and Covenants For the Sacraments are onely to seale to the maine Covenant 2. As you must remember I distinguished betwixt the Covenant offered and the Covenant entred by mutuall consent so must you distinguish accordingly betwixt two sorts of wicked men 1. Open Infidels who never accepted and consented to the offered Covenant 2. Those who have consented and entred the Covenant and listed their names in the roll of Christ but yet not sincerely unreservedly entirely as is necessary to salvation To the former of these you may not give the seales For they are not willing of them as such And they are not to be forced upon any Neither are the seales usefull till the accepting and entring of the Covenant But to the latter the seales are most properly to be given by the Minister except they doe againe renounce Christ by word or deed or by some grosse sin doe constrain us to suspend their enjoyment of such priviledges while they are under tryall and till they discover their repentance Quest. What doe you take for such a renouncing of their Covenant Answ. 1. When they shall in plaine terms renounce it as Christians do that turn Turks 2. When they renounce or deny any fundamentall Article of the Faith 3. When they do not through weaknesse but wilfully and obstinately refuse to yeeld obedience to Christ for this is a renouncing of their subjection to him which is an essentiall part of their Covenant and Faith and it is a renouncing of his kingly Office and so a renouncing of Christ when they say Hee shall not reigne over us And though such may acknowledge him in words yet in works they doe deny him being disobedient and to every good worke reprobate Tit. 1. 16. If therefore you shall deny the seales to any man that is thus in Covenant with Christ before he doe thus disclaime his Covenant you must doe it at your perill Therefore you must not undertake to be the Judge of his sincerity in the Covenant except hee plainly discover that he is not serious Dare not you to assume Gods Prerogative of searching the heart nor to dispence Gods seales upon your conjectures of the probability or improbability of mens sincerity Neither must you deny the seales to them for any smaller sin then as aforesaid For as every sin is not a breach of Covenant so every sin must not deny them the seales Object Then we must not deny it to them for every grosse sin neither seeing you affirme that every grosse sinne breaketh not Covenant Answ. Yet because hee that liveth in known grosse sinne cannot consent to the Kingly Office or Government of Christ over him therefore we have just cause to suspend the giving of the seales and also of fellowship with him while we try whether he did it through weaknesse or wilfulnesse Ob. But how shall we know that Answ. Christ hath lined us out the way We must reprove him and see whether he will heare and reforme if he doe not we must tell the Church and so admonish and shame him publikely If hee heare not the Church we are to account him as a man without the Covenant and so unfit for seales or communion Quest. But when shall I take him for one that will not heare the Church Answ. When hee will not be perswaded to confesse and bewaile his sinne nor to give over the practice of it So that I doe considerately advise you after long study of this point
and as cautelous a proceeding as most have used for you know my former Judgement and that I never administred the Sacrament till within this year and that I was then invited to it by an eminent wonder of providence I say I advise you to beware how you deny to men the seales till you have tried with them this way prescribed by Christ Christ is free in entertaining and so must wee Christ putteth away none but them that put away themselves and then doth he call after them as long as there is hope of hearing as one that is grieved at their destruction and not delighted in the death of sinners but had rather they would returne and live And even thus must we do too Lazinesse is the common cause of separation when we should go with words of pitty and love and with teares beseech sinners to return to theit duty and shew them their danger we neglect all this to save us the labour and the suffering that sometime follows this duty wee will plead that they are no Church-Members and so not the Brethren that we are bound to admonish and so lazily separate from them and say as Cain Am I my Brothers keeper or as the man to Christ who is my Neighbour And thus when we have made his sinne our owne by our silence and not reproving him then we excommunicate him for it out of our society and from the Ordinances and so judge our selves out of our own mouths Or we separate from him for the neglect of some duty when wee our selves have neglected both to him and others this great and excellent duty of faithfull admonition It is more comfortable to recover one soule then to cast off many by separation Though I know that the avoiding communion with wilfull offendours who by this due admonition will not be reclamed is a most necessary usefull duty too But do not execute a man before he is judged nor judge him before you have heard him speak fully proved that obstinacy is added to his sinne except it be to suspend him while he is under this legall triall But perhaps you will object that we have no discipline established so no Authority to do thus and the means are vain which cannot attain their end To which I answer 1. You have divine authority 2. And may do as much as I presse without a Presbitery First you