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
production of the Effect under the chief Cause And so you may call Faith an Instrument Quest. But though Faith be not the Instrument of Justification may it not be called the Instrument of receiving Christ who Justifieth us Answ. I do not so much stick at this speech as at the former yet is it no proper or fit expression neither For 1. The Act of Faith which is it that justifieth is our Actuall receiving of Christ and therefore cannot be the Instrument of Receiving To say our Receiving is the Instrument of our Receiving is a hard saying 2. And the seed or habite of Faith cannot fitly be called an Instrument For 1. The sanctified faculty it self cannot be the souls Instrument it being the soul it self and not any thing really distinct from the soul nor really distinct from each other as Scotus D'Orbellis Scaliger c. D. Iackson Mr. Pemble think and Mr. Ball questions 2. The holinesse of the Faculties is not their Instrument For 1. It is nothing but themselves rectified and not a Being so distinct as may be called their Instrument 2. Who ever called Habits or Dispositions the souls Instruments The aptitude of a Cause to produce its effect cannot be called the Instrument of it you may as well call a mans Life his Instrument of Acting or the sharpnesse of a knife the knives Instrument as to call our holiness or habituall faith the Instrument of receiving Christ. To the sixth and last Question I Answ. Faith is plainly and undeniably the condition of our Justification The whole Tenour of the Gospell shews that And a condition is but a Causa sine quâ non or a medium or a necessary Antecedent Here by the way take notice that the same men that blame the advancing of Faith so high as to be our true Gospell Righteousnesse Posit 17. 20. and to be inputed in proper sence Posit 23. do yet when it comes to the triall ascribe far more to Faith then those they blame making it Gods Instrument in justifying 1. And so to have part of the honour of Gods own Act 2. And that from a reason intrinsecall to faith it self 3. And from a Reason that will make other Graces to be Instruments as well as Faith For Love doth truly receive Christ also 4. And worst of all from a Reason that will make man to be the Causa proxima of his own Justification For man is the Causa proxima of believing and receiving Christ and therefore not God but man is said to beleeve And yet these very men do send a Hue and Crie after the Tò credere for robbing Christ of the glory of Iustification when we make it but a poor improper Causa sine qua non And yet I say as before that in Morality yea and in Naturality some Causae sine qua non do deserve much of the honour but that Faith doth not so I have shewed in the 23. Position Some think that Faith may be some small low Impulsive Cause but I will not give it so much though if it be made a Procatarctick Objective Cause I shall not contend THESIS LVII IT is the Act of Faith which justifieth men at age and not the habit yet not as it is a good work or as it hath in it's self any excellency in it above other Graces But 1. In the neerest sence directly and properly as it is The fulfilling of the Condition of the New Convenant 2. In the remote and more improper sence as it is The receiving of Christ and his satisfactory Righteousnesse EXPLICATION 1. THat the habit of Faith doth not directly and properly justifie appeares from the tenour of the Covenant which is not He that disposed to beleeve shall be saved But he that believeth 2. That Faith doth not properly justifie through any excellency that it hath above other Graces or any more usefull property may appear thus 1. Then the praise would be due to Faith 2. Then love would contend for a share if not a priority 3. Then Faith would justifie though it had not been made the Condition of the Covenant Let those therefore take heed that make Faith to justifie meerely because it apprehendeth Christ which is its naturall effentiall property 3. That it is Faith in a proper sence that is said to justifie and not Christs Righteousnesse onely which it receiveth may appear thus 1. From the necessity of two-fold righteousness which I have before proved in reference to the two-fold Covenant 2. From the plain and constant Phrase of Scripture which saith He that beleeveth shall be justified and that we are justified by Faith and that faith is imputed for righteousnesse It had been as easie for the Holy Ghost to have said that Christ onely is imputed or his righteousnesse onely or Christ onely justifieth c. If he had so meant He is the most excusable in an error that is lead into it by the constant expresse phrase of Scripture 3. From the nature of the thing For the effect is ascribed to the severall Causes though not alike and in some sort to the Conditions Especially me-thinks they that would have Faith to be the Instrument of Iustification should not deny that we are properly justified by Faith as by an Instrument For it is as proper a speech to say our hand and our teeth feed us as to say our meet feedeth us 4. That Faith doth most directly and properly justifie as its the fulfilling of the Condition of the New Covenant appeareth thus 1 The new Covenant onely doth put the stamp of Gods Authority upon it in making it the Condition A two-fold stamp is necessary to make it a current medium of our Justification 1. Command 2. Promise Because God hath neither Commanded any other meanes 2. Nor promised Justification to any other therefore it is that this is the onely condition and so only thus Justifieth When I read this to be the tenour of the New Covenant Whosoever believeth shall be justified doth it not tell me plainly why Faith Justifieth even because it pleaseth the Law-giver and Covenant-maker to put Faith into the Covenant as its condition 2. What have we else to shew at Gods barr for our Justification but the New Covenant The Authority and Legality of it must bear us out It is upon point of Law that we are condemned and it must be by Law that we must be Justified Therefore we were condemned because the Law which we break did threaten death to our sin If we had committed the same Act and not under a Law that had threatned it with death we might not have dyed So therefore are we Justified because the New Law doth promise Iustification to our faith If we had performed the same Act under the first Covenant it would not have Iustified As the formall Reason why sin condemneth is because the Law hath concluded it in its threatning so the formall Reason why Faith justifieth is because the New Law of Covenant hath concluded
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
many But I know nothing can be said against it but by denying the Antecedent viz. That Faith as it Accepteth Christ for Lord and King doth Justifie But that I have proved before If it be one Faith and have the Object entirely propounded as one and be one entire principall part of the Covenants Condition then sure it cannot be divided in the work of Justifying This may be easily apprehended if men will but understand these three things 1. That Faith is no Physicall or naturall proper Receiving of Christ at all But meerly a morall Receiving though performed by a Physicall Act of Accepting For thy Will doth not naturally touch and take in the person of Christ That is an impossible thing whatsoever the Transubstantiation men may say Though the Essence of the Godhead is every where 2. That this accepting which is a Morall Receiving doth not nor possibly can make Christ ours immediately and properly as it is a Receiving But mediately and improperly onely The formall cause of our interest being Gods Donation by the Gospell Covenant 3. That this Covenant maketh a whole entire Faith its Condition A Receiving of whole Christ with the whole soul It is as Amesius Actio totius hominis And if the Covenant doe make Christ as King the object of that Faith which is its Condition as well as Christ as a Deliverer or Priest Then may it be as fit a Medium for our Justification as the other That Obedience is as neere a fruit of Faith as Affiance is evident if you take it for the Obedience of the Soul in Acts that are no more remote from the heart then Affiance is And so is the Obedience of our Actions externall in its formall respect as Obedience though not in its materiall because the imperate Acts are not all so neer the fountain as the Elicite I take it here for granted that Dr Downames arguments in the place fore-cited have proved Affiance to be but a fruit of the principall justifying Act of Faith THESIS LXXIII FRom what hath been said it appeareth in what sence Faith only justifieth and in what sence Works also justifie viz. 1. Faith only justifieth as it implieth and includeth all other parts of the condition of the new Covenant and is so put in opposition to the Works of the Law or the personall Righteousnes of the old Covenant 2. Faith only justifieth as the great principall master duty of the Gospell or chief part of its Condition to which all the rest are some way reducible 3. Faith onely doth not justifie in opposition to the Works of the Gospell but those Works do also justifie as the secondary less principall parts of the condition of the Covenant THESIS LXXIV SO that they both justifie in the same kinde of causality viz. as Causa sine quibus non or mediums and improper Causes or as Dr Twisse Causae dispositivae but with this difference Faith as the principal part Obedience as the less principall The like may be said of Love which at least is a secondary part of the Condition and of others in the same station EXPLICATION I Know this is the doctrine that will have the loudest out-cries raised against it and will-make some cry out Heresie Popery Socinianism and what not For my own part the Searcher of hearts knoweth that not singularity affectation of novelty nor any good will to Popery provoketh me to entertain it But that I have earnestly sought the Lords direction upon my knees before I durst adventure on it And that I resisted the light of this Conclusion as long as I was able But a man cannot force his own understanding if the evidence of truth force it not though he may force his pen or tongue to silence or dissembling That which I shall do further is to give you some proofs of what I say and to answer some Objections Though if the foregoing grounds do stand there needs no more proof of these assertions 1. If Faith justifie as it is the fulfilling of the Condition of the new Covenant and Obedience be also part of that Condition then obedience must justifie in the same way as Faith But both parts of the Antecedent are before proved The other proofs follow in the ensuing Positions and their Explications and Confirmations THESIS LXXV THe plain expressions of Saint James should ternifie us from an interpretation contradictory to the Text and except apparent violence be used with his Chap. 2. 21. 24 25 c. it cannot be doubted but that a man is justified by Works and not by Faith only THESIS LXXVI NEither is there the least appearance of a contradiction betwixt this and Paul's doctrine Rom. 3. 28. If men did not through prejudice negligence or wilfulness overlook this That in that and all other the like places the Apostle doth professedly exclude the Works of the Law only from Iustification but never at all the Works of the Gospell as they are the Condition of the new Covenant EXPLICATION IN opening this I shall thus proceed 1. I will shew the clearness of that in Iames for the point in question 2. That Paul is to be understood in the sence expressed 3. How this differeth from the Papists Exposition of these places and from their doctrine of Justification by Works 4. And how from the Socinian doctrine 1. The ordinary Expositions of St. Iames are these two 1. That he speaks of Justification before men and not before God 2. That he speaks of Works as justifying our Faith and not as justifying our persons or as Mr. Pembles phrase is the Apostle when he saith Works justifie must be undestood by a Metonimy that a working Faith justifieth That the former Exposition is falfe may appeare thus 1. The worlds Justification freeth us but from the Worlds Accusation to which it is opposed And therefore it is but either a Justifying from the Accusation of humane Lawes Or else a particular Justification of us in respect of some particular facts or else an usurped Judgement and Justification For they are not constituted our Judges by God And therefore we may say with Paul It is a small thing with me to be judged of you or of mans Iudgement And so a small thing to be Justified by men from the Accusations of the Law of God But the Justification in Iames is of greater moment as appeares in the Text. For 1. It is such as salvation dependeth on vers 14. 2. It is such as followeth onely a living Faith but the world may as well Justifie us when we have no Faith at all I therefore affirme 1. The World is no lawfull Judge of our Righteousness before God or in reference to the Law of God 2. Neither are they competent or capable Judges They cannot possibly passe any certaine true sentence of our Righteousness or unrighteousnesse 3. If they could yet Works are no certain medium or evidence whereby the world can know us to be Righteous For there is no outward work
c. are implyed in the Covenant expressed as the necessary for future therefore if there be no conjugall actions affections or fidelity follow the Covenant is not performed nor shall the woman enjoy the benefits expected It is so here especially seeing Christ may dis-estate the violaters of his Covenant at pleasure This sheweth us how to answer the Objections of some 1. Say they Abrahams Faith was perfect long before Answ. Not as it is a fulfilling of the Covenants Condition which also requireth its acting by Obedience 2. Abraham say they was justified long before Isaac was offered therefore that could be but a manifesting of it Answ. Justification is a continued Act. God is still justifying and the Gospell still justifying Abrahams Justification was not ended before 3. Mr Pemble thinks that as a man cannot be said to live by Reason though he may be said to live by a reasonable soul and as a plant liveth not per augmentationem si per animam auctricem So we may be said to be justified by a working Faith but not by Works I Answ. Both Speeches are proper And his simile doth not square or suit with the Case in hand For Justifying is an extrinsecall consequent or product of Faith and no proper effect at all Much lesse an effect flowing from its own formall essence as the life of a man doth from a Reasonable soul and the life of a Plant from a Vegetative I hope it may be said properly enough that a Servant doth his work and pleaseth his Master by Reason as well as by a reasonable soul And a Plant doth please the Gardiner by augmentation as well as per animam austricem So that a man pleaseth God and is Justified by sincere Obedience as well as by a working Faith 3. How this differeth from the Papists Doctrine I need not tell any Scholar who hath read their writings 1. They take Justifying for Sanctifying so do not I. 2. They quite overthrow and deny the most reall difference betwixt the Old Covenant and the New and make them in a manner all one But I build this Exposition and Doctrine chiefly upon the clear differencing and opening of the Covenants 3. When they say We are Justified by VVorks of the Gospell they mean only that we are sanctified by Works that follow Faith and are bestowed by Grace they meriting our inherent justice at Gods hands In a word there is scarce any one Doctrins wherein even their most learned Schoolmen are more sottishly ignorant then in this of Justification so that when you have read them with profit and delight on some other subjects when they come to this you would pitty them and admire their ignorance They take our Works to be part of our Legall Righteousness I take them not to be the smallest portion of it But onely a part of our Evangelicall Righteousness or of the Condition upon which Christs Righteousness shall be ours 5. But what difference is there betwixt it and the Socinian Doctrin of Justification Answ. In some mens mouths Socinianisme is but a word of reproach or a stone to throw at the head of any man that saith not as they Mr. Wotton is a Socinian and Mr. Bradshaw and Mr. Gataker and Mr. Goodwin and why not Piscator Pareus c. if some zealous Divines know what Socinianisme is But I had rather study what is Scripture-truth then what is Socinianisme I do not think that Faustus was so Infaustus as to hold nothing true That which he held according to Scripture is not Socinianisme For my part I have read little of their writings but that little gave me enough and made me cast them away with abhorrence In a word The Socinians acknowledge not that Christ had satisfied the Law for us and consequently is none of our Legall Righteousness but onely hath set us a copy to write after and is become our pattern and that we are Justified by following him as a Captain and guide to heaven And so all our proper Righteousness is in this obedience Most accursed Doctrine So farre am I from this that I say The Righteousness which we must plead against the Lawes accusations is not one grain of it in our Faith of Works but all out of us in Christs satisfaction Onely our Faith Repentance and sincere Obedience are the Conditions upon which we must partake of the former And yet such Conditions as Christ worketh in us freely by his Spirit 6. Lastly let us see whether St. Paul or any other Scripture do contract this And for my part I know not one word in the Bible that hath any strong appearance of Contradiction to it The usuall places quoted are these Rom. 3. 