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
which an Hypocrite may not perform and inward works they cannot discern nor yet the principles from which nor the ends to which our works proceed and are intended There is as much need of a divine heart-searching knowledge to discern the sincerity of Works as of Faith it self So that if it be not certain that the Text speaks of Justification before God I scarce know what to be certain of Once more 1. Was Abraham justified before men for a secret Action 2. Or for such a◠Action as the killing of his onely Son would have been 3. Was not he the justifier here who was the imputer of Righteousness But God was the imputer of Righteousness vers 23. therefore God was the Justifier So I leave that interpretation to sleep 2. That it is the Person and not his Faith onely which is here said to be justified by Works is as plain in the Text almost as can be spoken vers 21. Abraham not his faith is said to be justified by works Vers. 24. By Works a man is justified If by a man were meant a mans Faith then it would run thus sencelessely By Works a mans Faith is justified and not by Faith onely so Vers 25 3. For Mr. Pembles interpretation That by Works is meant a Working Faith I Answer I dare not teach the holy Ghost to speak nor force the Scripture nor raise an exposition so far from the plain importance of the words without apparent necessity But here is not the least necessitie There being not the least inconvenience that I Know of in affirming Justification by Works in the fore-explained sence Men seldom are bold with Scripture in forcing it But they are first bold with Conscience inforcing it If it were but some one Phrase dissonant from the ordinary language of Scripture I should not doubt but it must be reduced to the rest But when it is the very scope of a Chapter in plain and frequent expressions no whit dissonant from any other Scripture I think he that may so wrest it as to make it unsay what it saith may as well make him a Creed of his own let the Scripture say what it will to the contrary what is this but with the Papist to make the Scripture a Nose of wax If Saint Iames speak it so oft over and over that Justification is by works and not by Faith onely I will see more cause before I deny it or say he meanes a Working Faith If he so understand a Working Faith as that it justifieth principally as Faith and lesse principally as working then I should not differ from him only I should think the Scripture Phrase is more fafe and more propert But he understandeth it according to that common assertion and exposition that Fides solum justificat non autem fides sola Faith alone justifieth but not that faith which is alone The question therefore is Whether Works do concur with Faith as part of the Condition in the very businesse of Justifying or whether they are onely Concomitants to that Faith which effecteth the business without their assistance The ground of the mistake lyeth here They first ascribe to much to Faith and then because that nimium which they give to Faith is not found agreeable to Works therefore they conclude that we are not justified by works at all They think that Faith is an Instrumentall efficient cause of Justification which that properly it is not I have proved before when if they understood that it justifieth but as a Causa sine quanon or condition they would easily yeeld that Works do so too I will not say therefore that Works do effectually produce our Justification For faith doth not so Nor that they justifie as equall parts of the condition For faith is the principall But that they justifie as the secondary lesse-principall part of the Condition not onely proving our Faith to be sound but themselves being in the Obligation as well as Faith and justifying in the same kind of causality or procurement as Faith though not in equality with it I prove thus 1. When it is said that we are Iustified by Works the word By implyeth more then an Idle concomitancy If they only stood by while Faith doth all it could not be said that we are Justified by Works 2. When the Apostle saith By Works and not By Faith onely he plainly makes them concomitant in procurement or in that kind of causality which they have Especially seeing he saith not as he is commonly interpreted not By Faith which is alone but not by Faith only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 3. Therefore he saith that Faith is dead being alone Because it is dead as to the use and purpose of Justifying for in it self it hath a life according to its quality still This appears from his comparison in the former verse 16. that this is the death he speaks of And so Works make Faith alive as to the attainment of its end of Justification 4. The Analysis which Piscator and Pemble give contradicteth not this Assertion If in stead of a Working Faith they will but keep the Apostles own words I shall agree to most of their Analysis Though conclusious drawn from the Analysis are often weak it is so easie for every man to feign an Analysis suited to his ends onely the explication of the 22. vers they seem to fail in For when the Apostle saith that Faith did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 work in and with his works it cleary aimeth at such a working in and with as maketh them conjunct in the work of Justifying And when he saith that Faith was made perfect with Works it is not as they and others interpret only a manifesting to be perfect But as the habit is perfected in its Acts because they are the end to which it tendeth And as Marriage is perfected per congressum procreationem or any Covenant when its conditions are performed Faith alone is not the entire perfect Condition of the New Covenant but Faith with Repentance and sincere Obedience is A condemned Gally-slave being Redeemed is to have his deliverance upon condition that he take his Redeemer for his Master This doth so directly imply that he must obey him that his conditions are not perfectly fulfilled except he do obey him as his Master And so taking him for his Redeemer and Master and obeying him as his Master do in the same kind procure his continued freedom Indeed his meer promise and consent doth procure his first deliverance but not the continuance of it So I acknowledg that the very first point of Justification is by Faith alone without either the concomitancy or co-operation of Works for they cannot be performed in an instant But the continuance and accomplishment of Justification is not without the joynt procurement of obedience As a woman is made a mans wife and instated in all that he hath upon meer acceptance consent and contracts because conjugall actions affection the forsaking of others
believeth not shall not see life but the wrath of God abideth on him Mark 16. 16. Iohn 3. 15 16 17 18 36. 5. 24. 6. 35 40 47. 7. 38. 11. 25 26. 12. 46. Acts 10. 43. Rom. 3. 26. 4. 5. 5. 1. 10. 4. 10. 1 Iohn 5. 10. Mark 1. 15. 6. 12. Luke 13. 3. 5. 24. 47. Acts 5. 31. 11. 18. 20. 21. 2. 38. 3. 19. 8. 22. 26. 20. Rev. 2. 5 16. Heb 6. 1. 2 Pet. 3. 9. EXPLICATION 1 CHrists Satisfaction to the Law goes before the new Covenant though not in regard of its payment which was in the fulness of time yet in regard of the undertaking acceptance and efficacy There could be no treating on new terms till the old obligation were satisfied and suspended I account them not worth the confuting who tell us That Christ is the only party conditioned with and that the new Covenant as to us hath no conditions so Salt marsh c. The place they alledg for this assertion in that Ier. 31. 31 32 33. cited in Heb. 8. 8 9 10. which place containeth not the full Tenor of the whole new Covenant But either it is called the new Covenant because it expresseth the nature of the benefits of the new Covenant as they are offered on Gods part without mentioning mans conditions that being not pertinent to the business the prophet had in hand or else it speaketh only of what God will do for his elect in giving them the first Grace and enabling them to perform the conditions of the new Covenant and in that sence may be called a new Covenant also as I have shewed before pag. 7. 8. Though properly it be a prediction and belong only to Gods Will of Purpose and not to his legislative Will But those men erroneously think that nothing is a condition but what is to be performed by our own strength But if they will believe Scripture the places before alledged will prove that the new Covenant hath conditions on our part as well as the old 2 Some benefit from Christ the condemned did here receive as the delay of their condemnation and many more mercies though they turn them all into greater judgments But of this more when we treat of generall Redemption THESIS XV. THough Christ hath sufficiently satisfied the Law yet is it not his Will or the Will of the Father that any man should be justified or saved thereby who hath not some ground in himself of personall and particular right and claim thereto nor that any should be justified by the blood only as shed or offered except it be also received and applyed so that no man by the meer Satisfaction made is freed from the Law or curse of the first violated Covenant absolutely but conditionally only EXPLICATION I Have shewed before p. 57. 