may admonish privately Secondly before witnesse Thirdly you may bring your Congregation to this that the parties offended may accuse them openly The Presbyterians deny not to the Congregation the audience and cognizance of the Fact but onely the power of judiciall sentencing And here you may admonish them before all Fourthly if yet they prove obstinate you may by your Ministeriall Authority 1. Pronounce against him by name what the Scripture pronounceth against such sinners particularly that he is unfit to be a Church-Member as openly denying obedience to the known Lawes of Christ 2. You may charge the people from Scripture to avoid familiarity with him 3. You may also acquaint the Magistrate with his duty to thrust him out if he violently intrude into Communion or disturb the Ordinances 4. You may forbear to deliver the Sacrament particularly to his hands 5. You may enter and publish your dissent and dislike if he intrude and take it himself All this I could most easily and beyond doubt prove your duty as you are a Christian and a Minister And if there be any more that a Classis may do yet do you do this in the mean time only be sure you try all means in private if the fault be not in publick before you bring a man in publick And be sure you do it in tendernesse and love and rather with wary then passionate reproaches And be sure that you do it only in case of undeniable sinnes and not in doubtfull disputable Cases And be sure that the matter of Fact be undoubtedly proved And that no man be suffered to traduce another publickly in a wrong way Or if he do that he be brought to acknowledgement The word Excommunication comprizeth severall Acts Those before mentioned belong to you as a Minister and are part of your proper Preaching declarative power which you may perform by your Nuntiative authority The power of Classes and Synods I think doth differ onely gradually and not specifically from that of every minister I am ashamed that I have contrary to my first purpose said so much of this unpleasing controversy But when you are next at leisure privately I shall undertake to prove all this to you from Scripture and that the Keyes are put by Christ into the hands of every Minister singly and that with sobriety and wisdome you may thus name the offendours publickly as all Scripture Ministers have been used to do And if you question whether our ordinary Congregations are true reall Churches where such works may be managed I shall prove that they are by giving you a better definition of a Church then that which you gave me and then trying our Churches by it In the mean time this is not matter to intermix here BUt you cannot it seems digest Mr. Blakes assertion that the Sacraments do seal but conditionally Answer I have not Mr. Blakes book by me and therefore how he explaineth himself I cannot tell But I remember he hath oft said so in conference with me But let me tell you two or three things 1. That I question whether you well understand him 2. Or whether you be able to confute it as thus to except against it 3. That Mr. Blake is as truly conscientious whom he admitteth as you But for the Controversy you must consider it a little more distinctly before you are like to understand it rightly It is in vain to enquire whether the Sacraments do seal absolutely or conditionally till you first know well what it is that they seal Let us first therefore resolve that Question what they seal and then enquire how they seal You know a Christian doth gather the assurance of his Justification and Salvation by way of Argumentation thus He that believeth is iustified and shall be saved But I believe therefore I am justified and shall be saved Now the Question is which of the parts of this Argument the Sacrament doth seal to Whether to the Major the Minor or the Conclusion To which I answer 1. That it sealeth to the Truth of Gods promise which is the Major proposition is unquestionable But whether to this alone is all the doubt 2. That it sealeth not to the truth of the Minor Proposition that is to the truth of our Believing I take also for to be beyond dispute For first it should else seal to that which is now here written For no Scripture saith that I do believe 2. And then it should be used to strengthen my Faith in that which is no object of Faith For that I do believe is not matter of Faith or to be
Christ onely received our infirmities and Originall Disease and not the contempt of him and his Law Expounded by Dr. Twisse against Dr. Iackson pag. 584. His meaning in my judgement is onely this that Christ hath made satisfaction for the imperfections of our Faith and holinesse although we continue therein untill death But he hath not made satisfaction for the contempt and hatred of his Word c. in case men doe continue therein unto death Alstedius Distinct. Theol. c. 17. pag. 73 The condition of the Covenant of Grace is partly Faith and partly Evangelicali obedience or holinesse of life proceeding from Faith in Christ. Idem ibid. cap. 23. Christ is our Righteousnesse in a causall sense but not in a formall sence Sadeel advers human satisfact pag. 213. Christs satisfaction is to them profitable to whom it is truly applied The way of application is this that the merits of Christ be imputed to us This imputation is done when the Holy Ghost begetteth in us a true faith which receiving the benefit of Christ doth at once also produce in us the true fruits of our Regeneration Rivetus in Disput. de Satisfactione God was not bound to accept the