28. 4. 2. 3. 14. 15. 16. Gal. 2. 16. 3. 21. 22. Ephes. 2. 89. Phil. 3. 8. 9. In all which and all other the like places you shall easily perceive 1. That the Apostles dispute is upon the question What is the Righteousness which we must plead against the Accusation of the Law or by which we are justified as the proper Righteousness of that Law And this he well concludeth is neither Works nor Faith But the Righteousnesse which is by Faith that is Christs Righteousnesse But now St. Iames his question is What is the Condition of our Justification by this Righteousness of Christ Whether Faith onely or Works also 2. Paul doth either in expresse words or in the sence and scope of his speech exclude onely the works of the Law that is the fulfilling of the Conditions of the Law our selves But never the fulfilling of the Gospell-Conditions that we may have part in Christ. Indeed if a man should obey the Commands of the Gospell with a Legall intent that it might be a Righteousnesse conform to the Law of Works this Obedience is not Evangelicall but Legall obedience For the form giveth the name 3 Paul doth by the word Faith especially direct your thoughts to Christ beleeved in For to be justified by Christ and to be justified by receiving Christ is with him all one 4. And when he doth mention Faith as the Condition he alwayes implyeth obedience to Christ. Therefore Beleeving and obeying the Gospell are put for the two Summaries of the whole Conditions The next will clear this THESIS LXXVII THat we are justified by sincere obedience to Christ as the secondary part of the Condition of our Iustification is evident also from these following Scriptures Mat. 12. 37. Mar. 11. 25. 26. Luk. 6. 37. Mat. 6. 12. 14. 15. 1 Joh. 1. 9. Act. 8. 22. Act. 3. 19. 22. 16. 1 Pet. 4. 18. Rom. 6. 16. 1 Pet. 1. 2. 22. THESIS LXXVIII OVr full Iustification and our everlasting Salvation have the same Conditions on our part But sincere Obedtence is without all doubt a Condition of our Salvation therefore also of our Iustification EXPLICATION THe Antecedent is manifest in that Scripture maketh Faith a Condition of both Iustification and Salvation and so it doth
they shall be like wooll So Ezek. 33. 14. 15 16. 18. 21. 22. Neither let any object that this is the Law of works For certainly that hath no promises of forgivenesse And though the discoveries of the way of Justification be delivered in the old Testament in a more dark and Legall language then in the New yet not in termes contradictory to the truth in the New Testament Thus you may see in what sence it is that Christ will judge men according to their Works will say Come ye blessed of my Father inherit the kingdome c. For I was hungry ye fed me c. Well done good faithfull Servant thou hast been faithfull in few things I will make thee Ruler over many things Enter thou into the joy of thy Lord Matth. 25. For being made perfect he became the Author of Eternall salvation to all them that obey him Hebr. 5. 9. Of whom it shall be said when they are glorified with him These are they that come out of great tribulation and have washed their robes in the blood of the Lambe and made them white Therefore are they before the throne of God and serve him day and night in his temple and he that siâ—teth on the throne shall dwell among them Revel 7. 14. 15. To whom be Glory for ever Amen REader because an exact Index would contain a great part of the Book I shall omit it and instead of it I here lay thee down some of the chief Distinctions upon which this Discourse dependeth desiring thee to understand them and keep them in memory You must distinguish 1. BEtwixt Gods Decretive or Purposing Will And his Legislative or Preceptive Will The 1. is his Determining of Events The 2. of Duty and Reward 2. Betwixt 1. the Covenant or Law of Works which saith Obey perfectly and Live or sin and Dye 2. And the Covenant or Law of Grace which saith Beleeve and be saved c. 3. Betwixt the two parts of each Covenant viz. 1. The Primary discovering the duty in Precepts and prohibiting the Sin 2. The secondary discovering the Rewards and Penalties in Promises and Threatnings 4. Betwixt a two-fold Righteousness of one and the same Covenant 1. Of perfect Obedience or performance of the Condition 2. Of suffering or satisfaction for disobedience or non-performance which maketh the Law to have nothing against us though we disobeyed See Pemble of Iustification pag. 2. Our Legall Righteousness is of this last sort not of the first Both these sorts of Righteousnesse are not possible to be found in any one person except Christ who had the former Righteousness as his own incommunicable to us in that form The second he had for us as he was by imputation a sinner And so we have it in or by him Mark this 5. Betwixt two kinds of Righteousness suitable to the two Covenants and their Conditions 1. Legall Righteousness which is our Conformity or satisfaction to the Law 2. And Evangelicall Righteousness which is our Conformity to the new Covenant Note that 1. Every Christian must have both these 2. That our Legall righteousness is onely that of Satisfaction but our Evangelicall is only that of obedience or performance of the Condition 3. That our Legall Righteousnesse is all without us in Christ the other in our selves 6. Betwixt Evangelicall Righteousness improll perly so called viz. because the Gospell doth reveain and offer it This is our Legall righteousness o Christ. 2. And Evangelicall righteousness prnt perly so called viz. Because the new Covenar is the Rule to which it is conformed This is ou performance of the new Covenants Conditions 7. Betwixt the Life or Reward in the first Covenant viz. Adams paradise happiness 2. And the Life of the second Covenant which is Eternall glory in heaven 8. Betwixt the death or curse of the old Covenant which is opposite to its reward This onely was laid on Christ and is due to Infants by nature 2. And the death of the second Covenant opposite to its life called the second death and far sorer punishment This finall unbeleevers suffer 9. Betwixt sins against the first Covenant For these Christ died 2. And sins against the second Covenant For these he dyed not 10. Betwixt sinning against Christ and the Gospell as the object of our sin only So Christ died for them 2. And sinning against the new Covenant as such or as a threatning Law So Christ dyed not for them 11. Betwixt delaying to perform the conditions of the new Covenant This is not threatned with death 2. And finall non-performance This is proper violation of the Covenant and a sin that leaveth no hope of recovery 12. Betwixt paying the proper debt of obedience as Christ did himself or of suffering as the damned do 2. And satisfying for non-payment as Christ did for us 13 Betwixt repealing the Law or Covenant which is not done 2. And relaxing it or dispensing with it which is done 14. Betwixt relaxation or dispensation in the proper subject and circumstances of the Penalty This is done in removing it from us to Christ. 2. And dispencing with the Penalty it self This is not done for Christ did bear it 15. Betwixt the change of the Law 2. And of the sinners relation to the Law 16. Betwixt the Lawes forbidding and condemning the sin so it doth still 2. And its condemning the sinner So it doth not to the justified because Christ hath born the curse 17. Betwixt the Precepts as abstracted from the Covenant termes which really they are not at all 2. And as belonging to the severall Covenants 18. Betwixt perfection of Holinesse which is a quality This is not in this life 2. And Perfection of Righteousness which is a Relation This is perfect or none at all 19. Betwixt recalling the Fact or the evil of the Fact or its desert of punishment These are never done nor are possible 2. And removing the duenesse of punishment from the Offendor This is done 20. Betwixt Pardon and Iustification Condiditionall which is an immediate effect of Christs Death and Resurrection or rather of the making of the new Covenant 2. And Pardon Iustification Absolute when we have performed all the Conditions 21. Betwixt Conditionall Pardon and Iustification which is only Potentiall Such is that which immediately followeth the enacting of the new Covenant to men before Faith or before they have sinned 2. And Conditionall Iustification which is actual of which the person hath true possession such is our Iustification after Faith till the last Iudgement which is ours actually but yet upon condition of perseverance in Faith and sincere Obedience 22. Betwixt Pardon and Iustification as they are Immanent Acts in God improperly and without Scripture called Pardon or Iustification 2. And Pardon and Iustification as they are Transient Acts performed by the Gospell-Promise as Gods Instrument This is the true Scripture Iustification 23. Betwixt Iustification in Title and Sence of Law which is
in this Life 2. And Iustification in sentence of the Iudge which is at the last Iudgement 24. Betwixt justifying us against a true Accusation as of breaking the Law Thus Christ justifieth us and here it is that we must plead his Safaction 2. And justifying us against a false Accusation as of not performing the Conditions of the Gospell Here we must plead not guilty and not plead the Satisfaction of Christ. 25. Betwixt the Accusation of the Law from Christ doth justifie believers 2. And the Accusation of the Gospell or new Covenant for not per forming its Conditions at all from which no man can be justified and for which there is no sacrifice 26. Betwixt those Acts which recover us to the state of Relation which we fell from that is Pardon Reconciliation and Iustification 2. And those which advance us to a far higher state that is Adoption and Vnion with Christ. 27. Betwixt our first Possession of Iustification which is upon our contract with Christ or meer Faith 2. And the Confirmation Continuation and Accomplishment of it whose Condition is also sincere Obedience and Perseverance 28. Betwixt the great summary duty of the Gospell to which the rest are reducible which is Faith 2. And the Condition fully expressed in all its parts where of Faith is the Epitome 29. Betwixt the word Faith as it is taken Physically and for some one single Act 2. And as it is taken Morally Politically and Theologically here for the receiving of Christ with the whole soul. 30. Betwixt the accepting of Christ as a Saviour only which is no true Faith nor can justifie 2. And Accepting him for Lord also which is true Iustifying Faith 31. Betwixt the foresaid Receiving of Christ himself in his offices which is the Act that Iustifieth 2. And Receiving his Promises and Benefits a consequent of the former Or betwixt accepting him for Iustification 2. And beleeving that we are justified 32. Betwixt the Metaphysicall Truth of our Faith 2. And the Morall Truth 33. Betwixt the Nature of the Act of Faith which justifieth or its Aptitude for its office which is its receiving Christ 2. And the proper formall Reason of its Iustifying power which is because it is the Condition upon which God will give us Christs Righteousness 34. Betwixt Works of the Law which is perfect Obedience 2. And Works of the Gospell Covenant which is Faith and sincere Obedience to Christ that bought us 35. Betwixt Works of the Gospell used as Works of the Gospell i.e. in subordination to Christ as Conditions of our full Iustification and Salvation by him 2. And Works commanded in the Gospell used a-Works of the Law or to legall ends viz. to make up in whole or in part our proper legall Righteousness and so in opposition to Christs Righteousness or in co-ordination with it In the first sence they are necessary to Salvation In the second Damnable 36. Betwixt receiving Christ and loving him as Redeemer which is the Condition it self 2. And taking the Lord for our God and chief Good and loving him accordingly Which is still implyed in the Covenant as its End and Perfection And so as more excellent then the proper Conditions of the Covenant Glory to God in the highest and on Earth Peace Good-will towards men Luk. 2. 14. Postscript WHereas there is in this Book an intimation of something which I have written of Vniversall Redemption Understand that I am writing indeed a few pages on that subject onely by way of Explication as an Essay for the Reconciling of the great differences in the Church thereabouts But being hindered by continuall sickness and also observing how many lately are set a work on the same subject as Whitfield Stalham Howe Owen and some men of note that I hear are now upon it I shall a while forbear to see if something may come forth which may make my endeavour in this kinde useless and save me the labour Which if it come not to pass you shall shortly have it if God will enable me Farewell AN APPENDIX to the fore-going TREATISE BEING An Answer to the Objections of a Friend concerning some Points therein contained And at his own Desire annexed for the sake of others that may have the same thoughts Zanchius in Philip. 3. 13. What can be more pernicious to a Student yea to a Teacher then to think that he knoweth all things and no knowledge can be wanting in him For being once puft up vvith this false opinion he vvill profit no more The same is much truer in Christian Religion and in the Knovvledge of Christ. Rom. 3. 25. Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through Faith in his blood for Remission of sins that are past through the forbearance of God READER THe disorder of the Interrogations and Objections which extorted from me this whole Tractate by pieces one after another hath caused me an unfeigned lover of method to give thee such a disorderly immethodicall Miscellany Also the quality of these Objections hath occasioned me to answer many things triviall whilest I know more difficult and weighty points are overlooked these things need no excuse but this information That I was to follow and not to lead and that I write only for those who know less than my self if thou know more thank God and joyn with me for the instruction of the ignorant whose information reformation and salvation and thereby Gods glory is the top of my ambition R. B. AN ANSWER to some Objections and Questions OF One that perused this small TRACTATE before it went to the Press The sum of the Objections is as followeth 1. IT seemeth strange to me that you make the death which the first Covenant did threaten to be only in the everlasting suffering of soul seperated from the body and that the body should de turned to earth and suffer no more but the pains of death and consequently not whole man but only part of him should de damned 2. Though you seem to take in the Active Righteousness of Christ with the Passive into the work of Justification yet it is on such grounds as that you do in the main agree with them who are for the Passive Righteousness alone against the stream of Orthodox Divines 3. I pray you clear to me a little more fully in what sence you mean that no sin but finall unbelief is a breach or violation of the new Covenant and how you can make it good that temporary unbelief and gross sin is no violation of it seeing We Covenant against these 4. Whether it will not follow from this doctrine of yours that the new covenant is never violated by any for the regenerate do never finally and totally renounce Christ and so they violate it not the unregenerate were never truly in covenant and therefore cannot be said to violate the Covenant which they never made 5. How you will make it appear that the new Covenant is not made with Christ only 6.