58. c. That Christ intended not to remove all our misery as soon as he dyed nor as soon as we believed I am now to shew That he doth not justifie by the shedding of his blood immediately without somewhat of man intervening to give him a legall title thereto All the Scriptures alledged pag. 79. prove this We are therefore said to be justified by faith Let all the Antinomians shew but one Scripture which speaks of Justification from eternity I know God hath decreed to justifie his people from eternity and so he hath to sanctifie them too but both of them are done in time Justification being no more an imminent act in God then Sanctification as I shall shew afterward The Blood of Christ then is sufficient in fuo genere but not in omni genere sufficient for its own work but not for every work There are severall other necessaries to justifie and save quibus positis which being supposed the Blood of Christ will be effectuall Not that it receives its efficacy from these nor that these do add any thing at all to its worth or value no more then the Cabinet to the Jewel or the applying hand to the medicine or the offenders-acceptation to the pardon of his Prince yet without this acceptation and application this blood will not be effectuall to justifie us For as Grotius Cum unusquisque actui ex suâ voluntate pendenti legem possit imponere sicut id quod pure debetur novari potest sub conditione ita etiam possunt is qui solvit pro alio is qui rei alterius pro alterâ solutionem admittit pacisci ut aut statim sequatur remissio aut in diem item aut pure aut sub conditione Fuit autem Christi satisfacientis dei satisfactione in admittentis hic animus ac voluntas hoc denique pactam foedus non ut deus statim ipso perpessionis Christi tempore paenas remitteret sed ut tum demum id fieret cum homo vera in Christum fide ad deum conversus supplex veniam precaretur accedente etiam Christi apud deum advocatione sive intercessione Non obstat hic ergo satisfactio quo minus sequi possit remissio satisfactio enim nonjam sustulerat debitum sed hoc egerat ut propter ipsam debitum aliquando tolleretur Grot. de satis cap. 6. So that as Austin he that made us without us will not save us without us He never maketh a relative change where he doth not also make a reall Gods Decree gives no man a legall title to the benefit decreed him seeing purpose and promise are so different A legall title we must have before we can be justified and there must be somewhat in our selves to prove that title or else all men should have equall right THESIS XVI THe obeying of a Law and persorming the conditions of a Covenant or satisfying for disobedience or non-performance is our Righteousness in reference to that Law and Covenant EXPLICATION IF we understand not what Righteousnes is we may dispute long enough about Justification to little purpose you must know therefore that Righteousness is no proper reall Being but a Modus Entis the Modification of a Being The subject of it is 1. An Action 2. Or a Person An Action is the primary subject and so the Disposition and the Person secondary as being therefore righteous because his disposition and actions are so Righteousness is the conformity of Dispositions and Actions and consequently the person to the Rule prescribed It is not a being distinct therefore from the Dispositions and Actions but their just and well being This finition is onely of the Creatures Righteousness God is the Primum Iustum and so the Rule of Righteousness to the Creature and hath no Rule but himself for the measuring of his Actions Yet his Essence is too far above us remote and unknown to be this Rule to the Creature therefore hath he given us his Laws which flow from his perfection and they are the immediate Rule of our Dispositions and Actions and so of our
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
is very small The chief difference lyeth in this That the Terminus a quo of Remission is the obligation to punishment but the Terminus of Iustification or the evil that it formally and directly doth free us from is the Laws Accusation and Condemnation Now though the difference between these two be very narrow and rather respective then reall yet a plain difference there is For though it be one and the same Commination of the Law by which men are both obliged to punishment accused as guilty and condemned for that guilt yet these are not all one though it is also true that they all stand or fall together That pardon is most properly the removing of the Obligation and that Iustification is the removing of Accusation and Condemnation in the Law will be evident to those that have read what Divines have written at large concerning the signification of the words especially such that have skill in Law which is a great advantage in this doctrine of Iustification Therefore as Mr. Wotten and Mr. Goodwin do a little mistake in making pardon of sin to be the formall cause of Iustification though they are far neerer the mark then their opposers So Mr. Bradshaw doth a little too much straiten the form of it making it to lye only in Apology or Plea It consisteth in both the Acts 1. Apology in oppositioÌ„ to AccusatioÌ„ thus Christ our Advocate doth principally justifie us 2. In Sentence virtuall or actuall so it is opposed both to Accusation and Condemnation so Christ the Mediator as Iudge and the Father as one with him and as the supream Iudge doth justifie But this latter is the chief Act. The rest of the Definition is sufficiently opened under the foregoing Definition of Pardon and will be more after THESIS XXXIX IVstification in Sentence of Iudgement is a gracious Act of God by Christ according to the Gospel by Sentence at his publique Bar acquitting the sinner from the Accusation and Condemnation of the Law pleaded against him by Satan upon the consideration of the Satisfaction made by Christ accepted by the sinner and pleaded for him EXPLICATION THere is also a two-fold Pardon as well as a two-fold Iustification One in Law the other in Sentence of Iudgement So. Acts 3. 19. Repent that your sins may be blotted out when the time of refreshing comes c. But pardon of sin is usually mentioned in respect to this life present as being bestowed here because a man may more fitly be said to be fully quit from the Obligation of the punishment commonly called the guilt in this life then from the Accusation of that guilt which will be managed against him by Satan hereafter or from the Condemnation which he must then most especially be delivered from The difference betwixt this Iustification and the former may easily be discerned by the Definition without any further Explication THESIS XL. WHen Scripture speaketh of Iustification by Faith it is to be understood primarily and directly of Iustification in Law title and at the bar of Gods publique Iudgment and but secondarily and consequentially of Iustification at the bar of Gods secret judgment or at the bar of Conscience or of the World EXPLICATION 1. THat Justification by Faith is in foro-Dei and not in foro conscientiae primarily see Dr. Downam's Appendix to Covenant of Grace against Mr Pemble Conscience is but an inferiour petty improper Judge The work must be transacted chiefly at a higher Tribunall View all the Scriptures that mention Justification by Faith and you shall finde by the Text and Context that they relate to the bar of God but not one directly to the bar of Conscience It is one thing to be justified and another thing to have it manifested to our Consciences that we are so 2. That it is not directly at the bar of the World all will acknowledge 3. That it is not directly at the bar of Gods secret Judgment in his own brest may appear thus 1. That is not a bar at which God dealeth with sinners for Justification or Condemnation in any known or visible way No Scripture intimateth it 2. We could not then judge of our Justification 3. They are immanent Acts but Justification is a transient Act Therefore Dr Downame in the place before mentioned hath proved against Mr Pemble that Justification is not from Eternity And as I judge by his following Tract of Justification Mr Pemble himself came afterwards to a sounder Judgment in the nature of Justification 4. God dealeth with man in an open way of Law and upon Covenant terms and so will try him at a publique Judgment according to the Tenor of his Covenants There secrets of his brest are too high for us By the word will he judge us That must justifie or condemn us Therefore when you hear talk of the Bar of God you must not understand it of the immanent Acts of Gods Knewledg or Will but of his Bar of publique Judgment and in the sence of the Word Some think that Justification by Faith is properly and directly none of all these yet but that it is a publique Act of God in heaven before his Angels I think this opinion better then any of the three former which would have it at the Bar of Gods secret Judgment or of Conscience or of the World and I know no very ill consequence that followeth it But that God doth condemn or justifie at any such Bar. I find no Scripture fully to satisfie or perswade me Those places Rom. 2. 13. Heb. 9. 24. Luke 12 8 9. 15. 10. which are alledged to that purpose seem not to conclude any â—â—ch thing as that to be the Bar where Faith doth most properly justifie Yet I acknowledge that in a more remote sence we may be said to be justified by Faith at all the four other Bars viz. Gods Immanent Judgment and before the Angels and before Conscience and the World For God and Angels do judge according to Truth and take those to be just who are so in Law and in deed and so do our Consciences and Men when they judge rightly and when they do not we cannot well be said to be justified at their Bar. Therefore I think they mistake who would have Works rather then Faith to justifie us at the Bar of the World as I shall shew afterward when I come to open the conditions of Justification THESIS XLI THat saying of our Divines That Iustification is perfected at first and admits of no degrees must be understood thus That each of those Acts which we call Iustification are in their own kind perfect at once and that our Righteousness is perfect and admits not of degrees But yet as the former Acts called Iustification do not fully and in all respects procure our freedom so they may be said to be imperfect and but degrees toward our full and perfect Iustification at the last Iudgment THESIS XLII THere are many such steps toward our finall and
and the 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
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