satisfaction performed by another although sufficient unlesse which he could not man had satisfied himself and had born the punishment due to his sin therefore there was a necessity that a Covenant should intercede and God himself propound a Mediator That there must an agreement intercede on his part who was satisfied I have proved without which the satisfaction had been in vain Ibidem Ibidem ibid. Thes. 4 5 6. The Act which in satisfaction God performeth it is of a supreme Judge freely relaxing his own Law and transferring the penalty on another So that in this relaxation Gods supreme dominion may be observed For how could God have relaxed his Law if he had not been the supreme Rector or had been under a Law himself And by the transferring the penalty from the sinner exacting it of the surety the relation of a party offended as such is removed from God c. Iam. 4. 12. So he proceedeth to prove that God could and did relax his Law as being positive and so relaxable that it is abrogate not expounded 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And what of it was relaxable and what not c. Bellarmine confesseth l. de just cap. 7. that our opinion is right if we mean that Christ merits are imputed us because they are given us and we may offer them to God the Father for our sins because Christ undertook the burden of satisfying for us and reconciling us to God Which Rivet approveth Disp. de justific Dr. Twisse Vindic. Grat. l. 2. par 2. crim 3. §. 6. I confesse salvation and so pardon and adoption are offered to all and singular men on condition they beleeve c. And so I deny not that Redemption is so farre obtained for all and every man Dr. Twisse against Cotten pag. 74. Still you prove that which no man denyeth viz. That God purposed life to the world upon condition of obedience and repentance provided that you understand it right viz. that obedience and repentance is ordained of God as a condition of life not of Gods purpose Dr. Twisse Consid. of Tilenus Synod dort Arles reduced to prac pag. 61. Ger. Vossius interpreteth the will of God touching the salvation of all of a conditionall will thus God will have all to be saved to wit in case they beleeve which conditionall will in this sence neither Austin did nor doe we deny Idem pag. 143 144. I willingly professe that Christ dyed for all in respect of procuring the benefit of pardon and salvation conditionally on condition of their faith So also pag. 154 161 165 170 194. And Discovery of Doctor Iacksons vanity p. 527. 551. Iunius Parallel l. 3. Heb. 5. 9. For the promise of salvation is made to obedience and be queathed to it in the Testament of Christ himself dying Paraeus in Hebr. 5. 9. To obey Christ is not onely to professe his Name but to acknowledge him the onely perfect Redeemer to cleave to him in true affiance and to live worthy the Gospell This condition in the whole Gospell is required in those that shall be saved Universall Grace belongeth onely to the obedient Piscator in Heb. 5. 9. Christ is not the Author of salvation to all men but onely to those that obey him that is who beleeve his Promises and obey his Precepts Aretius in Heb. 5. 9. The benefit of Redemption is universall and indeed belongs to all in generall so be it we obey him Calvin in Luk. 1. 6. We must so expound whatsoever the Scripture speaks of the Righteousnesse of men that it overthrow not the forgivenesse of sins whereon it resteth as a building on its foundation They who simply expound it that Zachary and Elizabeth were righteous by Faith because they were freely accepted of God for the Mediatours sake do wrest the words of Luke to a strange sence And as to the matter it self they say something but not the whole I confesse indeed that the righteousnesse which is ascribed to them ought to be acknowledged as received from the Grace of Christ and not to the merit of works yet the Lord because he imputed not to them their sins doth dignifie their holy life with the title of Righteousness The folly of the Papists is easily refelled who oppose this Righteousness to the Righteousness of Faith when as it flowes from it so it ought to be placed in subordination to it that so there be no disagreement between them Perkins Vol. 1. p. 662. The true Gain And lest any should imagine that the very act of Faith in apprehending Christ justifieth we are to understand that Faith doth not apprehend by power from it self but by vertue of the Covenant If a man beleeve the Kingdome of France to be his it is not therefore his yet if he beleeve Christ and the Kingdome of Heaven by Christ to be his it is his indeed Not simply because he beleeves but because he beleeves upon commandment and promise For in the tenour of the Covenant God promiseth to impute the obedience of Christ to us for our righteousness if we beleeve Perkins Vol. 1. p. 476. on Hab. 2. 4. Justice mentioned in the word is two-fold the justice of the Law and the justice of the Gospell The justice of the Law hath in it all points and parts of justice and all the perfection of all parts and it was never found in any upon earth except Adam and Christ. The justice of the Gospell hath all the parts of true justice but it wants the full perfection of parts And this kinde of justice is nothing else but the conversion of a sinner with a purpose will and endeavour to please God according to all the Commandments of the Law Thus was Noah just Iob Zachary Elizabeth and thus must the just man be taken in this
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