them off which made their unbelief not to be finall and damning Many a man that lived not half so long in rebellion did yet prove a finall condemned rebell so that they did deserve that God in the time of their infidelity should have cut off their lives and so have let their infidelity be their destruction But supposing that God would not so cut them off and so their unbelief should not be finall which is the case and so they are condemned or threatened by none but the first Law or Covenant which Christ did satisfie But as for the second Law or Covenant it condemneth them not so that Christ need not bear the condemnation of that Covenant for them for He doth not fetch any man from under the condemning sentence of it but only in rich mercy to his chosen He doth prevent their running into that condemnation partly by bearing with them in patience and continuing their lives for into the hands of the purchaser are they wholly committed and partly by prevailing with them to come in to him by the efficacy of his Word and Spirit so that considering them as unbelievers who were to be converted and so they were neither the proper subjects of the Promise of the new Covenant nor of the threatening and condemnation of it Promise they had none but conditionall such as they had not received and so were never the better for and so they were without the covenant and without hope and without God and strangers to all the priviledges of the Saints But yet not those to whom the Law or Covenant saith You shall surely dye except they had been such as should never have believed And for that wrath Eph. 2. 3. which they were children of by nature it must needs be only the wrath or curse of the first violated Covenant and not the wrath or curse of the second for no man is by nature a child of that But I perceive you think it a strange saying That a man by the greatest grossest actuall sin may not be said to violate this Covenant so as to incur its curse but only for finall unbelief Do not the godly sometimes break Covenant with Christ Answ. I have two things to say to the helping of your right understanding in this viz. a two-fold distinction to minde you of which you seem to forget 1. Either the gross sins which you speak of are such as may stand with sincerity of heart or such as cannot If they be sins of really godly men then certainly they violate not the Covenant so as to make them the subjects of its curse For the Covenant saith not He that sinneth shall be damned nor he that committeth this or that great sin shall be damned But he that beleeveth not shall be damned Object But is not this Antinomianism which you so detest Is it not said that no whoremonger or unclean person or covetous person c. shall enter into the Kingdom of Christ or of God Rev. 21. 8. 22. 15. and Eph. 5. 5. that for these things sake cometh the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience Answ. I pray you remember that I have already proved that Faith is the consenting to Christs Dominion and Government over us or the accepting of him for our Lord that we may obey him as well as for our Saviour that we may have affiance in him And consequently Unbelief in this large sence in which the Gospell useth it in opposition to that faith which is the condition of the Covenant containeth in it all Rebellion against Christs Government I could prove this to you out of many plain Scriptures but the plainness of it may spare me that labour Even in the Text objected the word translated Children of disobedience doth signifie both Vnbelief and Disobedience or obstinate unperswadeable men that will not be perswaded to beleeve and obey 2 Thess. 1. 8. Christ shall come in flaming fire to render vengeance to them that obey not his Gospell Certainly those are unbeleevers Or if you will have it plainly in Christs own words what is the damning sin opposed to Faith see it in Luk. 19. 27. But those mine enemies which would not that I should reign over them bring them hither slay them before me It is not then for every act of those fore-mentioned sins that the everlasting wrath of God doth come upon men for then what should become of David Noah Lot Mary Magdalen and all of us But it is for such sins as do prove and proceed from a considerate willfull refusall of Christs Government or an unwillingness that he should reign over us and that not every degree of unwillingness but a prevailing degree from whence a man may be said to be one that would not have Christ reign c. Because this is real unbelief it self as opposite to that Faith which is the condition of Life which is the receiving of Christ for Lord as well as Saviour Yet it is true that temporall judgements may befall us for particular sins as also that each particular sin doth deserve the eternall wrath which the first Covenant doth denounce but not in a Law-sence that which is denounced in the second Covenant Every great fault which a subject committeth against his Prince is not capitall or high Treason Every fault or disobedient act of a Wife against her Husband doth not break the Marriage Covenant nor loose the bond but only the sin of Adultery which is the taking of another to the marriage bed or the choosing of another husband and actuall forsaking the Husband or renouncing him And you need not to fear lest this doctrine be guilty of Antinomianism For their Error which many of their adversaries also are guilty of lieth here That not understanding that receiving Christ as Lord is an essentiall act of justifying Faith nor that the refusall of his Government is an essentiall part of damning unbelief they do thereupon acknowledge no condition of Life but bare Belief in the narrowest sence that is either Belief of Pardon and Justification and Reconciliation or Affiance in Christ for it so also they acknowledge no proper damning sin but unbelief in that strict sence as is opposite to this faith that is the not beleeving in Christ as a Saviour And upon the common grounds who can choose but say as they that neither drunkennesse nor murther nor any sin but that unbelief doth damn men except he will say that every sin doth and so set up the Covenant of Works and deny his very Christianity by making Christ to dye in vain so great are the inconveniences that follow the ignorance of this one point That justifying faith is the accepting of Christ for Lord and Saviour and that sincere obedience to him that bought us is part of the Condition of the new Covenant I have been sorry to hear some able Divines in their confessions of sin acknowledging their frequent violation of this Covenant yea that in every sinfull
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
besides their imputed Righteousness only because their Sanctification and good Works have some imperfect agreement to the Law of Works As if it were a streight line which is in one place streight and another crooked much less that which is in every part crooked in some degree I have been sorry to hear many learned Teachers speak thus most they say to maintain it is in this simple objection If we are called holy because of an imperfect Holiness then why not righteous because of an imperfect Righteousness Ans. Holiness signifieth no more but a Dedication to God either by separation only or by qualifying the subject first with an aptitude to its Divine imployment and then separating or devoting it as in our Sanctification Now a person imperfectly so qualified is yet truly and really so qualified and therefore may truly be called holy so far But Righteousness signifying a Conformity to the Rule and a Conformity with a quatenus or an imperfect Rectitude being not a true Conformity or Rectitude at all because the denomination is of the whole Action or Person and not of a certain part or respect therefore imperfect Righteousness is not Righteousness but Unrighteousness It is a contradiction in adjecto Object But is our personal Righteousness perfect as it is measured by the New Rule Ans. Yes as I shall open to you by and by I could here heap up a mulitude of orthodox Writers that do call our personall Righteousness by the title of Evangelicall as signifying from what Rule it doth receive its Name The second sort that shew their gross ignorance of the nature of Righteousness are the Antinomians and some other simple ones whom they have misled who if they doe but hear a man talk of a Righteousness in himself or in any thing he can do or making his own duty either his Righteousness or conducible thereto they startle at such Doctrine and even gnash the teeth as if we preached flat Popery yea as if we cryed down Christ and set up our selves The ignorant wretches not understanding the difference between the two sorts of Righteousness that of the old Covenant which is all out of us in Christ and that of the New Covenant which is all out of Christ in our selves though wrought by the power of the Spirit of Christ. Quest. But how then is Ahabs and Nineve's humiliation accepted and such other works of those that are not in Christ seeing they are yet under the Law Ans. 1. No man is now under the Law as Adam was before the new Covenant was made that is not so under the Law alone as to have nothing to do with the Gospel or so under the old Covenant as to have no benefit by the new 2. So that wicked men may now find that tender and mercifull dealing from God that even those works which are less unjust and sinfull and draw neerest to the rectitude required by the Gospel shall be so far accepted as that for their further encouragement some kind of reward or suspension of wrath shall be annexed to them and God will countenance in them that which is good though it be not so much as may denominate it a good work 3. But yet the best of an unregenerate mans works have more matter in them to provoke God then to please him and he never accepteth them as Evangelically Righteous for they that are in the flesh and are without faith cannot possibly so please God Rom. 8. 8. Heb. 11. 6. As their righteousness is but a less degree of unrighteousness and therefore is most improperly called righteousness so their pleasing God is but a lower degree of displeasing him and therefore but improperly called pleasing him THESIS XXIII IN this sence also it is so far from being an error to affirm that Faith it self is our Righteousness that it is a truth necessary for every Christian to know that is Faith is our Evangelicall Righteousness in the sence before explained as Christ is our Legall Righteousness EXPLICATION THis Assertion so odious those that understand not its grounds is yet so clear from what is said before that I need to add no more to prove it For 1. I have cleared before that there must be a personall Righteousness besides that imputed in all that are justified And that 2. The fulfilling of the conditions of each Covenant is our Righteousness in reference to that Covenant But Faith is the fulfilling of the conditions of the new Covenant therefore it is our Righteousnes in relation to that Covenant I do not here take Faith for any one single Act but as I shall afterward explain it Quest. In what sence then is Faith said to be imputed to us for righteousness if it be our Righteousness it self Answ. Plainly thus Man is become unrighteous by breaking the Law of Righteousness that was given him Christ fully satisfieth for this transgression and buyeth the prisoners into his own hands and maketh with them a new Covenant That whosoever will accept of him and beleeve in him who hath thus satisfied it shall be as effectual for their Justification as if they had fulfilled the Law of Works themselves A Tenant forfeiteth his Lease to his Landlord by not paying his rent he runs deep in debt to him and is disabled to pay him any more rent for the future whereupon he is put out of his house and cast into prison till he pay the debt his Landlords son payeth it for him taketh him out of prison and putteth him in his house again as his Tenant having purchased house and all to himself he maketh him a new Lease in this Tenor that paying but a pepper corn yearly to him he shall be acquit both from his debt and from all other rent for the future which by his old Lease was to be paid yet doth he not cancel the old Lease but keepeth it in his hands to put in suite against the Tenant if he should be so foolish as to deny the payment of the pepper corn In this case the payment of the grain of pepper is imputed to the Tenant as if he had payed the rent of the old Lease Yet this imputation doth not extoll the pepper corn nor vilifie the benefit of his Benefactor who redeemed him Nor can it be said that the purchase did only serve to advance the value and efficacy of that grain of pepper But thus A personall rent must be paid for the testification of his homage he was never redeemed to be independent as his own Landlord and Master the old rent he cannot pay his new Landlords clemency is such that he hath resolved this grain shall serve the turn Do I need to apply this in the present case or cannot every man apply it Even so is our Evangelicall Righteousness or Faith imputed to us for as reall Righteousness as perfect Obedience Two things are considerable in this debt of Righteousness The value and the personall performance or interest The value of Christs
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
a whole Country hath of its name from the chief City so may the Conditions of this Covenant from Faith 2. Because all the rest are reducible to it either being presupposed as necessary Antecedents or means or contained in it as its parts properties or modifications or else implied as its immediate product or necessary subservient means or consequents EXPLICATION SUbservient Actions are in common speech silently implyed in the principall If the besieged be bound by Articles to surrender a Town to the besiegers at such a time it need not be expressed in the Articles that they shall withdraw their Guards and cease resistance and open the gates and yeeld up this house or that street c. All this is implyed clearly in the Article of surrender If a redeemed gally-slave be freed upon condition that he take him for his Redeemer and Master that did deliver him it need not be expressed that he shall leave the gallies and his company and employment there and go with him that bought him and do what he bids him do All this is plainly implyed in the foresaid words of his Conditions So here the great condition of Beleeving doth include or imply all the rest I confess it is a work of some worth and difficulty to shew how each other part of the Condition is reducible to Beleeving and in what respect they stand towards it I dare not determine too peremptorily here but I think they stand thus 1. Hearing the Word consideration conviction godly sorrow repentance from dead works are implyed as necessary means antecedents 2. Knowledge of Christ and Assent to the Truth of the Gospell are at least integrall parts of flat necessity if not essentiall parts of Faith 3. Subjection Acceptance Consent cordiall covenanting self-resigning are the very proper essentiall formall Acts of Faith 4. Esteeming Christ above all in Judgement preferring him before all in the Will loving him above all I say this preferring of Christ above all in Judgement Will and Affection is in my Judgement the very Differentia fidei maxime propria quae de ea essentialiter praedicatur sic pars ejus essentialis the very essentiall property of true Faith differencing it from all false Faith and so an essentiall part of it I know this is like to seeme strange but I shall give my reasons of it anon 5. Sincerity and perseverance are the necessary Modifications of Faith and not any thing really distinct from its Being 6. Assiance and sincere obedience and works of Love are the necessary immediate inseparable products of Faith as heat and light are of fire or rather as Reasoning is the product of Reason or yet rather as actions most properly conjugall are the effects of Conjugall contract And as Faith is in some sort more excellent then Affiance Obedience as the cause is better then the effect so in some sort they may be more excellent then Faith as the effect may be preferred before its Cause the Act before the habit as being that which is the end of the habit for whose sake it is and to which it tendeth as to its perfection 7. The praying for forgivenesse the forgiving of others the pleading of Christs satisfaction are both parts of this obedience and necessary consequents of Faith and Acts subseruient to it for the attaining of its Ends. 8. The denying and humbling of the flesh the serious painfull constant use of Gods Ordinances Hearing Praying Meditating c. are both parts of the foresaid obedience and also the necessary