compound as it were of Actions which yet do all take their name from the Principall which is Consent To the 66. That Christ as a Saviour onely or in respect of his Priestly Office onely is not the Object of justifying Faith but that Faith doth as really and immediatly Receive him as King and in so doing Justifie this I prove thus 1. The Gospell doth not reveale Christs Offices as separated But as they are revealed so they must be believed 2. Neither doth it Offer Christ in his Priestly Office onely as separated from his Kingly though it may sometime presse our Acceptance of him in one respect and sometime in another But as he is offered so must he be received 3. Scripture no where tyeth Justification to the receipt of him as our Priest onely therefore we must not doe so 4. How commonly doth Scripture joyn his Offices together calling him usually Our Lord and Saviour Iesus Christ 5. If we receive him not as King we receive him not as an entire Saviour For he saveth us not onely by dying for us but also by reducing us really into communion with God and guiding us by his Laws and protecting and perfecting us by his Government and subduing our enemies 6. His Kingly Office is a true part of his entire Office of Mediatorship Now the sincerity of Acts in Morall respects lyeth in their true suitableness to the nature of their Objects As God is not truely loved except he be loved entirely so neither is Christ truely received if you receive him not entirely It is a lame partiall Faith and no true Faith that taketh Christ onely in the Notion of a deliverer from guilt and punishment without any accepting of him as our Lord and Governour Though I beleeve that the hope of being pardoned saved is the first thing that moveth men to receive Christ yet do they being so moved receive him as their Lord also or else they doe not receive him sincerely 7. The exalting of his Kingly Office is as principall an end of his dying of his becomming Mediatour as is the saving of us and the exalting of his Priestly Office See the second Psal. and Rom. 14. 9. To this end he both dyed rose and revived that he might be Lord both of the dead and the living And therefore the receiving of him as Priest alone is not like to be the Condition of our Justification So that if Christ put both into the Condition we must not separate what he hath joyned But the main ground of their Error who think otherwise is this They think Acceptance of the mercy offered doth make it ours immediately in a naturall way as the accepting of a thing from men And so as if he that accepted pardon should have it and he that accepted sanctitie should have it c. But Christ as I have shewed establisheth his Offices and Authority before he bestow his mercies and though Accepting be the proper condition yet doth it not conferre the title to us as it is an accepting primarily but as it is the Covenants Condition If we should take possession when we have no title in Law God would quickly challenge us for our bold usurpation and deale with us as with him that intruded without the Wedding garment There is more adoe then come in and sit down and take what we have a mind to God hath put all his Sons Offices into the Condition to be received and submitted to either all or none must be accepted And if All be in the Condition then the receiving of all must needs Justifie upon the grounds that I have laid down before To the 67. That the promises or benefits are not the immediate proper object of Justifying Faith is evident from the gorunds already layd down As also from the constant language of the Gospell which maketh Faith to lie in receiving believing in him and in his name c. still making Christ himself the immediate object Therefore if Mr Cotton say as the Lord Brook represents him That Faith can be nothing but a laying hold of that promise which God hath made in his Tract of Truth and Vni pag. 152. it is a foul error in so weighty a point as is also his other of Faith justifying and saving only declaratively Indeed that first less principall Act of Faith which we call Assent hath the truth of the Gospell revelation for its neerest and most immediate object but I think by the leave of those who contradict not its onely nor chief object The truth of the proposition is but a means to the apprehending of the truth of the thing proposed nor the truth of the history but a glass to shew us the truth of the Acts which it relateth So that even the Understanding it self doth apprehend the person and offices of Christ in their Metaphisicall Verity by means of its apprehension of the Logicall and Morall verity of the Relation and though the truth of the Word be the neerest object of Assent yet the truth of Christs person nature and offices is the more principall Or if about these it may not have the name of Assent yet shall it have the same nature still To the 68. I think none will contradict it and therefore there need nothing be said THESIS LXIX IVstifying Faith is the hearty accepting of Christ for our only Lord and Saviour EXPLICATION IN this brief definition you have nothing but what is essentiall to it 1. The genus I need not mention when it is the Act of Faith which I define you know the genus already 2. The Understandings apprehension of Christ as a true Redeemer and Saviour which in severall respects is called Knowledg or Belief I do imply this and not express it because though I take it for a real part of Faith yet not the most principall and formall part And as we use to imply Corpus and not express it when we define man to be Animal rationale because the form or principall essentiall part part giveth the name So here though I know Assent is not properly a materiall cause yet being the less principall Act it giveth not the denomination 3. That Christ as Lord and Saviour is the proper object I have proved before His Propheticall Office whereby he is the Teacher of his Church Jimply in both these because it may in severall respects be reduced to these For he teacheth by his Laws and Commandments and his spirits teaching and governing are scarce distinguishable and he saveth by teaching Also his Office of Husband and Head are in these implyed they signifying more the future benefits and priviledges of a beleever which he shall receive from Christ beleeved in then the primary offices which he is to acknowledg in beleeving 4. The proper formall act of justifying Faith which is most principally essentiall to it of all other is accepting If I must needs place it in one only it should be this My Reasons are 1. Because the Scripture maketh
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
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.
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
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
Christ onely received our infirmities and Originall Disease and not the contempt of him and his Law Expounded by Dr. Twisse against Dr. Iackson pag. 584. His meaning in my judgement is onely this that Christ hath made satisfaction for the imperfections of our Faith and holinesse although we continue therein untill death But he hath not made satisfaction for the contempt and hatred of his Word c. in case men doe continue therein unto death Alstedius Distinct. Theol. c. 17. pag. 73 The condition of the Covenant of Grace is partly Faith and partly Evangelicali obedience or holinesse of life proceeding from Faith in Christ. Idem ibid. cap. 23. Christ is our Righteousnesse in a causall sense but not in a formall sence Sadeel advers human satisfact pag. 213. Christs satisfaction is to them profitable to whom it is truly applied The way of application is this that the merits of Christ be imputed to us This imputation is done when the Holy Ghost begetteth in us a true faith which receiving the benefit of Christ doth at once also produce in us the true fruits of our Regeneration Rivetus in Disput. de Satisfactione God was not bound to accept the satisfaction performed by another although sufficient unlesse which he could not man had satisfied himself and had born the punishment due to his sin therefore there was a necessity that a Covenant should intercede and God himself propound a Mediator That there must an agreement intercede on his part who was satisfied I have proved without which the satisfaction had been in vain Ibidem Ibidem ibid. Thes. 4 5 6. The Act which in satisfaction God performeth it is of a supreme Judge freely relaxing his own Law and transferring the penalty on another So that in this relaxation Gods supreme dominion may be observed For how could God have relaxed his Law if he had not been the supreme Rector or had been under a Law himself And by the transferring the penalty from the sinner exacting it of the surety the relation of a party offended as such is removed from God c. Iam. 4. 12. So he proceedeth to prove that God could and did relax his Law as being positive and so relaxable that it is abrogate not expounded 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And what of it was relaxable and what not c. Bellarmine confesseth l. de just cap. 7. that our opinion is right if we mean that Christ merits are imputed us because they are given us and we may offer them to God the Father for our sins because Christ undertook the burden of satisfying for us and reconciling us to God Which Rivet approveth Disp. de justific Dr. Twisse Vindic. Grat. l. 2. par 2. crim 3. §. 6. I confesse salvation and so pardon and adoption are offered to all and singular men on condition they beleeve c. And so I deny not that Redemption is so farre obtained for all and every man Dr. Twisse against Cotten pag. 74. Still you prove that which no man denyeth viz. That God purposed life to the world upon condition of obedience and repentance provided that you understand it right viz. that obedience and repentance is ordained of God as a condition of life not of Gods purpose Dr. Twisse Consid. of Tilenus Synod dort Arles reduced to prac pag. 61. Ger. Vossius interpreteth the will of God touching the salvation of all of a conditionall will thus God will have all to be saved to wit in case they beleeve which conditionall will in this sence neither Austin did nor doe we deny Idem pag. 143 144. I willingly professe that Christ dyed for all in respect of procuring the benefit of pardon and salvation conditionally on condition of their faith So also pag. 154 161 165 170 194. And Discovery of Doctor Iacksons vanity p. 527. 551. Iunius Parallel l. 3. Heb. 5. 9. For the promise of salvation is made to obedience and be queathed to it in the Testament of Christ himself dying Paraeus in Hebr. 5. 9. To obey Christ is not onely to professe his Name but to acknowledge him the onely perfect Redeemer to cleave to him in true affiance and to live worthy the Gospell This condition in the whole Gospell is required in those that shall be saved Universall Grace belongeth onely to the obedient Piscator in Heb. 5. 9. Christ is not the Author of salvation to all men but onely to those that obey him that is who beleeve his Promises and obey his Precepts Aretius in Heb. 5. 9. The benefit of Redemption is universall and indeed belongs to all in generall so be it we obey him Calvin in Luk. 1. 