means of continuing and exercising our Faith 9. Strength of Grace Assurance of Pardon and Salvation Perswasion of Gods favour setled peace of Conscience Ioy in this Assurance and Peace the understanding of Truths not fundamentall or necessary in practice All these are no properties of the Condition of the Covenant but separable adjuncts of Faith tending to the Well-being of it but neither tending to nor necessary proofs of the Being of it which a Believer should have but may possibly want I shall give you some reason of severall of these Assertions when I have first made way by the Definition of Faith So then as when you invite a man to your House it is not necessary that you bid him come in at the doore or bring his head or his legs or armes or his clothes with him though these are necessary because all these are necessarily implyed even so when we are said to be justified by Faith onely or when it is promised that he that beleeveth shall be saved all those forementioned duties are implyed or included THESIS LXIII AS it is Gods excellent method in giving the Morall Law first to require the acknowledgment of his soveraign authority and to bring men to take him only for their God which is therefore called the first and great Commandment and then to prescribe the particular subsequent duties so is it the excellent method of Christ in the Gospell first to establish with men his Office and Authority and require an acknowledgment of them and consent and subjection to them and then to prescribe to them their particular duties in subordination THESIS LXIV FAith therefore is the summary and chief of the conditions of the Gospell and not formally and strictly the whole But as Love is the fulfilling of the Law so Faith is the fulfilling of the new Law or as taking the Lord for our only God is the sum of the Decalogue implying or inferring all the rest and so is the great Commandment so taking Christ for our only Redeemer and Lord is the sum of the conditions of the new Covenant including implying or inferring all other parts of its conditions and so is the great Command of the Gospell EXPLICATION THe Observation in the 63 Position is commended to you by Mr white of Dorchester in his Directions for reading Scripture p. 307. The full subjection to the Authority commanding doth imply and infer subjection to the particular Commands therefore God doth still make this the sum of the conditions of the Law that they take him only for their God or that they have no other Gods but him And when he contracteth his Covenant into an Epitome it runs thus I will be thy God and thou shalt be my people Exod. 20. 3. 23. 13. Deut. 7. 4. 8. 19. 13. 2 3 c. Ios. 24. 2 16. c. Iudg. 2. 12 17 19. 10. 13. 1 Sam. 8. 8. 2 Kings 5. 17. 17. 7. Ier. 22. 9. 7. 23. 11. 4. 30. 22. Ezek. 36. 28. Deut. 26. 16 17 c. And as Gods promise of taking us for his people doth imply his bestowing upon us all the priviledges and blessings of his people and so is the sum of all the conditions of the Covenant on his part Even so our taking the Lord for our God and Christ for our Redeemer and Lord doth imply our sincere obedience to him and is the summe of the Conditions on our part And
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
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
none in this life For even when we do perform the Condition yet still the Discharge remains conditional till we have quite finished our performance For it is not one instantaneous Act of beleeving which shall quite discharge us but a continued Faith No longer are we discharged then we are Beleevers And where the condition is not performed the Law is still in force and shall be executed upon the offender himself I speak nothing in all this of the directive use of the Moral Law to Beleevers But how far the Law is yet in force even as it is a Covenant of Works because an utter Repeal of it in this sence is so commonly but inconsiderately asserted That it is no further overthrown no not to Beleevers then is here explained I now come to prove THESIS XIII IF this were not so but that Christ had abrogated the first Covenant then it would follow 1. That no sin but that of Adam and final Vnbelief is so much as threatned with death or that death is explicitely that is by any Law due to it or deserved by it For what the Law in force doth not threaten that is not explicitely deserved or due by Law 2. It would follow That Christ dyed not to prevent or remove the wrath and curse so deserved or due to us for any but Adams sin nor to pardon our sins at all but only to prevent our desert of wrath and curse and consequently to prevent our need of pardon 3. It would follow That against eternal wrath at the day of Iudgment we must not plead the pardon of any sin but the first but our own non-desert of that wrath because of the repeal of that Law before the sin was committed All which consequences seem to me unsufferable which cannot be avoyded if the Law be repealed EXPLICATION WHen God the absolute Soveraign of the World shall but command though he expresly threaten no punishment to the disobedient yet implicitely it may be said to be due that is the offence in it self considered deserveth some punishment in the generall for the Law of Nature containeth some generall Threatenings as well as Precepts as I shewed before Whether this Dueness of punishment which I call implicite do arise from the nature of the offence only or also because of this generall threat in the Law of Nature I will not dispute But God dealeth with his Creature by way of legall government and keepeth not their deserved punishment from their knowledge no more then their duty it being almost as necessary to be known for our incitement as the Precept for our direction Gods laws are perfect laws fitted to the attainment of all their ends And by these laws doth he rule the world and according to them doth he dispose of his rewards and punishments So that we need not fear that which is not threatened And in this sence it is that I say That what no law in force doth threaten that sin doth not explicitely deserve Not so deserve as that we need to fear the suffering of it And upon this ground the three fore-mentioned consequences must needs follow For the new Covenant threateneth not Death to any sin but final unbelief or at least to no sin without final unbelief And therefore if the old Covenant be abrogated then no law threateneth it And consequently 1 Our Sin doth not deserve it in the sence expressed Nor Christ prevent the wrath deserved but only the desert of wrath 3. And therefore not properly doth he pardon any such sin as you will see after when I come to open the nature of pardon 4 We may plead our non deserving of death for our discharge at judgment 5. And further then Christ in satisfying did not bear the punishment due to any sin but Adams first For that which is not threatened to us was not executed on him This is a clear but an intolerable consequence 6. Scripture plainly teacheth That all men even the Elect are under the Law till they beleeve enter into the Covenant of the Gospel Therefore it is said Ioh. 3. 18. He that beleeveth not is condemned already And the wrath of God abideth on him ver 26. And we are said to beleeve for Remission of sins Acts 2. 38. Mark 1. 4. Luk. 24. 47. Act. 10. 43. 3. 19. Which shew that sin is not before remitted and consequently the Law not repealed but suspended and left to the dispose of the Redeemer Else how could the Redeemed be by nature the children of wrath Ehp. 2. 3. The circumcised are debters to the whole Law Gal. 5. 3 4. and Christ is become of none effect to them But they that are led by the Spirit are not under the law and against such there is no law Gal. 5. 18 23. The Scripture hath concluded all under Sin and so far under the Law no doubt that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to them that beleeve Gal. 3. 22. We are under the Law when Christ doth redeem us Gal. 4. 5. See also Iam. 2. 9 10. 1 Tim. 18. 1 Cor. 15. 56. Gal. 3. 19 20 21. Therefore our deliverance is conditionally from the curse of the Law viz. if we will obey the Gospel And this deliverance together with the abrogation of the Ceremonial Law is it which is so oft mentioned as a priviledge of beleevers and an effect of the blood of Christ which deliverance from the curse is yet more full when we perform form the Conditions of our freedom And then we are said to be dead to the Law Rom. 7. 4. And the Obligation to punishment dead as to us ver 6. But not the Law void or dead in it self 7 Lastly All the Scriptures and Arguments pag. 60. 61. which prove That afflictions are punishments do prove also that the Law is not repealed For no man can suffer for breaking a repealed Law nor by the threats of a repealed Law yet I know that this Covenant of Works continueth not to the same ends and uses as before nor is it so to be preached or used We must neither take that Covenant as a way to life as if now we must get salvation by our fulfilling its condition nor must we look on its curse as lying on us remedilesly THESIS XIV 1 THe Tenor of the new Covenant is this That Christ having made sufficient satisfaction to the Law Whosoever will repent and believe in him to the end shall be justified through that Satisfaction from all that the Law did charge upon them and be moreover advanced to far greater Priviledges and Glory then they fell from But whosoever fulfilleth not these conditions shall 2 have no more benefit from the blood of Christ then what they here received and abused but must answer the charge of the Law themselves and for their neglect of Christ must also suffer a far greater condemnation Or briefly Whosoever believeth in Christ shall not perish but have everlasting life but he that
Satisfaction is imputed to us instead of the value of a perfect Obedience of our own performing and the value of our Faith is not so imputed But because there must be some personall performance of homage therefore the personall performance of Faith shall be imputed to us for a sufficient personall payment as if we had paid the full rent because Christ whom we believe in hath paid it he will take this for satisfactory homage so it is in point of personall performance and not of value that Faith is imputed THESIS XXIV THis personall Gospell Righteousness is in its kind a perfect Righteousness and so far we may admit the doctrine of personall Perfection EXPLICATION OUr Righteousness may be considered either in regard of the matter and the acts denominated righteous or else in respect of the form which gives them that denomination Also our Faculties and Actions are considerable either in regard of their Being or of their Quality 1. The perfection of the Being of our Faculties or Acts is nothing to our present purpose as falling under a physicall consideration only 2. In regard of their Quality they may be called perfect or imperfect in severall sences 1 As Perfection is taken for the transcendentall perfection of Being so they are perfect 2. And as it is taken for the compleat number of all parts it is perfect 3. But as it is taken for that which is perfect Efficienter or Participaliter that is for a work that is finished for the Author so our holiness is still imperfect here 4. And as it is taken for accidentall perction so called in Metaphysicks when it wants nothing which beyond the Essence is also requisite to the integrity ornament and well being of it so our holiness is here imperfect 5. As perfection is taken pro sanitate for soundness so our holiness is imperfect 6. And as it is taken pro maturitate for ripeness so it is imperfect 7. In respect of the admixture of contrary qualities our holiness is imperfect 8. But whether all this imperfection be privative and sinfull or meerly negative and only our misery whether it be a privation physicall or morall is a question that will be cleared when I come to shew the extent of the Commands or Rule But not any of these kinds of perfection is that which I mean in the Position Holiness is a quality may be intended and remitted in creased decreased but it is the relative consideration of these qualities of our faculties and acts as they are compared with the Rule of the new Covenant so it is not the perfection of our holiness that we enquire after but of our righteousness which righteousness is not a quality as holiness is but the modification of our acts as to the Rule which is not varyed secundum majus minus See Schibl Metaph. li. 2 c. 9. Tit. 7. Art 2. Therefore our Divines usually say That our Justification is perfect though our Sanctification be not and then I am sure our Righteousness must be perfect A two-fold perfection is here implyed 1. A Metaphysical Perfection of Being 2. A Perfection of Sufficiency in order to its end 1. The being of our Righteousness formally consisting in our relative conformity to the rule either it must be perfect or not at all He that is not perfectly innocent in the very point that he is accused is not innocent truly but guilty Sincerity is usually said to be our Gospel-Perfection not as it is accepted in stead of perfection but as it is truly so for sincere Faith is our conformity to the Rule of Perfection viz. the new Covenant as it is a Covenant yet as it is sincere Faith it is only materially our Righteousness and Perfection but formally as it is relatively our conformity to the said Rule 2. Our Righteousness is perfect as in its Being so also in order to its end The end is to be the condition of our Justification c. This end it shall perfectly attain The Tenor of the new Covenant is not Believe in the highest degree and you shall be justified But believe sincerely and you shall be justified so that our Righteousness 1. formally considered in relation to the condition of the new Covenant is perfect or none 2. But considered materially as it is holiness either in reference to the degree it should attain or the degree which it shall attain or in reference to the excellent object which it is excercised about or in reference to the old Covenant or the directive and in some sence the preceptive part of the new Covenant in all these respects it is imperfect I speak not all this while of that perfection in Christs Satisfaction which is also our perfect Righteousness because few will question the perfection of that THESIS XXV YEt is it an improper speech of some Divines That Christ first justifieth our persons and then our duties and actions And except by justifying they mean his esteeming them to be a fulfilling of the Gospell Conditions and so unjust it is unsound and dangerous as well as improper EXPLICATION 1. IT is improper in the best sence 1. Because it is contrary to the Scripture use of the word Iustifying which is the acquitting of us from the charge of breaking the Law and not from the charge of violating the new Covenant 2 It is against the nature of the thing seeing Justification as you shall see anon implyeth Accusation but the esteeming of a righteous action to be as it is doth not imply any accusation 3. This speech joyning Justification of Persons and Actions together doth seem to intimate the same kinde of justification of both and so doth tend to seduce the hearers to a dangerous error 2. For if it be understood in the worst sence it will overthrow the Righteousness of Christ imputed and the whole scope of the Gospell and will set up the doctrine of Justification by Works For if God do justifie our Works from any legall Accusation as he doth our persons then it will follow That our Works are just and consequently we are to be justified by them There is no room for Scripture-justification where our own Works are not first acknowledged unjustifiable because there is no place for Satisfaction and Justification thereby from another where we plead the Justification of our own Works in respect of the same Law Justification of Works is a sufficient ground for Iustification by Works seeing the justness of his dispositions and actions is the ground of denominating the person just and that according to the primary and most proper kinde of Righteousness as is expressed in the distinction of it pag. 98 99. THESIS XXVI 1 NEither can our performance of the conditions of the Gospel in the most proper and strict sence be said to merit the reward seeing there is nothing in the value of it or any benefit that God receiveth by it which may so entitle it meritorious neither is there any