6. We must so expound whatsoever the Scripture speaks of the Righteousnesse of men that it overthrow not the forgivenesse of sins whereon it resteth as a building on its foundation They who simply expound it that Zachary and Elizabeth were righteous by Faith because they were freely accepted of God for the Mediatours sake do wrest the words of Luke to a strange sence And as to the matter it self they say something but not the whole I confesse indeed that the righteousnesse which is ascribed to them ought to be acknowledged as received from the Grace of Christ and not to the merit of works yet the Lord because he imputed not to them their sins doth dignifie their holy life with the title of Righteousness The folly of the Papists is easily refelled who oppose this Righteousness to the Righteousness of Faith when as it flowes from it so it ought to be placed in subordination to it that so there be no disagreement between them Perkins Vol. 1. p. 662. The true Gain And lest any should imagine that the very act of Faith in apprehending Christ justifieth we are to understand that Faith doth not apprehend by power from it self but by vertue of the Covenant If a man beleeve the Kingdome of France to be his it is not therefore his yet if he beleeve Christ and the Kingdome of Heaven by Christ to be his it is his indeed Not simply because he beleeves but because he beleeves upon commandment and promise For in the tenour of the Covenant God promiseth to impute the obedience of Christ to us for our righteousness if we beleeve Perkins Vol. 1. p. 476. on Hab. 2. 4. Justice mentioned in the word is two-fold the justice of the Law and the justice of the Gospell The justice of the Law hath in it all points and parts of justice and all the perfection of all parts and it was never found in any upon earth except Adam and Christ. The justice of the Gospell hath all the parts of true justice but it wants the full perfection of parts And this kinde of justice is nothing else but the conversion of a sinner with a purpose will and endeavour to please God according to all the Commandments of the Law Thus was Noah just Iob Zachary Elizabeth and thus must the just man be taken in this
besides their imputed Righteousness only because their Sanctification and good Works have some imperfect agreement to the Law of Works As if it were a streight line which is in one place streight and another crooked much less that which is in every part crooked in some degree I have been sorry to hear many learned Teachers speak thus most they say to maintain it is in this simple objection If we are called holy because of an imperfect Holiness then why not righteous because of an imperfect Righteousness Ans. Holiness signifieth no more but a Dedication to God either by separation only or by qualifying the subject first with an aptitude to its Divine imployment and then separating or devoting it as in our Sanctification Now a person imperfectly so qualified is yet truly and really so qualified and therefore may truly be called holy so far But Righteousness signifying a Conformity to the Rule and a Conformity with a quatenus or an imperfect Rectitude being not a true Conformity or Rectitude at all because the denomination is of the whole Action or Person and not of a certain part or respect therefore imperfect Righteousness is not Righteousness but Unrighteousness It is a contradiction in adjecto Object But is our personal Righteousness perfect as it is measured by the New Rule Ans. Yes as I shall open to you by and by I could here heap up a mulitude of orthodox Writers that do call our personall Righteousness by the title of Evangelicall as signifying from what Rule it doth receive its Name The second sort that shew their gross ignorance of the nature of Righteousness are the Antinomians and some other simple ones whom they have misled who if they doe but hear a man talk of a Righteousness in himself or in any thing he can do or making his own duty either his Righteousness or conducible thereto they startle at such Doctrine and even gnash the teeth as if we preached flat Popery yea as if we cryed down Christ and set up our selves The ignorant wretches not understanding the difference between the two sorts of Righteousness that of the old Covenant which is all out of us in Christ and that of the New Covenant which is all out of Christ in our selves though wrought by the power of the Spirit of Christ. Quest. But how then is Ahabs and Nineve's humiliation accepted and such other works of those that are not in Christ seeing they are yet under the Law Ans. 1. No man is now under the Law as Adam was before the new Covenant was made that is not so under the Law alone as to have nothing to do with the Gospel or so under the old Covenant as to have no benefit by the new 2. So that wicked men may now find that tender and mercifull dealing from God that even those works which are less unjust and sinfull and draw neerest to the rectitude required by the Gospel shall be so far accepted as that for their further encouragement some kind of reward or suspension of wrath shall be annexed to them and God will countenance in them that which is good though it be not so much as may denominate it a good work 3. But yet the best of an unregenerate mans works have more matter in them to provoke God then to please him and he never accepteth them as Evangelically Righteous for they that are in the flesh and are without faith cannot possibly so please God Rom. 8. 8. Heb. 11. 6. As their righteousness is but a less degree of unrighteousness and therefore is most improperly called righteousness so their pleasing God is but a lower degree of displeasing him and therefore but improperly called pleasing him THESIS XXIII IN this sence also it is so far from being an error to affirm that Faith it self is our Righteousness that it is a truth necessary for every Christian to know that is Faith is our Evangelicall Righteousness in the sence before explained as Christ is our Legall Righteousness EXPLICATION THis Assertion so odious those that understand not its grounds is yet so clear from what is said before that I need to add no more to prove it For 1. I have cleared before that there must be a personall Righteousness besides that imputed in all that are justified And that 2. The fulfilling of the conditions of each Covenant is our Righteousness in reference to that Covenant But Faith is the fulfilling of the conditions of the new Covenant therefore it is our Righteousnes in relation to that Covenant I do not here take Faith for any one single Act but as I shall afterward explain it Quest. In what sence then is Faith said to be imputed to us for righteousness if it be our Righteousness it self Answ. Plainly thus Man is become unrighteous by breaking the Law of Righteousness that was given him Christ fully satisfieth for this transgression and buyeth the prisoners into his own hands and maketh with them a new Covenant That whosoever will accept of him and beleeve in him who hath thus satisfied it shall be as effectual for their Justification as if they had fulfilled the Law of Works themselves A Tenant forfeiteth his Lease to his Landlord by not paying his rent he runs deep in debt to him and is disabled to pay him any more rent for the future whereupon he is put out of his house and cast into prison till he pay the debt his Landlords son payeth it for him taketh him out of prison and putteth him in his house again as his Tenant having purchased house and all to himself he maketh him a new Lease in this Tenor that paying but a pepper corn yearly to him he shall be acquit both from his debt and from all other rent for the future which by his old Lease was to be paid yet doth he not cancel the old Lease but keepeth it in his hands to put in suite against the Tenant if he should be so foolish as to deny the payment of the pepper corn In this case the payment of the grain of pepper is imputed to the Tenant as if he had payed the rent of the old Lease Yet this imputation doth not extoll the pepper corn nor vilifie the benefit of his Benefactor who redeemed him Nor can it be said that the purchase did only serve to advance the value and efficacy of that grain of pepper But thus A personall rent must be paid for the testification of his homage he was never redeemed to be independent as his own Landlord and Master the old rent he cannot pay his new Landlords clemency is such that he hath resolved this grain shall serve the turn Do I need to apply this in the present case or cannot every man apply it Even so is our Evangelicall Righteousness or Faith imputed to us for as reall Righteousness as perfect Obedience Two things are considerable in this debt of Righteousness The value and the personall performance or interest The value of Christs
Satisfaction is imputed to us instead of the value of a perfect Obedience of our own performing and the value of our Faith is not so imputed But because there must be some personall performance of homage therefore the personall performance of Faith shall be imputed to us for a sufficient personall payment as if we had paid the full rent because Christ whom we believe in hath paid it he will take this for satisfactory homage so it is in point of personall performance and not of value that Faith is imputed THESIS XXIV THis personall Gospell Righteousness is in its kind a perfect Righteousness and so far we may admit the doctrine of personall Perfection EXPLICATION OUr Righteousness may be considered either in regard of the matter and the acts denominated righteous or else in respect of the form which gives them that denomination Also our Faculties and Actions are considerable either in regard of their Being or of their Quality 1. The perfection of the Being of our Faculties or Acts is nothing to our present purpose as falling under a physicall consideration only 2. In regard of their Quality they may be called perfect or imperfect in severall sences 1 As Perfection is taken for the transcendentall perfection of Being so they are perfect 2. And as it is taken for the compleat number of all parts it is perfect 3. But as it is taken for that which is perfect Efficienter or Participaliter that is for a work that is finished for the Author so our holiness is still imperfect here 4. And as it is taken for accidentall perction so called in Metaphysicks when it wants nothing which beyond the Essence is also requisite to the integrity ornament and well being of it so our holiness is here imperfect 5. As perfection is taken pro sanitate for soundness so our holiness is imperfect 6. And as it is taken pro maturitate for ripeness so it is imperfect 7. In respect