proportion betwixt it and the reward 2 But in a larger fence as Promise is an Obligation and the thing promised is called Debt so the performers of the Condition are called Worthy and their performance Merit Though properly it is all of Grace and not of Debt 1 Rom. 4. 4 10. 5. 15 16 17. Hose 14. 4. Mat. 10. 8. Rom. 3. 24. 8 32. 1 Cor. 2. 12. Rev. 21. 6. 22. 18. Rom. 11. 6. Gal. 5. 4. Eph. 2. 5 7 8. Gen. 32. 10. 2 Mat. 10. 11 12 13 37. 22 8. Luk. 20. 35. 21. 36. 2 Thes. 1. 5. 11. Rev. 3. 4 c. EXPLICATION IN the strictest sence he is said to Merit who performeth somewhat of that worth in it self to another which bindeth that other in strict justice to requite him This work must not be due and so the performer not under the absolute soveraignty of another for else he is not in a capacity of thus Meriting It is naturall Justice which here bindeth to Reward All that we can merit at the hands of Gods naturall Justice is but these two things 1. The escape of punishment in that respect or consideration wherein our actions are not sinfull or the not punishing of us in a greater degree then sin deserves Though indeed it is questionable whether we are capable of suffering more 2. Our actions thus deserve the honour of acknowledgment of that good which is in them yea though the evil be more then the good As a merciful Thief that gives a poor man half his mony again when he hath robbed him as he deserveth a less degree of punishment so that good which was in his action deserveth an answerable acknowledgment and praise though he dye for the fact But this is a poor kinde of meriting and little to the honour or benefit of the party And is more properly called a less desert of punishment then a desert of reward 2. The second kind of Merit is that whereby a Governor for the promoting of the ends of Government is obliged to reward the Obedience of the Governed That when Disobedience is grown common the Obedience may be encouraged and a difference made Among men even Justice bindeth to such reward at least to afford the obedience the benefit of protection and freedom though he do no more then his duty But that is because no man hath an absolute soveraignty de jure over his subjects as God hath but is indebted to his subjects as well as they are to him If our obedience were perfect in respect of the Law of Works yet all the Obligation that would lie upon God to reward us any further then the foresaid forbearing to punish us and acknowledging our obedience would be but his own wisdom as he discerneth such a Reward would tend to the well-governing of the World working morally with voluntary agents agreeable to their natures And when we had done all we must say we are unprofitable servants we have done nothing but what was our duty Therefore this Obligation to reward from the wisdom of God as it is in his own brest known to himself alone so is it drawn from himself and not properly from the worth of our Works and therefore this is improperly called Merit 3. The third kinde of Meriting is sufficiently explained in the Position where the Obligation to reward is Gods ordinate Justice and the truth of his Promise and the worthiness lieth in our performance of the Conditions on our part This is improperly called Merit This kinde of Meriting is no diminution to the greatness or freeness of the gift or reward because it was a free and gracious Act of God to make our performance capable of that title and to engage himself in the foresaid promise to us and not for any gain that he expected by us or that our performance can bring him THESIS XXVII 1 AS it was possible for Adam to have fulfilled the Law of Works by that power which he received by nature 2 So is it possible for us to perform the Conditions of the new Covenant by the 3 Power which we receive from the Grace of Christ. EXPLICATION 1 THat it may be possible which is not future A thing is termed possible when there is nothing in the nature of the thing it self which may so hinder its production as to necessitate its non-futurity Though from extrinsecall Reasons the same non-futurity may be certain and in some respect necessary And all things considered the futurity of it may be termed impossible yet the thing it self be possible So it was possible for Adam to have stood And so if you should take the word possible absolutely and abstracted from the consideration of the strength of the Actor even the Commands of the Law are yet possible to be fulfilled But such a use of the word is here improper it being ordinarily spoken with relation to the strength of the Agent 2 But in the relative sence the Conditions of the new Covenant are possible to them that have the assistance of grace I intend not here to enter upon an Explication of the nature of that Grace which is necessary to this performance my purpose being chiefly to open those things wherein the relative change of our estates doth consist rather then the reall Whether then this Grace be Physicall or Morall Whether there be a Morall Suasion of the Spirit distinct from the Suasion of the Word and other outward means Whether that which is commonly called the Work of Conscience be also from such an internall suasory work of the Spirit How far this Grace is resistible Or whether all have sufficient Grace to beleeve either given or internally offered with multitudes of such questions I shall here pass by Referring you to those many Volumes that have already handled them All that I shall say of this shall be when I come to open the Nature of Faith See Parkers Theses before mentioned THESIS XXVIII THe Precepts of the Covenants as meer Precepts must be distinguished from the same Precepts considered as Conditions upon performance whereof we must live or dye for non performance THESIS XXIX AS all Precepts are delivered upon Covenant-terms or as belonging to one of the Covenants and not independently So have the same Precepts various ends and uses according to the tenor and ends of the distinct Covenants to which they do belong EXPLICATION THerefore it is one thing to ask whether the Covenant of Works be abolished and another thing whether the Morall Law be abolished Yet that no one Precept of either Morall or Ceremoniall Law was delivered without reference to one of the Covenants is very evident For if the breach of that Command be a sin and to be punished then either according to the rigorous threatening of the old Covenant or according to the way and justice of the new For the Law as it was delivered by Moses may be reduced in several respects to each of these Covenants and
Gospel-conditions doth bear the punishment himself in eternall fire and therefore Christ did not bear it So that as it was not so grievous a death which was threatened in the first Covenant as that is which is threatened in the second so it was not so grievous a kind of death which Christ did bear as that is which finall unbelievers shall bear except as â—he accumulation of sins of so many might increase it Therefore when we say That Christ suffered in his Soul the pains of hell or that which is equall we must not mean the pains which is threatned in the Gospell and the damned unbelievers must endure but only of that death which the Law of Works did threaten Wo therefore to the rebellious unbelieving world that must bear this second death themselves For of how much soever punishment shall they be thought worthy who tread under foot the blood of the Covenant Heb. 10. 29. THESIS XXXIV THe Covenant of Grace is not properly said to be violated or its conditions broken except they be finally broken For the violation consisteth in non performance of the conditions and if they are performed at last they are truly performed if performed then the Covenant is not so violated as that the offendor should fall under the threatening thereof EXPLICATION I Deny not but the new Covenant may be said to be neglected and sinned against and the Command of Christ broken by our long standing out in unbelief though we come home at last But the Covenant conditions are not broken when ever the precept of the Gospel is transgressed or the Covenant neglected except it be finall The Condition is Who ever believeth shall be saved not limitting it to a particular season Though both the precept of Christ common Reason requireth that we be speedy in the performance because we have no promise that the day of Grace shall continue and because our neglect will increase our disability and our frequent resisting Will grieve the Spirit So that the new Covenant doth not threaten death to every particular act of disobedience or unbelief nor to any but what is finall though the precept require that we believe immediately and every degree of unbelief be forbidden THESIS XXXV YEt the sins of Beleevers against the Gospel Precepts have need of pardon and are properly said to be pardoned in reference to their deserved punishment 1. Both because the punishment which naturally and implicitely is due to them is not so much as threatened in this gentle Covenant and so becomes not explicitely due or in point of Law 2. But specially because the old Covenant condemning all sin is yet unrepealed which would be executed on us even for our sins against GRACE did not the efficacy of CHRISTS Satisfaction dayly interpose which makes us therefore have continuall need of that Satisfaction EXPLICATION THis is layd down to prevent the Objection which might arise from the fore-going Doctrine For many are ready to ask If Christ dyed not for sin as it is against the Gospell-Covenant then how are such sins pardoned to Beleevers I answer in the fore-expressed way For certainly the Gospel cannot be said to remit the punishment which it never threatened further then as it is only implicitely due And that which it doth threaten it doth never remit THESIS XXXVI THe pardoning of sin is a gracious act of God discharging the Offender by the Gospell-Promise or grant from the Obligation to punishment upon consideration of the satisfaction made by Christ accepted by the sinner and pleaded with God EXPLICATION THe true definition of Pardon and of Justification doth much conduce to the understanding of this whole mysterious Doctrine The former I have here laid down as neer as I can I shall briefly explain the whole Definition 1. I call it an Act of God for so the Scripture ordinarily doth Mat. 6. 12. 14 15. Mar. 11. 24. 26. Luk. 23. 34. Ephes. 3. 32. Some may object If all things be delivered into the hands of Christ the Redeemer and all Judgement committed to the Son as is shewed before then the Son should forgive rather then the Father I answer 1. So the Son is said to forgive also Mar. 2. 7 10. Luk. 5. 24. 2. I shewed you before That the Father giveth not away any power from himself by giving it to the Son but onely doth manage it in another way upon other terms 3. As the Mediator is a middle person interposing between God and the world for their reconciliation so the Acceptance Pardon and Kingdom of the Mediator is as it were a Mean or step towards the Pardon Acceptance and Kingdom of God First Christ doth cleanse men by his Spirit and Blood and then offereth them blameless and undefiled without spot or wrinkle to God who so accepts them at his hands and even the Kingdom also will he deliver up to the Father Ephes. 5. 27. Col. 1. 22 28. Iude 24. 1 Cor. 15. 24. Therefore the Sons pardoning and accepting being first in order of Nature and so but a mean to Gods pardoning and accepting where the whole work is compleatly perfected when the sinner is fully brought home by Christ to God from whom he first fell the act of pardoning is therefore most usually and fitly ascribed to the Father that being the ultimate perfecting pardon and we are said to ask it of him through Christ. 2. I call this Pardon a gracious Act For if it were not in some sort gratuitous or free it were no Pardon Let those think of this who say We have perfectly obeyed the Law in Christ and are therefore righteous If the proper debt either of obedience or suffering be payd either by our selves or by another then there is no place left for Pardon For when the Debt is payd we owe nothing except obedience de novo and therefore can have nothing forgiven us For the Creditor cannot refuse the proper Debt nor deny an Acquittance upon receit thereof But Christ having payd the Tantundem and not the Idem the Value and not the strict Debt this satisfaction the Father might have chosen to accept or to have discharged us upon Christs sufferings which yet because he freely doth therefore is his gracious Act properly called Pardon The ignorant Antinomians think it cannot be a Free Act of Grace if there be any Condition on our part for enjoying it As if in the fore-mentioned comparison pag. 153. the Tenants redemption were the less free because his new Lease requires the Rent of a pepper corn in token of homage As if when a pardon is procured for a condemned Malefactor upon condition that he shall not reject it when it is offered him but shall take him that procured it for his Lord that this were therefore no free pardon Indeed if we payd but a mite in part of the debt it self so far our pardon were the less free But I will not further trouble the Reader with these senceless conceits the confutation whereof
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
to be false But yet by such grounds they may very easily overthrow the safety also of unbeleevers while they teach them how to comfort themselves without Faith or to look at all out of themselves in Christ and so to silence the accusation of both Covenants by producing only the Righteousness of one THESIS LII WE must not plead for our Iustification that Christ hath made us free from the very fact nor 2 from the sinfulness of the fact nor 3 from its desert of punishment If Christ had done any of this for us he must verifie Contradictories But we must plead that the penalty is not due to our persons notwithstanding the fact and its sinfulness and demerit because Christ hath satisfied for all this EXPLICATION SO Mr Anthony Burgess in his book of Justif. pag 19. affirmeth as much though some take it for hainous doctrine 1. That the fact should be done and not done is a contradiction 2. So is it That the fact should be sinful and not sinful 3. Or that it should deserve death and not deserve it Or that it should be a sin against that threatening Law and yet not deserve the penalty threatened Besides if any of these three could have been taken off what need Christ have dyed But that which Remission and Justification freeth us from is the dueness of punishment to our persons notwithstanding the dueness of it to the sin because what is due to the sin is inflicted on the person of another already even Christ. So that you see in what sence Christ taketh away sin and guilt which you must observe lest you run into the Antinomian conceit That God seeth not sin in his justified ones When we say therefore that God looketh on our sins as if they had never been committed the meaning is that in regard to punishment they shall have no more power to condemn us then if they had never been committed THESIS LIII THe offending of God and the desert and procuring of punishment are not two distinct effects of sin as some make them nor is the removal of the curse and punishment and the obtaining of Gods favour two distinct parts of our Iustification EXPLICATION THis is plain because Gods displeasure against our persons for his dislike of the sin is never taken off is a chief part of our punishment and therefore not to be distinguished from it but as the Species from its Genus And so when all the punishment is removed then Gods displeasure or the loss of his favour must needs be removed Therefore that Justification in this differs from Remission of sin I cannot yet think as that godly and learned Servant of Christ whom I honour and reverence Mr Burgess of Iustificat pag. 259. doth That Justification besides the pardon of sin doth connote a state that the subject is put into viz. a state of favour being reconciled with God Because even Remission it self doth connote that state of favour For if the loss of Gods favour be part of the punishment and all the punishment be remitted then the favour which we lost must needs be thereby restored Indeed there is a two-fold Favour of God 1. That which we lost in the fall 2. More super-added by Christ besides the former restored Of these in the following Position THESIS LIV. REmission Iustification and Reconciliation do but restore the offender into the same state of freedom and favour that he fell from But Adoption and Marriage-Vnion with Christ do advance him far higher EXPLICATION THe three former are all concomitant consequents of one and the same Act of God by his Gospell The freedom from obligation to punishment is called Remission the freedom from Accusation and Condemnation is called Justification and the freedom from enmity and displeasure is called Reconciliation which are all at once do all denote but our Restauration to our former state Adoption and Marriage-Union do add the rest Some may blame me for putting Union among the relative Graces and not rather among those that make a real physicall change upon us as Sanctificition and Glorification But I do herein according to my judgment whereof to give the full reasons here would be too large a digression I know that Caspar Streso and divers others do place it in an unconceivable unexpressable medium between these two which yet must be called a Reall Union more then a Relative though not Physicall I will not now stand on â—his 〈◊〉 knowledg a Reall Foundation of a Relative Union and a Reall Communion following thereupon But am very fearfull of coming so near as to make Christ and sinners one reall Person as the late elevated Sect among us do lest blasphemously I should deifie man and debase Christ to be actually a sinner And if we are not one reall Person with Christ then one what It sufficeth me to know as abovesaid and that we are one with Christ in as strist a bond of relation as the wife with the husband and far stricter and that we are his body mysticall but not naturall That we shall be one with him as he is one with the Father is true But that as doth not extend the similitude to all respects but to a truth in some THESIS LV. BEfore it be committed it is no sin and where there is no sin the penalty is not due and where it is not due it cannot properly be forgiven therefore sin is not forgiven before it be committed though the grounds of certain Remission be laid before EXPLICATION FOr proof of this I refer you to Master Burgess of Iustificati Lect. 28. THESIS LVI BY what hath been said it is apparent That Iustification in Title may be ascribed to sever all Causes 1. The principall efficient Cause is God 2. The Instrumentall is the Promise or Grant off the new Covenant 3. The Procatarctick Cause â—o far as God may be said to be moved by any thing out of himself speaking after the manner of men is fourfold 1. And chiefly the Satisfaction of Christ. 