of the admixture of contrary qualities our holiness is imperfect 8. But whether all this imperfection be privative and sinfull or meerly negative and only our misery whether it be a privation physicall or morall is a question that will be cleared when I come to shew the extent of the Commands or Rule But not any of these kinds of perfection is that which I mean in the Position Holiness is a quality may be intended and remitted in creased decreased but it is the relative consideration of these qualities of our faculties and acts as they are compared with the Rule of the new Covenant so it is not the perfection of our holiness that we enquire after but of our righteousness which righteousness is not a quality as holiness is but the modification of our acts as to the Rule which is not varyed secundum majus minus See Schibl Metaph. li. 2 c. 9. Tit. 7. Art 2. Therefore our Divines usually say That our Justification is perfect though our Sanctification be not and then I am sure our Righteousness must be perfect A two-fold perfection is here implyed 1. A Metaphysical Perfection of Being 2. A Perfection of Sufficiency in order to its end 1. The being of our Righteousness formally consisting in our relative conformity to the rule either it must be perfect or not at all He that is not perfectly innocent in the very point that he is accused is not innocent truly but guilty Sincerity is usually said to be our Gospel-Perfection not as it is accepted in stead of perfection but as it is truly so for sincere Faith is our conformity to the Rule of Perfection viz. the new Covenant as it is a Covenant yet as it is sincere Faith it is only materially our Righteousness and Perfection but formally as it is relatively our conformity to the said Rule 2. Our Righteousness is perfect as in its Being so also in order to its end The end is to be the condition of our Justification c. This end it shall perfectly attain The Tenor of the new Covenant is not Believe in the highest degree and you shall be justified But believe sincerely and you shall be justified so that our Righteousness 1. formally considered in relation to the condition of the new Covenant is perfect or none 2. But considered materially as it is holiness either in reference to the degree it should attain or the degree which it shall attain or in reference to the excellent object which it is excercised about or in reference to the old Covenant or the directive and in some sence the preceptive part of the new Covenant in all these respects it is imperfect I speak not all this while of that perfection in Christs Satisfaction which is also our perfect Righteousness because few will question the perfection of that THESIS XXV YEt is it an improper speech of some Divines That Christ first justifieth our persons and then our duties and actions And except by justifying they mean his esteeming them to be a fulfilling of the Gospell Conditions and so unjust it is unsound and dangerous as well as improper EXPLICATION 1. IT is improper in the best sence 1. Because it is contrary to the Scripture use of the word Iustifying which is the acquitting of us from the charge of breaking the Law and not from the charge of violating the new Covenant 2 It is against the nature of the thing seeing Justification as you shall see anon implyeth Accusation but the esteeming of a righteous action to be as it is doth not imply any accusation 3. This speech joyning Justification of Persons and Actions together doth seem to intimate the same kinde of justification of both and so doth tend to seduce the hearers to a dangerous error 2. For if it be understood in the worst sence it will overthrow the Righteousness of Christ imputed and the whole scope of the Gospell and will set up the doctrine of Justification by Works For if God do justifie our Works from any legall Accusation as he doth our persons then it will follow That our Works are just and consequently we are to be justified by them There is no room for Scripture-justification where our own Works are not first acknowledged unjustifiable because there is no place for Satisfaction and Justification thereby from another where we plead the Justification of our own Works in respect of the same Law Justification of Works is a sufficient ground for Iustification by Works seeing the justness of his dispositions and actions is the ground of denominating the person just and that according to the primary and most proper kinde of Righteousness as is expressed in the distinction of it pag. 98 99. THESIS XXVI 1 NEither can our performance of the conditions of the Gospel in the most proper and strict sence be said to merit the reward seeing there is nothing in the value of it or any benefit that God receiveth by it which may so entitle it meritorious neither is there any
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
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
onely in the Definition because as is said before I take the preferring of Christ before all others and taking him for our Onely Lord and Saviour to be the essentiall difference of true Faith There is a two-fold Verity or Sincerity in our duties requisite 1. The verity of their naturall Being which is called their Metaphysicall Truth 2. The verity or sincerity of them as Duties or Graces which is their Morall sincerity This last consisteth in the true suiting of the Act to its Object For example one man pretendeth to love his wife and doth not There is neither Naturall nor Morall Truth Another doth love her but not half so well as other women There is the Metaphysicall Truth but not the Morall A third loveth her as a wife above others There is both Metaphysicall Truth and Morall So it is in our Love to God To Love him as the chief Good is to love him as he is And he that loveth him never so much and yet loveth any thing else as much or more though his Love have a Metaphysicall Truth of Being yet it hath no Morall sincerity at all So that the Preferring God before all or taking him for our Onely God is the very point of sincerity of Love Why just so it is about our Faith The taking him unfeignedly for our onely Lord and Saviour is the very point of the sincerity of our Faith in Christ. As Adultery is the most proper violation of the Marriage Covenant except actuall renouncing and deserting So the taking of any other Lord or Saviour besides Christ or conjunct with him is the most apparent violation of the bond of our Covenant and most contradictory to the nature and Essence of Justifying Faith except onely the Actuall renouncing Christ and the Covenant it self by full Apostacy which is an unpardonable sin Hebr. 6. 4 5 6. 10. 26. Yet in subordination to Christ we may have other Lords and Saviours but not in competition and co-ordination Some of his Government he exerciseth by Ministers and some by Magistrates under him for I cannot consent to them that say the Magistrate is onely the Officer of God as Creator and not of Christ the Mediator because all things are delivered into his hands and he is made head over all Some also of his saving works he performeth by instruments and means And what they so perform under him may be acknowledged without any derogation from him at all But perhaps some may think that the Scripture Phrase seemeth rather to intimate that Faith is an Assent and not such an Acceptance and Consent as is before mentioned because it oft times requireth but this To believe that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God he that should come into the world c. To which I answer 1. This proveth onely that this Knowledg or Assent is part of Faith but not that it is the whole 2. It is the use of Scripture to drive at that duty which is most unknown neglected or resisted and to speak little of others where there was then lesse need to speak though perhaps the duty be in it self more weighty Therefore Christ and the Apostles did spend most of their pains to perswade the Jewes to this Assent That the Messias should come be their deliverer they all knew Even the poor woman of Samaria could tell that Ioh. 4. 25. And so ready were they to Receive him if they had known him that it was the generall expectation and desire of the people Mal. 3. 1. But to perswade them that Jesus was the Christ here lay the difficulty Therefore as Dr. Ames Medull cap. 3. § 20. though sometime Assent to the Truth concerning God and Christ Ioh. 1. 50. be taken for true Faith yet the speciall Election or Apprehension for that the meanes by Fiducia § 13. is still included and those words do but determine and apply that Fiducia to Christ which is presupposed to be already toward the Messiah And let me conclude this with one more practically usefull observation From this definition of faith now men may see what to enquire after in their searching of their estates As faith being the Gospell-condition is the main thing to be looked for So here you see what that faith is The ignorance of this deceiveth and troubleth multitudes Some think it lieth in Assurance Some in a quieting their hearts in confidence on Christ Some think as M. Saltmarsh That it is nothing else but a perswasion more or less of Gods love And then when poor troubled souls do feel neither assurance confidence nor perswasion of that love they conclude that they have no Faith And how will these mistaken Teachers help them to comfort Why as Mr. Saltmarsh doth sometime to tell them Christ hath beleeved for them and sometime to tell them plainly that he can but commend them to the Lord who is the Author and finisher of Faith and sometime to tell them that they should not question their faith any more then Christ himself Thus their first way of comfort is to tell them they do ill to question their faith If that would serve all the world might have comfort and there needs no more If that will not do then Christ hath beleeved for them Yet if that will serve there is as much comfort for one as another But what if they say still I cannot beleeve that is as you expound Belief why then he confesseth plainly he is at a loss he can drive on the work of comforting no further he can do no more but pray for them pag. 31. Is it not a wonder that this lamentable Comforter should be so valued by the troubled spirits I was many years my self under perplexing doubts If I had heard such comforting words as these they would sooner have driven me to dispair then to comfort He that hath not so much wit as to discern so gross fallacies may assoon be comforted by a false and impertinent argument as by a sound one Quest. But how would you comfort such a one that faith he cannot beleeve Ans. Why I would first make him know that the very essentiall form of faith lieth in the Will◠acceptance of an offered Christ Then would I know of him whether he be willing thus to have Christ both for Lord and Saviour or not If he say He is willing I shall answer That then he doth beleeve and then he is Justified for his Willingness is his very Consent or Acceptance and that Consent is true Faith Christ expecteth no more to make up the match If the match break it must be either because Christ is unwilling or because he is unwilling not Christ for he is the Suitor and Intreater and Offerer Not himself for he confesseth that he is willing If he say I am not willing I should ask Why then do you look after it or regard it Do men enquire after that and lament the want of it which they are not willing to have either temptation