2. The Intercession of Christ and supplication of the sinner 3. The necessity of the sinner 4. The opportunity and advantage for the glorifying his Iustice and Mercy The first of these is the Meritorious Cause the second the morall perswading Cause the third is the Objective and the fourth is the Occasion 2. Materiall Cause properly it hath none If you will improperly call Christs Satisfaction the remote matter I contend not 3. The formall Cause is the acquitting of the sinner from Accusation and Condemnation of the Law or the disabling the Law to accuse or condemn him 4. The finall Cause is the Glory of God and of the Mediator and the deliverance of the sinner 5. The Causa sine quâ non is both Christs Satisfaction and the Faith of the justified EXPLICATION HEre it will be expected that I answer to these Questions 1. Why I call the Gospell the Instrumentall Cause 2. Why I call Christs Satisfaction the meritorious Cause
and the Causa sine quâ non 3. Why I make not Christs Righteousness the materiall Cause 4. Why I make not the Imputation of it the formall Cause 5. Why I make not Faith the Instrumentall Cause 6. Why I make it only the Causa sine quâ non To the first Question As a Lease or Deed of Gift is properly a mans Instrument in conveying the thing leased or given and as the Kings Pardon under his Hand and Seal is his proper Iustrument of pardoning justifying the Malefactor so is the new Covenant Gods Instrument in this case or as it were his Mouth by which he pronounceth a beleever justified To the second Question Christs Satisfaction hath severall ways of causing our Justification 1. That it is the Meritorious Cause I know few but Socinians that will deny 2 That it is besides properly a Causa sine qua non cannot be denyed by any that consider that it removeth those great Impediments that hindered our Justification And what if a man should say that because impulsive and procatarcticall Causes have properly no place with God that therefore the greatest part of the work of Christs Satisfaction is to be the Causa sine qua non principalis But because my assigning no more to Christs Satisfaction but merit and this improper causality doth seem to some to be very injurious thereto I desire them so long to lay by their prejudice passion while they consider of this one thing That we are not in this business considering which cause hath the preheminence in regard of physicall production but which in morall respect deserveth the highest commendation In point of Morality the greatest praise is seldom due to the greatest naturall strength or to the strongest naturall causation In Physicks the efficient hath the greatest part of the glory but in Morals the Meritorious Cause hath a singular share As Diogenes said Quare me non laudas qui dignus sum ut accipiam plus enim est meruisse quam dedisse beneficium The like may be said of some Causes sine qua non That they deserve far greater praise in morall respect then some that have a proper causality do It is agreed that removens impedimentum quâ talis is Causa sine quâ non And doth not the greatest part of a Phisitians skill lye there That which taketh away the offending humor and clenseth out the corruption and removeth all hinderances shall have the greatest share in the glory of the cure of any artificiall cause Suppose a man be condemned by Law for Treason one payeth one thousand pound for his Pardon and thereby procured it under the broad Seale hereby he suspendeth and afterward disableth the Law as to the offender This man is the efficient of those happy effects from which the justification of the Traytor will follow But as to his justification it self he is but the Causa removens impedimenta taking away the force of the Law and the offence of Majesty and whatsoever els did hinder the justification of the offender And yet I think he deserveth more thanks then either the Laywer that justifieth him by Plea or the Judge that justifies him by Sentence So here If you had rather you may call it a necessary Antecedent Or if any man think fitter to call these Causes by another name I much care not so we agree concerning the nature of the thing To the third question Christs Righteousness cannot be the materiall cause of an Act which hath no matter If any will call Christs Righteousness the matter of our Righteousness though yet they speak improperly yet farre neerer the truth then to call it the Matter of our Justification To the fourth Quest. That Imputation is not the Form is undenyable The form gives the name especially to Actions that have no matter Imputation and Justification denote distinct Acts And how then can Imputing be the Forme of Justifying Though I mention not Imputation in the Definition nor among the Causes here yet it is implyed in the mention of Satisfaction which must be made ours or else we cannot be Justified by it Though therefore the Scripture do not speak of imputing Christs Righteousnesse or Satisfaction to us yet if by Imputing they mean no more but Bestowing it on us so that we shall have the Justice and other benefits of it as truely as if we had satisfied our selves in this sence I acknowledge Imputation of Christs satisfactory Righteousness But I beleeve that this Imputing doth in order of nature go before Justifying And that the Righteousness so Imputed is the proper ground whence we are denominated Legally righteous and consequently why the Law cannot condemn us It is a vaine thing to quarrell about the Logicall names of the Causes of Justification if we agree in the matter To the fifth Question Perhaps I shall be blamed as singular from all men in denying Faith to be the Instrument of our Justification But affectation of singularity leades me not to it 1. If Faith be an Iustrument it is the Instrument of God or man Not of man For man is not the principall efficient he doth not justifie himself 2. Not of God For 1. It is not God that believeth though its true he is the first Cause of all Actions 2. Man is the Causa secunda between God and the Action and so still man should be said to justifie himselfe 3. For as Aquinus The Action of the principall Cause and of the Instrument is one Action and who dare say that Faith is so Gods Instrument 4. The Instrument must have influx to the producing of the effect of the Principall cause by a proper Causalitie And who dare say that Faith hath such an influx into our Justification Object But some would evade thus It is say they a Passive Instrument not an Active To which I Answer 1 Even Passive Instruments are said to help the Action of the principall Agent Keckerm Logick pag. 131. He that saith Faith doth so in my judgement gives too much to it 2. It is past my capacity to conceive of a Passive Morall Instrument 3. How can the Act of Believing which hath no other being but to be an Act be possibly a Passive Instrument Doth this Act effect by suffering Or can wise men have a grosser conceit of this 4. I believe with Schibler that there is no such thing at all as a passive Instrument The examples that some produce as Burgersdicius his Cultor gladius belong to Active Instrument And the Examples that others bring as Keckermans Iurus instrumentum fabricationis mensa scamnum accubitus terra ambulationis are no Instruments except you will call every Patient or Object the Instrument of the Agent The Instrument is an Efficient Cause All efficiencie is by action and that which doth not Act doth not effect Indeed as some extend the use of the word instrument you may call almost any thing an Instrument which is any way conducible to the
it in its Promise And as where there is no Law there is no Transgression nor Condemnation because sin is formally a transgression of the Law and Condemnation is but the execution of its Threatning so where there is no fulfilling the new Law there is no Righteousnesse nor Iustification because Righteousnesse is formally a conformity to the Law of Righteousnesse and Iustification is but the performing of part of its Promise 5. That Faith 's receiving Christ and his righteousnesse is the remote of secondary and not the formall Reason why it doth Iustifie appeareth thus 1. I would ask any dissenter this Question Suppose that Christ had done all that he did for sinners and they had believed in him thereupon without any Covenant promising Iustification to this faith Would this faith have justified them By what Law Or whence will they plead their Iustification at the barr of God Well but suppose that Christ having done what he did for us that he should in framing the New Covenant have put in any other Condition and said whosoever loveth God shall by vertue of my satisfaction be Iustified Would not this love have Iustified No doubt of it I conclude then thus The receiving of Christ is as the silver of this coin the Gospell-promise is as the Kings stamp which maketh it currant for justifying If God had seen meet to have stamped any thing else it would have passed currantly Yet take this Faith is even to our own apprehension the most apt and suitable condition that God could have chosen for as far as we can reach to know There cannot be a more Rationall apt condition of delivering a redeemed Malefactor from Torment then that he thankfully accept the pardon and favour of redemption and hereafter take his Redeemer for his Lord. So that if you ask me what is the formall Reason why Faith Iustifieth I answer Because Christ hath made it the condition of the New Covenant and promised Iustification upon that Condition But 2. If you ask me further Why did Christ chuse this rather then any thing else for the Condition I. Answer 1. To ask a Reason of Christs choice and commands is not alway wise or safe 2. But here the reason is so apparent that a posteriore we may safely adventure to say That this is the most self-denying and Christ advancing work Nothing could be more proportionable to our poverty who have nothing to buy with then thus freely to receive Nothing could be more reasonable then to acknowledge him who hath redeemed us and to take him for our Redeemer and Lord many more such Reasons might be given In a word then Faith Justifieth primarily and properly as it is the Condition of the New Covenant that is the formall reason And secondarily remotely as it is the receiving of Christ and his righteousnesse that is the aptitude of it to this use to which it hath pleased Cod to destinate it I stand the more on this because it is the foundation of that which followeth THESIS LVIII THe ground of this is because Christs Righteousness doth not Iustifie us properly and formerly because we Beleeve or receive it but because it is ours in Law by Divine Donation or Imputation THis is plain in it self and in that which is said before THESIS LIX IVstification is not a momentaneous Act begun and ended immediately upon our Believing bnt a continued Act which though it be in its kind compleat from the first yet is it still in doing till the finall Iustification at the Iudgement day EXPLICATION THis is evident from the nature of the Act it being as I shewed before an Act of God by his Gospell Now 1. God still continueth that Gospell-Covenant in force 2. That Covenant still continueth Justifying Believers 3. God himself doth continue to esteem them accordingly and to Will their Absolution 1. This sheweth you therefore with what limitation to receive the Assersion of our Divines that Remission and Justification are simul semel performed 2. And that the Justified pardoned may pray for the continuance of their pardon and Justification 3. That of Christs satisfaction and our Faith are of continuall use and not to be laid by when we are once Justified as if the work were done See Dr. Downame of Iustific of this point THESIS LX. THe bare Act of beleeving is not the onely Condition of the New Covenant but severall other duties also are part of that Condition EXPLICATION I Desire no more of those that deny this but that Scripture may be Iudge and that they will put by no one Text to that end produced till they can give some other commodious and not forced Interpretation 1. Then that pardon of sin and salvation are promised upon condition of Repenting as well as beleeving is undeniably asserted from these Scriptures Prov. 1. 23. 28. 13. Mar. 1. 15. 6. 12. Luk. 13. 3 5. Act. 2. 38. 3. 19. 8. 22. 17. 30. 26. 20. 5. 31. 11. 18. Luk. 24. 47. Heb. 6. 1. 2 Pet. 3. 9. Ezek. 18. 27 28. 33. 12. Hose 14. 2. Ioel 2. 14 15. Deut. 4. 30. 30. 10. 2 That praying for Pardon and forgiving others are Conditions of Pardon is plain 1 King 8. 30 39. Mat. 6. 12 14 15. 18. 35. Mar. 11. 25 26. Luke 6. 37. 11. 4. 1 Ioh. 1. 9. Iam. 5. 15. Io. 14. 13 14. 1 Ioh. 5. 15. Act. 8. 22. 3. That Love and sincere Obedience and Works of Love are also parts of the Condition appeareth in these Scriptures Luk. 7. 47. though I know in Mr Pinks Interpretation of that Ma. 5. 44. Lu. 6. 27. 35. 10. 11. 12. 17. 1 Cor. 2. 9. Rom. 8. 28. Ephes. 6. 24. 1 Cor. 16 22. Iam. 1. 12. 2. 5. Ioh. 14. 21. Pro. 8. 17 21. Ioh. 16. 27. Ma. 10. 37. Luk. 13. 24. Phil. 2. 12. Rom. 2. 7. 10. 1 Corinth 24. 9. 2 Tim. 2. 5. 12. 1 Tim. 6. 18. 19. Rev. 22. 14. Luk. 11. 28. Mat. 25. 41 42. Iam. 2. 2 22 23 24 26. THESIS LXI THerefore though the non-performance of any one of these be threatned with certain death yet there must be a Concurrence of them all to make up the Conditions which have the promise of life EXPLICATION THerefore we oftner read death threatned to those that repent not then Life promised to them that Repent And when you do read of Life promised of any one of these you must understand it caeteris partibus or in sensu composito as it stands conjunct with the rest and not as it is divided Though I think that in regard of their existence they never are divided For where God giveth one he giveth all yet in case they were separated the Gospell would not so own them as its intire Conditions THESIS LXII YEt Faith may be called the onely Condition of the new Covenant 1. Because it is the principall Condition and the other but the less principall And so as