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
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
believed but matter of internall sense or to be known by the reflex act of the understanding 3. Also God should else set his seal to my part or condition of the Covenant as well as his own and seal to the truth of my word as well as to the truth of his own for a justifying and saving us is Gods condition which he undertaketh to perform so believing or accepting Christ is our condition which we there professe to perform So that it is doubtlesse that a Sacrament as it is Gods engaging sign or seal doth not seal to the truth of my faith or sincerity of my heart in Covenanting It were a most grosse conceit to imagine this But withall you must understand that as there is in the Sacrament reciprocall actions Gods giving and our receiving so is the Sacrament accordingly a mutuall engaging sign or seal As it is given it is Gods seal so that as in this full Covenant there is a mutuall engaging so there is a mutuall sealing God saith to us here is my Sonne who hath bought thee take him for thy Lord and Saviour and I will be thy reconciled God and pardon and glorify thee And to this he sets his seal The sinner saith I am willing Lord I here take Christ for my King and Saviour and Husband and deliver up my self accordingly to him And hereto by receiving the offered elements he setteth his engaging sign or seal so that the Sacrament is the seal of the whole Covenant But yet you must remember that in the present controversie we meddle not with it as it is mans seal but onely as it is Gods So then it is clear that as it is Gods seal it sealeth the major proposition and as it is ours to the minor But yet here you must further distinguish betwixt sealing up the promise as true in it self and sealing it with application as true to me And it is the latter that the Sacrament doth the delivery being Gods act of application the receiving ours so that the Proposition which God sealeth to runs thus If thou believe I do pardon thee and will save thee 3. But the great Question is Whether the Sacrament do seal to the conclusion also That I am justified and shall be saved To which I answer No directly and properly it doth not and that is evident from the arguments before laid down whereby I proved that the Sacraments seal not to the minor For 1. this conclusion is now here written in Scripture 2. And therefore is not properly the object of Faith whereas the seals are for confirmation of Faith 3. Otherwise every man rightly receiving the seals must needs be certainly justified saved 4. And no Minister can groundedly administer the Sacraments to any man but himself because he can be certain of no mans justification and salvation being not certain of the sincerity of their Faith And if he should adventure to administer it upon probabilities and charitable conjectures then should he be guilty of prophaning the ordinance and every time he mistaketh he should set the seale of God to a lye And who then durst ever administer a Sacrament being never certaine but that he shall thus abuse it I confesse ingenuously to you that it was the ignorance of this one point which chiefly caused mee to abstaine from administring the Lords Supper so many yeeres I did not understand that it was neither the minor nor conclusion but only the major proposition of the foresaid Argument which God thus sealeth And I am sorry to see what advantage many of our most learned Divines have given the Papists here As one errour drawes on many and leadeth a man into a labyrinth of absurdities so our Divines being first mistaken in the nature of justifying faith thinking that it consisteth in A Beliefe of the pardon of my owne sinnes which is this conclusion have therefore thought that this is it which the Sacrament sealeth And when the Papists alledge that it is no where written that such or such a man is justified we answer them that it being written That he that beleeveth is justified this is equivalent A grosse mistake As if the major proposition alone were equivalent to the conclusion or as if the conclusion must or can be meerly Credenda a proper object of Faith when but one of the promises is matter of faith the other of sence or knowledge The truth is the major He that believeth shall be saved is received by Faith The minor that I do sincerely believe is known by inward sence and self-reflexion And the conclusion therefore I shall be saved is neither properly to be believed nor felt but known by reason deducing it from the two former so that faith sense and reason are all necessary to the producing our assurance So you see what it is that is sealed to 2. Now let us consider how it sealeth Whether absolutely or conditionally And I answer It sealeth absolutely For the promise of God which it sealeth is not conditionally but absolutely true So that the summe of all I have said is this which answereth the severall questions 1. The Sacrament sealeth not the absolute Covenant or Promise but the conditionall Believe and live 2. It sealeth not the truth of my Covenant as it is Gods seal or it sealeth not to the truth of my faith 3. It sealeth not to the certainty of my justification and salvation 4. But it sealeth to Gods part of the conditionall Covenant 5. And sealeth this conditionall promise not conditionally but absolutely as of undoubted truth 6. And not only as true in it self but true with application to me So that by this time you may discern what is their meaning who say that the Sacraments do seal but conditionally that is as it sealeth to the truth of the major which is the promise so thereby it may be said to seal conditionally to the conclusion for the conclusion is as it were therein contained upon condition or supposition of the minor proposition He that saith All Believers shall be saved saith as much as that I shall be saved it being supposed that I am a Believer And so you must understand our Divines in this Yet this speech is lesse proper For to speak properly it doth not seal to the conclusion at all yet it is very usefull to help us in raising that conclusion and to be perswaded that we are justified because it so confirmeth our belief of that promise which is one of the grounds of the Conclusion For your inference in the last words of your objection then let all come that will If you mean All that will though they come to mock or abuse the ordinance then it will no way follow from the doctrine which I have now opened But if you mean Let all come that will seriously really or apparently enter or renew their Covenant with Christ. I think that to be no dangerous or absurd consequence If Christ when he offereth himself
and the thing signified do say Let him that is athirst come and whoever will let him take the water of life freely Rev. 22. 17. Why may not I say so of the sign and seal to those that seriously professe their thirst Sure I shall speak but as Christ hath taught me and that according to the very scope of the Gospel and the nature of the Covenant of free grace And I wonder that those men who cry up the nature of free grace so much should yet so oppose this free offer of it and the sealing the free Covenant to them that lay claim to it upon Christs invitation To the tenth and eleventh Objections YOur 10. and 11. objections you raise upon my exceptions against the book called The Marrow of Modern Divinity And first you mention the Doctrine and then the Book 1. You think that Do this and live is the voice of the Law of works only and not of the Law or Covenant of Grace and that we may not make the obtaining of life salvation the end of duty but must obey in meer love and from thankfulnesse for the life we have received To all which I answer 1. By way of explication and 2. of probation of my assertions 1. Do this and live in severall senses is the language of both Law and Gospel 1. When the Law speaketh it the sense is this If thou perfectly keep the Laws that I have given thee or shall give thee so long thou shalt continue this life in the earthly Paradise which I have given thee But if once thou sinne thou shalt dye 2. When the Gospel speaketh it the sense is thus Though thou hast incurred the penalty of the Law by thy sinne yet Christ hath made satisfaction Do but accept him for Lord and Saviour and renouncing all other deliver up thy self unreservedly to him and love him above all and obey him sincerely both in doing and suffering and overcome persevere herein to the end and thou shalt be justified from all that the Law can accuse of and restored to the favour and blessings which thou hast lost and to a farre greater Thus the Gospel saith Do this and live That the Gospel commandeth all this I know you will not question and that this is doing you must needs acknowledge But all the question is whether we may do it that we may live I have fully explained to you in this Treatise already in what sense our doing is required and to what ends viz. not to be any part of a legall Righteousnesse nor any part of satisfaction for our unrighteousnesse but to be our Gospel righteousnesse or the condition of our participation in Christ who is our legall Righteousnesse and so of all the benefits that come with him In these severall respects and senses following the Gospel commandeth us to act for life 1. A wicked man or unbeliever may and must hear the Word pray enquire of others c. that so he may obtain the first life of grace and faith This I now prove Isa. 55. 