unbelief and not receiving Christ all one Ioh. 1. 11. and beleeving and receiving Christ all one Ioh. 1. 12. So it proclaims this as the great work of the Gospell to Take Eat Drink c. 2. The Gospell is the offer of Christ and his benefits to them that first accept himself Therefore Faith must be the accepting of the thing offered Both these are plain in Rev. 22. 17. Whosoever will let him take of the water of life freely There is the free offer upon condition of coming and taking or accepting 3. The will is the commanding faculty of the soul therefore its act is the principall act and that is accepting 4. Christ is presented to us in the Gospell as a Suitor beseeching us by his Spirit and Embassadors and wooing us to himself and the enjoying of him which this driveth at is called our Marriage to him and we his Spouse and he our Husband Now you know that which tyeth the knot of Marriage is Acceptance or Consent 5. Yea the very nature of a Covenant requireth this Consent maketh it a compleat Covenant Therefore I said before pag. 219. That Acceptance Consent Heart-Covenanting and Self-resigning are the proper essentiall Acts of this Faith For all these are the Wills acts to this their object which are of flat necessity to the very tying of the Covenant or Marriage knot Rom. 10. 10. With the heart man beleeveth unto Righteousnesse And here let me minde you of one usefull observation more The Covenanting on our part is a principall part of the Conditions of the Covenant Though this may seem strange that a Covenanting and performing Conditions should be all most all one But that is the free nature of the Grace of the Covenant As if you marry a poor woman that hath nothing you will give her your self and all you have meerly upon Condition that she will Consent to have you And that Consent is all the Condition on her part for obtaining present possession I say Acceptance Consent Covenanting Self-resigning which are in a manner all one thing But because the end of the marriage is the faithfull performance of Marriage duties though meer Consent were the onely Condition of the first possession and the continuance of her Consent is the chief Condition of continuing her possession yet the performance of those Marriage duties and not going into others is part of the Condition also of that continuance So it is in the present case of Justification 5. Let me here also tell you that I take love to Christ as our Saviour and Lord to be essentiall to this Acceptance and so some degree of Love to be part of Justifying Faith and not properly a fruit of it as it is commonly taken My reasons are 1. The Wills serious apprehension of a thing Good which we call at earnest Willing it and Accepting it is in my judgement the same thing as Love in an other name Love is nothing but such an earnest Willing choosing and Accepting it as it is Good It is generally acknowledged that the Affections are but the Motions or Acts of the Will And if Love be an Act of the same Will and have the same Object with Consent Election Acceptance c. Why should it not then be the same Act Onely Acceptance considereth its Object as offered Election considereth it as propounded with some other competitor Consent considereth it as we are perswaded and invited to it But all these are extrinsecall considerations They all consider their Object as Good and so doth Love You may object 1. Then Desire and Hope may be essentiall to Faith I Answ. That Love which they imply in them is but Desire and Hope as such do properly consider their object as absent which this Justifiing Faith doth not 2. Object Scripture oft distinguisheth Faith and Love Answ. 1. Sometime Faith is taken for Historicall faith or Faith of Miracles and then it may be distinguised 2. Sometime true Faith is taken in the strictest sence and sometime larglier as I shall shew anon 3. But especially so do I distinguish of Love as it is considered by it self and as it is an essentiall part of this Acceptance Love respecteth its Object meerly as Good in it self and to the Lover But Consent and Acceptance have severall other respects as is expressed And yet there may be Love in all such Acceptance though not properly Acceptance in all Love Object 3. Then Love Justifieth as well as Faith I Answ. When it is thus considered in Faiths Acceptance it is not called by the name of Love but loseth its name as a lesser River that falleth into a greater therefore it is not said that Love Justifieth but Faith that worketh even in its essentiall work of Accepting by Love Object But Love is the greater Grace and shall out-live Faith and Faith should rather then be swallowed up in Love Answ. Love considering its object onely as Good shall continue for ever because the Goodness of its object shall so continue But Acceptance Consent c. have other additionall considerations in their Objects which will vanish But which is the chiefest Grace in it self is not the question but which is the chiefest in the present work Now seeing Consent Acceptance c. are the chief as to Justification that Love which is essentially in them may well lose its name here seeing in the businesse of Justifying it is considered but as an essentiall part of the main duty My next-Reason is because Christ doth propound it in the Gospel as of the same necessity with the same promises annexed to it Io. 16. 27. For the Father himself loveth you because ye have loved me and beleeved c. Joh. 14. 21. He that loveth me shall be loved of my Father and I will love him and shew my self to him Jam. 1. 12. 2. 5. The Crown and Kingdom is prepared for them that love him 1 Cor. 16. 22. If any man love not the Lord Iesus Christ let him be Anathema Maranatha Ephes. 6. 24. In a word Faith is a comprehensive duty containing divers Acts whereof this seemeth to me to be part Neither can I yet conceive how there can be a cordiall Acceptance of Christ as our only Saviour and Love not to be an essentiall part of that Acceptance but if a finer wit can apprehend the difference better yet as I said Faith being considered here in Morall and Politick respects and not in its strict naturall quiddity may essentially be an Affectionate Acceptance for all that If any think fitter to make a wider difference between the nature of Faith and Love to Christ I will not contend for the matter is not great that both are necessary to Justification is doubtless and that they are concurrent in apprehending Châ—â—â— And that Love is a part of the Condition of the Covenant is also undoubted and therefore will have some hand in the business of Justification as I shall further clear 6. I put in the word
Sure that Faith which is by many thought to justifie is it that our people do all most easily embrace that is the receiving of Christ for their Saviour and expecting Pardon and Salvation by him but not withall receiving him for their Lord and King nor delivering up themselves to be ruled by him I meet not with one but is resolved in such a Faith till it be overthrown by teaching them better They would all trust Christ for the saving of their souls and that without dissembling for ought any man can discern Are all these men justified You will say They do it not sincerely Ans. There is evident a sincerity opposite to dissimulation But a Morall or Theologicall sincerity there is not Why is that but because they take but half of Christ. Let any Minister but try his ungodly people whether they will not all be perswaded very easily to beleeve that Christ will pardon them and save them and to expect Justification from him alone But whether it be not the hardest thing in the world to perswade them really to take him for their Lord and his Word for their Law and to endeavour faithfull obedience accordingly Surely the easiness of the former and the difficulty of the latter seemeth to tell us that it is a spirituall excellent necessary part of justifying Faith to accept unfeignedly of Christ for our Governour and that part which the world among us will most hardly yeeld to and therefore hath more need to be preached then the other Though some think that nothing is preaching Christ but preaching him as a pardoning justifying Saviour Indeed among the Turks or Indians that entertain not the Gospell it is as necessary to preach his pardoning Office yea and the verity of his Natures and Commission therefore the Apostles when they preached to Jews or Pagans did first chiefly teach them the Person and Offices of Christ the great benefits which they might receive by him but when they preach as Iames to Professors of the Christian Faith they chiefly urge them to strive to enter to fight that they may conquer so to run that they may obtain to lay violent hands upon the Kingdom and take it by force and to be unwearied in laborious obedience to Christ their Lord to be stedfast unmoveable always abounding in the Work of the Lord forasmuch as they know their labour is not in vain in the Lord. 5. Lastly Is not this excluding of sincere Obedience from Justification the great stumbling block of Papists that which hath had a great hand in turning many learned men from the Protestant Religion to Popery When they see the language of Scripture in the forecited places so plain to the contrary When Illyricus Gallus Amsdorfius c. shall account it a heresie in George major to say That good Works are necessary to Salvation And when if Melchior Adamus say true eo dementiae impietatis ventum erat ut non dubitarent quidam haec axiomata propugnare Bona opera non sunt necessaria ad salutem Bona opera officiunt saluti Nova obedientia non est necessaria When even Melancthons credit is blasted for being too great a friend to good Works though he ascribe not to them the least part of the Work or Office of Christ And when to this day many Antinomian Teachers who are magnified as the only Preachers of Free Grace do assert proclaim That there is no more required to the perfect irrevocable justification of the vilest Murderer or Whoremaster but to beleeve that he is justified or to be perswaded that God loveth him And when such a Book as that stiled the Marrow of Moderne Divinity have so many applauding Epistles of such Divines when the Doctrine of it is That we must not Act for justification or salvation but onely in thankfulness for it contrary to the main drift of the Scripture which so presseth men to pray for pardon to pardon others that they may receive pardon themselves and to strive to enter run that they may obtain doe Christ Commandements that they may have right to the Tree of life enter in by the gate into the City Revel 22. 14. Doe these men thinke that we are perfectly justified and saved already before the absolving sentence at the great Tribunall or the possession of the Kingdome for which we wait in Hope Indeed when we have that perfect salvation we shall not need to seek it or labour to attain it but must everlastingly be thankfull to him that hath purchased it and to him that hath bestowed it But in the mean time he that seeketh not shall not find he that runs not shall not obtain No nor all that seek and run neither Luk. 13. 24. Luk. 12. 31. 2 Tim. 2. 5. This Doctrine was one that helped to turn off Grotius to Cassandrian Popery See Grotii votum Pag. 21. 22. 23. 115. And was offensive to Melancthon Bucer other Moderate Divines of our own And all ariseth hence That men understand not the difference betwixt Christs part of the work which he performeth himself that which he requireth and enableth us to perform nor know they that true justifying Faith doth at once receive Christ both as Lord and Saviour and that sincere Obedience to Christ is part of the Condition of the New Covenant Works or a purpose to walke with God saith Mr. Ball on the Covenant pag. 73. doe justifie as the Passive qualification of the subject capable of Justification See Calvin on Luke 1. 6. The common assertion then That good Works do follow Iustification but not go before it must be thus understood or it is false viz. Actuall obedience goeth not before the first moment of Justification But yet it is as true 1. That the taking of Christ for our Lord and so delivering up our selves to his Government which is the subjection of the heart resolution for further obedience indeed an essentiall part of Faith doth in order of nature goe before our first justification 2. That Actuall Obedience as part of the Condition doth in order of Nature goe before our Justification as continued and confirmed For though our Marriage contract with Christ doe give us the first possession yet it is the Marriage faithfulness and duties which must continue that possession 3. That perseverance in faithfull obedience doth both in nature time go before our full compleat and finall Justification and that as part of the Condition of obtaining it If we walk in the light as he is in the light we have fellow ship one with another and the blood of Iesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin 1 Joh. 1. 7. So Isai. 1. 16. 17. 18. 19. Wash you make you clean put away the evill of your doings cease to do evill learne to doe well c. Come now c. though your sins be as scarlet they shall be as white as snow and though they be red like crimson
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
the place against Grotius which you referre me to addeth some more As 1. By death he deliver us from death Answ. Not immediately nor absolutely nor by his Death alone but by that as the price supposing other causes on his part and conditions on ours to concurre before the actuall deliverance 2. He saith The Elect are said to dye and rise with him Answ. Not in respect of time as if we dyed rose at the same time either really or in Gods esteem Nor that we dyed in his dying rose in his rising But it is spoken of the distant mediate effects of his death the immediate effects of his Spirit on us rising by regeneration to union and Communion with Christ. 3. He saith Christ hath redeemed us from the curse being made a curse for us Gal. 3. 13. Answ. I explained before how farre we are freed by Redemption He hath redeemed us that is paid the price but with no intent that we should by that Redemption be immediately or absolutely freed Yet when we are freed it is to be ascribed to his death as the meritorious cause but not as the onely cause 4. He saith The hand-writing that was against us even the whole obligation is taken out of the way and nailed to his Crosse. Answ. 1. By the hand-writing of Ordinances is especially meant the Law of Ceremonies 2. If it be meant also of the curse of the Old Covenant then it cannot be so understood as if the Covenant it self were abrogate for the reasons I have before given in the Treatise 3. Nor yet that any are absolutely discharged from the curse till they perform the condition required for their discharge 4. But thus farre the Law is taken down that our Redeemer hath bought us from that necessity of perishing that lay upon us for our transgressing that Law so that no man is now condemned for the meer violation of that first Covenant and so he hath taken the Law into his owne hands to charge only upon those that break the conditions of the New Covenant 5. And so he hath taken downe the condemning power of the Law as it standeth by it selfe and not as it is under the Covenant of grace And hee hath freed us from the curse conditionally and the condition is easie and reasonable 6. So that quoad meritum the work is done All the satisfaction is made and price paid and therefore in Heb. 1. 3. it is said to be done If a man where a 1000 l. in debt and had tryed all meanes and had no hope left to procure his discharge And if a stranger to him goe to the Creditor and buy the Debtor who is in prison into his owne hands by paying all the debt yet resolving that if he refuse his kindnesse hee shall have no benefit by it but lye and rot there May it not be fitly said that the debtor is delivered because the great difficulty which hindered is removed and the condition of his freedome is so reasonable that common reason supposeth he will not stick at it and if he doe it is utterly against reason and humanity for hee may be freed if he will Therefore it is no unfit phrase to say the man is freed as soon as his debt is payed But yet he is not absolutely freed nor actually neither in point of personall right nor of possession And for his humane refusall of the kindnesse of his Redeemer may lye and perish there and be never the better but the worse for all this 7. Yet it being the absolute purpose both of the Father and Mediator to cause all the Elect to perform this condition of their discharge therefore Redemption is a cause of their certaine future discharge and a linke in the inviolable chaine of the causes of their salvation But to the rest of the world it is not so But I doe not well understand the meaning of the Author you referre me to For he saith That Christ did actually and ipso facto deliver us from the curse and obligation yet we do not instantly apprehend and perceive it nor yet possesse it but only we have actuall right to all the fruits of his death As a prisoner in a farre Countrey who is ransomed but knoweth it not nor can enjoy liberty till a Warrant be produced c. But 1. Whether a man may fitly be said actually and ipso facto to be delivered and discharged who is not at all delivered but onely hath right to deliverance I doubt 2. Knowledge and posiession of a deliverance are farre different things A man may have possession and no knowledge in some cases or if he have both yet the procuring of knowledge is a small matter in comparison of possession 3. Our knowledge therefore doth not give us possession so that the similitude failes for it is the Creditors knowledge and satisfaction that is requisite to deliverance And our Creditour was not in a farre and strange countrey but knew immediately and could either have made us quickly know or turned us free before we had knowne the cause 4. Nor can it easily be understood how God can so long deny us the possession of Heaven if wee had such absolute actuall Right as he speaketh so long ago which seemeth to expresse a jus ad rem in re If it be said wee are yet in our minority and not fit for present possession I answer That this fitnesse and our maturity is part of the deliverance or benefit which he saith de facto we had right to And so we should have had that also in present possession 4. But if he doe meane onely a right to future possession for such there is yet I confesse it is beyond my conceiving how in regard of the relative part of our deliverance that right and the possession should stand at so many yeeres distance To have right to Gods favour and acceptance and to have possession of that favour to have right to the remission of sinne and adoption to have possession of these do seeme to me to be of neerer kin Except he should think that possession of favour is nothing but the knowledge or feeling of it and that possession of pardon is the like that Faith justifieth us but in foro conscientiae But I will not censure so hardly till I know it Indeed there is a justification by publike declaration at the great judgement which much differeth from a meer Right But our justification by faith here is but a justifying in the sence of the Law or giving us right to that full justification So that To have right to it and to have possession of it in point of Law or Right is to me all one For what doth Faith give us possession of in its justifying Act but this legall right 5. And indeed it seemeth to me a full definition of all pardon and justification which is here to bee expected which he layeth downe Hee saith Christ did deliver us from