3. 6 7. Ionas 3. 8 9. 10. Pro. 1. 23 24. 25. Amos 5. 4. Act. 2. 37. Isa. 1. 16. Mat. 11. 15. 13. 43. Luk. 16. 29. 31. Ioh. 5. 25. Act. 10. 1 2. 22. 23. Rom. 10. 13. 14 1 Tim. 4. 16. Heb. 3 7. Rev. 3 20. Yet do not I affirm that God never preventeth mens endeavours he is sometime found of them that sought him not Nor do I say that God hath promised the life of Grace to the endeavours of nature But their duty is to seek life and half promises and many encouragements God hath given them such as that in Joel 2. 12 13 14. who knoweth but God will c So Zeph. 2. 3. Exod. 32. 30. And that in Act. 8. 7. 2. Pray therefore if perhaps the thoughts of thy heart may be forgiven thee 2. That a man may act for the increase of this spirituall life when he hath it methinks you should not doubt if you do see 1 Pet. 2. 1 2. 1. 22. 2 Pet. 1. 5 6 7 8. 3. 18. And the Parable of the Talents Mat. 25 26 27. 28. 30. 3. That we may and must act for the life of Reconciliation and Iustification and Adoption is beyond dispute How oft doth Scripture call on men to Repent to Believe to Pray to forgive others and to reform that their sinnes may be forgiven them I have quoted the Scriptures before when I opened the conditions of justification Isa. 1. 16 17 18. Isa. 55. 6 7. Act. 8. 22. Iam. 5. 15. And we are still said to be justified by faith which is an act of ours 4. That we may act for to obtain assurance both of our justification and sanctification is undeniable 2 Pet. 1. 10. 2 Cor. 13. 5. c 5. That we may act for eternall life and salvation methinks he that beareth the face of a Christian should not deny and that both for 1. Title to it 2. Assurance of our enjoying it 3. for possession it self I shall but quote the Scriptures for brevity sake desiring you to read them and save me the labour of transcribing them Rev. 22 14. Iohn 5. 39 40. Mat. 11. 12. and 7. 13. Luke 13. 24. Phil. 2. 17. Rom. 2. 7 10. 1 Cor. 9. 24. 2 Tim. 2. 5 12. 1 Tim. 6. 12 18 19. Phil. 3. 14 Mat. 25. 1 Cor. 15. last 2 Cor. 4. 17. and 5. 10 11. 2 Pet. 1. 10 11. Luke 11. 28. Heb. 4. 1. Luke 12. 5. 1 Cor. 9. 17. These last places shew that the escaping hell and damnation is a necessary end of our actings and duties as well as the obtaining of heaven If when you have read and weighed these Scriptures you be not convinced that we may act or do for life and salvation and so that Do this and live is in some sense the language of the Gospell I shall question whether you make the Scripture the Rule of your faith or be not rather one of them that can force upon themselves a faith of one or others making Object But it is not the most excellent and Gospel-like frame of spirit to do all out of meer love to God and from Thankfulnesse for life obtained by Christ and given us Answ. 1. If it come not from love to God it is not sincere 2. Yet doth not the Gospell any where set our love to God and to our own souls in opposition nor teach us to love God and not our selves but contrarily joineth them both together and commandeth us both The love of our selves and desire of our preservation would never have been planted so deeply in our natures by the God of nature if it had been unlawfull I conclude therefore that to love God and not our selves and so to do all without respect to our own good is no Gospell frame of spirit 2. Thankfulnesse for what we have received either in possession title or promise must be a singular spur to put us on
bring it into subjection lest when he had preached to others himself should be a cast-away 1 Cor. 9. 27. what can be plainer Did not Abraham obey because he looked for a Citie which had foundations Heb. 11. 10. And Moses because he had respect to the recompence of Reward 26. And all that cloud of witnesses obey and suffer that they might attain a better Resurrection 35. and did they not seek a better Countrey that is an heavenlie and therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God for he hath prepared for them a City ver 16. Do not all that confesse themselves strangers on earth plainlie declare that they seek another Countrie ver 13 14. Whosoever therefore shall hereafter tell you that you must not do good to attain salvation or escape damnation as being too mercenarie and slavish for a Sonne of God abhorre his Doctrine though he were an Angel from heaven And if this satisfie you not look to Jesus the Authour and Finisher of your Faith who for the joy that was set before him endured the Crosse despising the shame and is set down at the right hand of God Heb. 12. 12. Rom. 14 9. And as Adam fell to be liker the Devil when he needs would be as God so take heed whither you are falling when you will be better then Jesus Christ. And do I after all this need to answer the Common objections that it is mercenarie and slavish to labour for salvation Must I be put to prove that the Apostles and Christ himself were not mercenarie slaves or that Gods Word hath not prescribed us a slavish task Indeed if we did all for a reward distant from God and for that alone without any conjunction of Filiall love and expected this Reward for the worth of our work then it might be well called Mercenary and slavish But who among us plead for such a working FRom all this you may gather part of the Answer to your next Question why I except against the book called The Marrow of Modern Divinity Because it is guiltie of this hainous Doctrine Yet further let me tell you that I much value the greatest part of that Book and commend the industrie of the Authour and judge him a man of godlinesse and Moderation by his writing And had I thought as meanlie of it as I do of Colyer Sprigs Hobsons and manie such abominable Pamphlets that now fly abroad I should not have thought it worthy the taking so much notice of But because it is otherwise usefull I thought meet to give you warning that you drink not in the evill with the good And especially because the names that so applaud it may be a probable snare to entangle you herein And I conjecture the Authours ingenuity to be such that he will be glad to know his own mistakes and to correct them Otherwise I am unfeignedly tender of depraving or carping at any mans labours Some of these mistaking passages I will shew you briefly As page 174. Quest. Would you not have believers to escâ—ew evill and do good for fear of Hell or for hope of Heaven Ans. No indeed I would not have any beleiver doe the one or the other for so farre as they do so their obedience is but slavish c. To which end he alledgeth Luke 1. 74. 75. But that speaks of Freedome from fear of our Enemies such as Christ forbids in Luke 12. 5. where yet he commandeth the fearing of God And consequently even that fear of enemies is forbidden as they stand in opposition to God and not as his instrnments in subordination Or if it be even a fear of God that is there meant yet it cannot be all fear of him or his displeasure so far as we are in danger of sin or suffering we must fear it and so farre as our assurance is still imperfect a jealousie of our own hearts and a dreadfull reverence of God also are necessary But not the Legall terrours of our former bondage such as arise from the apprehension of sin unpardoned and of God as being our Enemy In the 180 Page he denieth the plain sence of the Text. Mat. 10. 28. In the 155 page he makes this the difference between the two Covenants One saith Do this and Live the other saith Live and do this The one saith Do this for life The other saith Do this from life But I have proved fully that the Gospel also saith Do this for life So in his second part page 190. His great note to know the voice of the Law by is this that when in Scripture there is any morall work commanded to be done either for the eschuing of punishment or upon promise of any reward temporall or eternall or else when any promise is made with the condition of any work to be done which is commanded in the Law there is to be understood the voice of the Law A notorious and dangerous mistake which would make almost all the New Testament and the very Sermons of Christ himself to be nothing but the Law of works I have fully proved before that morall duties as part of our sincere obedience to Christ are part of the condition of our Salvation and for it to be performed And even Faith is a morall duty It is pitty that any Christian should no better know the Law from the Gospel especially one that pretendeth to discover it to others So in the next page 191 he intolerably abuseth the Scripture in affirming that of 2 Thes. 2. 12. 10. to be the voice of the Law and so making Paul a Legall Preacher And as shamefully doth he abuse 1 Cor. 6. 9 10. As if the Apostle when he biddeth them not to be decived were deceiving them himself in telling them that no unrighteous person fornicators adulterers c. shall inherit the Kingdom of God Is this Law Then let me be a Preacher of the Law If Paul be a Legalist I will be one too But these men know not that the Apostle speaketh of those that die such and that these sinnes exclude men the Kingdom as they are Rebellion against Christ their Lord and so a violation of the New Covenant So in part first page 189. He mentioneth a Preacher that said he durst not exhort nor perswade sinners to believe their sinnes were pardoned before he saw their lives reformed for fear they should take more liberty to sin And he censureth that Preacher to be ignorant in the Mystery of faith I confesse I am such an ignorant Preacher my self and therefore shall desire this knowing man to resolve me in a few doubts 1. Where he learned or how he can prove that Justifying Faith is a believing that our sinnes are pardoned when Scripture so often telleth us that we are justified by Faith and sure the Object must go before the Act and therefore that which followeth the Act is not the Object If we must believe that we are pardoned that so we may be pardoned then we must