the curse and take away the Obligation which was against us ipso facto And I think to be justified is but to be freed from the curse or condemnation and to be pardoned is nothing else but to be freed from the obligation to punishment And is remission and justification the immediate effect of Christs death What ever this Writer thinketh in this is nothing to us But because I would not have you so palpably and dangerously erre let mee say a little more against this mistake You may remember I have oft told you of how great moment it is in Divinity to be able soundly to distinguish betwixt immediate Mediate Effects of Christs Death I think Tho. Moore meant the Immediate and Mediate Effects which he calleth Ends which hath caused a great many pages about the Ends of Christs Death to be written by his Antagonists to little purpose Now I would have you know that this actuall Remission and Justification are no Immediate but Mediate effects of Christs Death no nor a personall right thereto if there be any such thing distinct from actuall freedome And to this end I pray you weigh these Arguments 1. What Right soever God giveth to men to things supernaturall such as justification remission adoption he giveth by his written Lawes But by these Lawes hee hath given no such thing to any Beleever such as are the Elect before conversion therefore c. The major is evident Gods Decree giveth no man a personall right to the mercy intended him And for the minor no man can produce any Scripture giving to unbeleevers such a right 2. If God hate all the workers of iniquity and we are all by nature the children of wrath and without faith it is impossible to please God and he that beleeveth not is condemned already then certainly the Elect while they are unbeleevers are not actually de facto no nor in personall Right delivered from this hatred wrath displeasure and condemnation But the major is the very words of Scripture therefore c. 3. If we are justified onely by Faith then certainly not before Faith But we are justified onely by Faith therefore c. I doe in charity suppose that you will not answer so groslely as to say we are justified in foro Dei before Faith and onely in foro conscientiae by Faith till you can finde one word in Scripture which saith that an unbeleever is justified If I thought you were of this opinion I should think it an easie task to manifest its falshood And if you say that we are justified in Gods Decree before Faith I answer 1. It is no justification shew me the Scripture that calleth it so 2. Nay it clearely implyeth the contrary For Decreeing is a term of Diminution as to justifying He that saith he is purposed to free you from prison c. implyeth that as yet it is not done To be justified or saved in Decree is no more but that God decreeth to justifie and save us and therefore sure it is yet undone 4. If we are exhorted while we are unbeleevers to be reconciled to God and to beleeve for remissions of sins then sure we are not yet reconciled nor remitted But the former is evident in Scripture therefore c. 5. No man dare affirm that we are immediatly upon Christs death delivered actually and ipso facto from the power or presence of sin nor from afflictions and death which are the fruits of it nor yet that we are freed from the distance and separation from God which sin procured And why then should we think that we were immediately delivered from the guilt and condemnation I know the common answer is that justification is an immanent act and therefore from eternity but Sanctification is a transient act But I have disproved this in the Treatise and cleared to you that justification is also a transient Act Otherwise Socinianisme were the soundest doctrine that Christ never needed to satisfie if we were justified from eternity Yet to confesse the truth I was long deceived with this Argument my self taking it upon trust from Dr. Twisse and Mr. Pemble whom I valued above most other men and so continued of that same judgement with these Authors you alledge and remained long in the borders of Antinomianisme which I very narrowly escaped And it grieveth me to see many of our Divines to fight against Jesuites and Arminians with the Antinomian weapons as if our cause afforded no better and so they run into the far worse extream I undertake to manifest to you that this Doctrine of Christs immediate Actuall delivering us from guilt wrath and condemnation is the very pillar and foundation of the whole frame and fabrick of Antinomianisme But these things which you draw out of me here unseasonably I am handling in a fitter place in a small Tract of Vniversall Redemption But the last week I have received Amiraldus against Spanhemius exercitations who hath opened my very heart almost in my own words and hath so fully said the very same things which I intended for the greater part that I am now unresolved whether to hold my hand or to proceed The Lord give you to search after the truth in love with a humble unbyassed submissive soul neither losing it through negligence and undervaluing nor yet diverted from it by inferiour controversies nor preverted by self-confidence nor forestalled by prejudice nor blinded by passion nor lost in contentions nor subverted by the now-ruling spirit of giddinesse and levity nor yet obscured by the confounding of things that differ that so by the conduct of the Word and Spirit you may attaine the sight of amiable naked truth and your understanding may be enlightned and your soul beautified by the reflexion and participation of her light and beauty that your heart being ravished with the sense of her goodnesse and awed by her Authority you may live here in the constant embracements of her and cordiall obedience to her till you are taken up to the prime eternall Truth and Goodnesse Rom. 14. 9. For to this end Christ both dyed and rose and revived that he might bee Lord both of the dead and living Ephes. 1. 22. And God hath put all things under his feet and gave him to be the head over all things to the Church Heb. 5. 9. And being made perfect hee became the Author of eternall salvation to all them that obey him Revel 20. 14. Blessed are they that doe his commandements that they may have right to the Tree of Life and may enter in by the gate into the City Sayings of excellent Divines added to satisfie you who charge mee with Singularity D. Twisse his Discovery of Dr. Iacksons vanity p. 528. WHat one of our Church will maintain that any one obtaines actuall Redemption by Christ without Faith especially considering that Redemption by the Blood of Christ and forgivenesse of sinnes are all one Eph. 1. 17. Col. 1. 14. Byshop Hooper cited by Doctor Jackson
place Hab. 2. 4. Sop. 649. in the true Gain God doth as it were keep a double Court one of justice the other of Mercy In the Court of justice he gives judgment by the Law accuseth every man that continueth not in all things c. In this Court nothing can stand but the Passion and Righteousnesse of Christ and for the best works that we can doe we may not look for any acceptation or reward but use the plea of David Enter not into iudgement with thy servant O Lord for no flesh shall be justified in thy sight Now in the Court of Grace and Mercy God hath to deall with his own children that stand before him justified and reconciled by Christ and the obedience of such he accepteth in this Court and mercifully regardeth though imperfect for christ Perkins Vol. 1. pag. 124. On the Creed Christ as he is set forth in Word and Sacraments is the object of Faith Faith apprehendeth whole Christ. pag. 125. First it apprehendeth the very body and blood of Christ and then in the second place the vertue and benefits Whereas some are of an opinion that faith is an affiance or confidence that seemes to be otherwise for it is a fruit of Faith That Faith is so large as to contain very many acts see Zanchy on Eph. 1. in loco communi de fide That Word and Sacraments are the instruments of Justification on Gods part Zanchy affirmes on Ephes. 1. loco communi de justificatione That the form of Righteousnesse is conformity to the Law he teacheth on Phil. 1. 11. That there is a necessity of a two-fold Righteousnesse one imputed the other inherent Zanchy ibid freq Dr. Willet on Rom. 2. contr 3. 7. Good workes are required as a condition in those which are to be saved not as a meritorious cause of their salvation The meaning of this sentence the doors of the law shall be justified is the same God will approve justifie reward them that do the works of the Law whether Jew or Gentile Yet it followeth not that a man is therefore justified by the works of the Law But God approveth and rewardeth the workers not the hearers and professours So here the Apostle treateth not of the cause of justification which is faith without the works of the law But of the difference between such as shall be justified and such as are not Faïus They onely which have a lively Faith which worketh and keepeth the Law in part and supplyeth the rest which is wanting in themselves by the perfect obedience of Christ they shall be justified not those which onely professe the Law and keep it not The Apostle then here sheweth who shall be justified not for what By these words it is evident that Dr. Willet and Faius acknowledge sincere obedience to be a condition of justification or of those that shall be justified though not a cause as they say I think mistakingly Faith is Dr. Davenant Animadversions on Gods love to mankind p. 385. 386. The Doctrine of Predestination permitteth no man to perswade himself that his salvation is certain before he finde that he is truly converted truly faithfull truly sanctified Because you will perhaps hear Mr. Owen before Grotius see Mr. Ball on Covenant p 290. There is a two-fold payment of debt one of the thing altogether the same which was in the Obligation and this ipso facto freeth from punishment whether it be paid by the debtor himself or by his surety Another of a thing not altogether the same which is in the Obligation so that some act of the Creditor or Governour must come unto it which is called remission in which case deliverance doth not follow ipso facto upon the satisfaction and of this kind is the satisfaction of Christ. Thus this great learned holy Divine as almost England ever bred doth go on even in Grotius his own words translated betwixt whom had he been living and Mr. Owen would have been but impar congressus Ball on Covenant p. 240. As these false Teachers 2 Pet. 2. 1. were called into the Covenant accepted the condition beleeved in Christ for a time rejoyced in him and brought forth some fruit so we confesse they were bought by the blood of Christ because all these were fruits of Christs Death whereof they were made partakers As in the Parable Mat. 18. 25. the Lord is said to remit to his servant a 1000 talents when he desired him viz. Inchoately or upon condition which was not confirmed because he did not forgive his fellow-servant So the false Prophets are bought by the bloud of Christ in a sort as they beleeved in Christ. We read of Apostates who had bin enlightned c. Heb. 6. 5 6 7. and did revolt from the Faith To these men their sins were remitted in a sort in this world and in a sort they were bought with the blood of Christ but inchoately onely and as they tasted the word of life Had they eaten the word of life had they soundly and truly beleeved in Christ they had received perfect and consummate remission of sins both in this world and in the world to come they had been perfectly redeemed and reconciled to God But because they did not eat but tasted onely they received not perfect Remission they were not perfectly redeemed Idem pag. 225. There is this mutuall respect betwixt the promise and stipulation that the promise is as an argument which God useth that he might obtain of man what he requireth and the performance of the thing required is a condition without which man cannot obtain the promise of God Idem pag. 43. Of this Covenant be two parts 1. a Promise 2. a stipulation The Promise is that God will pardon the sinnes of them that repent unfeignedly and beleeve in his mercy 2. The Stipulation is that they beleeve in him that justifieth the ungodly and walk before him in all well-pleasing See him also delivering the most of Amiraldus doctrine p. 244 245. Molinaeus de elect ex fide p. 316. We know remission is not obtained before Prayers for it But I say that it was decreed before Prayers and that it is sought by Prayers although it be decreed Scarpius symphonia p. 93. The substance of the Covenant lyeth in the promise of grace made in Christ and the Restipulation of Faith and Gratitude Paraeus in Genes 17. p. 1130. The substance of the Covenant lyeth in the promise of free Reconciliation Righteousness and life eternall by and for Christ freely to be given and in the restipulation of our Morall Obedience and Gratitude Bullinger Decad. 1. Serm. 6. pag. 44. We say Faith justifieth for it self not as it is a quality in our minde or our own work but as Faith is a gift of Gods grace having the promise of Righteousnesse and life c. Therefore Faith justifieth for Christ and from the grace and Covenant of God Mr. Ant. Burgesse of Iustif. Lect. 14. p. 117. Scripture maketh no pardon of sin to be but where the subject hath such qualifications as this of forgiving others It is not indeed put as a cause or merit but yet it is as a qualification of the subject therefore our Saviour repeateth Except ye forgive others c. So Act. 10. 43. Rom. 3. 15. So 1 Ioh. 1. 9. If we confesse c. By these and the like Scriptures it is plain That remission of sinne is given us only in the use of these Graces Mr. Burges of Iustif. Lect. 18. pag. 148 149. Prop. 2. Although the Scripture attributes pardon of sin to many qualifications in a man yet repentance is the most expresse and proper duty If we speak of the expresse formall qualification it is repentance of our sins c. Prop. 3. None may beleeve or conclude that their sins are pardoned before they have repented Mat. 3. 2. Luk 13. 3. Prop. 4. There is a necessity of repentance if we would have pardon both by necessity of Precept and of means The Spirit of God worketh this in a man to qualify him for this pardon pag. 150. You see then that Faith is not the only condition of remission and consequently nor of justification Not as an appeal to men but to fill up the vacant pages and satisfy you who charge me with singularity have I added these promiscuous Testimonies supposing you can apply them to their intended uses FINIS