believe a lye to make it a truth Also doth not the Scripture bid us Repent believe and be baptized for the remission of sinnes but not first to believe the Remission of our sinnes I have proved already that justifying Faith is another matter and this which he calleth Faith is properly no Faith at all but the knowledge of a conclusion one of whose permises is afforded by Faith and the other by Sense If therefore the Preacher had said that he would not have men accept Christ and so believe for Remission before their lives be reformed then I should have subscribed to this mans censure of him 2. I desire him to tell me whether he can prove that any mans sinnes are pardoned before they have accepted Christ for their Lord that is before Faith If not 3. Whether this be not the subjection of the soul to Christ to be governed by him and so a heart-reformation 4. Whether the reformation of the life doth not immediately even the same moment follow the hearts reformation And if all this be so as I know it is then the ignorant Preachers doctrine must stand good that Reformation of life must go before the belief or knowledge of pardon though not before justifying Faith Many other intolerable errours I could shew you in that Book as his making the New Covenant to threaten nothing but present Afflictions and losse of our present communion with God page 208. and that we may pray for no other kind of pardon pag 206 210. contrary to Mar. 16. 16. Heb. 10 26 27 28 29 30 31. Heb. 2. 3. Ioh. 15. 2 6. and many other places so his affirming that we sinne not against the Covenant of works which I have confuted in the Aphorismes So his making the Law of Christ and the Law of Faith to be two Lawes or Covenants when that which he calleth the Law of Christ is but part of the matter of the New Covenant But this is not my businesse only because you urged me I have given you a grain of salt wherewith to season some passages in your reading that and such like Books And that passage in M. Shepheards Select cases page 96 102. that no unregenerate man is within the compasse of any conditionall promise had need of a grain too To the twelfth Objection WHat you object concerning my making a necessity of publick covenanting I wholly acknowledge And I heartily wish that instead of our large mixt Nationall Covenant and instead of the Independants Politicall Church-making Covenant we had the Gospel or New Covenant conditions formally in publick rendered to all the people of this Land that the same being opened to them they might knowingly and seriously professe their consent if they subscribed their names it would be more solemnly engaging and this before they receive the Sacrament of the Lords Supper This 1. would take off most Arguments which are brought for a necessity of Re-baptizing 2. And would tend much to engage men to their obedience to Christ when they have so solemnly promised it under their hands 3. And I think that as an unfeigned heart covenanting with Christ is true faith and of the Essence of our Christianity so is this publike covenanting of our visible Christianity Though other mens promises on our behalfe may be of use to infants yet when we come to age we are bound of absolute necessity to a personall Faith and covenanting This also would answer the ends of the ancient custom of Confirmation And to this end is it that the Church hath still used to rehearse the Greed or Articles of Faith and to require the people to stand up to signifie their Assent and Consent which for my part I think not onely a laudable custome but for the substance of it a matter of necessity so we do but carefully keep away that Customarinesse ceremoniousnesse and formality which spoileth the most necessary and weighty duties I could wish therefore that this practice were established by Authority And for my self I do administer the Sacrament to none that do not solemnly professe their assent to every fundamentall Article of Faith expresly mentioned to them and their consent that Christ shall be their Lord and Saviour and that they will faithfully and sincerely obey his Scripture Lawes To the thirteenth and fourteenth Objections YOur 13. and 14. Objections which charge me not with errour but only with singularity I will answer together And I am the lesse carefull to answer you in this matter because I resolve to stand or fall to the Judgement of Scripture only And to tell you the truth while I busily read what other men say in these controversies my mind was so prepossessed with their notions that I could not possibly see the truth in its own nature and naked evidence and when I entered into publick disputations concerning it though I was truely willing to know the truth yet my mind was so forestalled with borrowed notions that I chiefly studied how to make good the opinions which I had received and ran further still from the truth yea when I read the truth in Doctor Preston and other means writings I did not consider and understand it and when I heard it from them whom I opposed in wrangling disputations or read it in books of controversie I discerned it least of all but only was sharpened the more against it till at last being in my sicknesse cast far from home where I had no book but my Bible I set to study the truth from thence and from the nature of the things and naked evidence and so by the blessing of God discovered more in one week then I had done before in seventeen yeares reading hearing and wrangling Not that I therefore repent of reading other mens writings for without that I had not been capable of those latter studies So that as I fetched not this doctrine from man So you must bear with me if I give you the lesse of man to attest it Yet that you may see I am not singular as you conceive I will shew you the concurrent judgements of one or two Mr. Wallis a man of singular worth I am confident by his own writing though I know him not in his answer to the Lord Brook pag. 94. saith That Faith is an accepting of Christ offered rather then a believing of a Proposition affirmed But because I will not fill my pages with other mens words I will alledge but one more and that one who is beyond all exception for piety Orthodoxnesse and Learning even Dr. Preston 1. That Faith containeth severall acts 2. That it is both in the understanding and will 3. That the principal act is accepting or consent 4. That it is the accepting of Christ for Lord as well as Saviour 5. That the object is Christ himself and not his benefits but in a remote sence and secondarily 6. That Faith consisteth in Covenanting or Marriage contract All these he is so plain and full in that
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
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
and as cautelous a proceeding as most have used for you know my former Judgement and that I never administred the Sacrament till within this year and that I was then invited to it by an eminent wonder of providence I say I advise you to beware how you deny to men the seales till you have tried with them this way prescribed by Christ Christ is free in entertaining and so must wee Christ putteth away none but them that put away themselves and then doth he call after them as long as there is hope of hearing as one that is grieved at their destruction and not delighted in the death of sinners but had rather they would returne and live And even thus must we do too Lazinesse is the common cause of separation when we should go with words of pitty and love and with teares beseech sinners to return to theit duty and shew them their danger we neglect all this to save us the labour and the suffering that sometime follows this duty wee will plead that they are no Church-Members and so not the Brethren that we are bound to admonish and so lazily separate from them and say as Cain Am I my Brothers keeper or as the man to Christ who is my Neighbour And thus when we have made his sinne our owne by our silence and not reproving him then we excommunicate him for it out of our society and from the Ordinances and so judge our selves out of our own mouths Or we separate from him for the neglect of some duty when wee our selves have neglected both to him and others this great and excellent duty of faithfull admonition It is more comfortable to recover one soule then to cast off many by separation Though I know that the avoiding communion with wilfull offendours who by this due admonition will not be reclamed is a most necessary usefull duty too But do not execute a man before he is judged nor judge him before you have heard him speak fully proved that obstinacy is added to his sinne except it be to suspend him while he is under this legall triall But perhaps you will object that we have no discipline established so no Authority to do thus and the means are vain which cannot attain their end To which I answer 1. You have divine authority 2. And may do as much as I presse without a Presbitery First you may admonish privately Secondly before witnesse Thirdly you may bring your Congregation to this that the parties offended may accuse them openly The Presbyterians deny not to the Congregation the audience and cognizance of the Fact but onely the power of judiciall sentencing And here you may admonish them before all Fourthly if yet they prove obstinate you may by your Ministeriall Authority 1. Pronounce against him by name what the Scripture pronounceth against such sinners particularly that he is unfit to be a Church-Member as openly denying obedience to the known Lawes of Christ 2. You may charge the people from Scripture to avoid familiarity with him 3. You may also acquaint the Magistrate with his duty to thrust him out if he violently intrude into Communion or disturb the Ordinances 4. You may forbear to deliver the Sacrament particularly to his hands 5. You may enter and publish your dissent and dislike if he intrude and take it himself All this I could most easily and beyond doubt prove your duty as you are a Christian and a Minister And if there be any more that a Classis may do yet do you do this in the mean time only be sure you try all means in private if the fault be not in publick before you bring a man in publick And be sure you do it in tendernesse and love and rather with wary then passionate reproaches And be sure that you do it only in case of undeniable sinnes and not in doubtfull disputable Cases And be sure that the matter of Fact be undoubtedly proved And that no man be suffered to traduce another publickly in a wrong way Or if he do that he be brought to acknowledgement The word Excommunication comprizeth severall Acts Those before mentioned belong to you as a Minister and are part of your proper Preaching declarative power which you may perform by your Nuntiative authority The power of Classes and Synods I think doth differ onely gradually and not specifically from that of every minister I am ashamed that I have contrary to my first purpose said so much of this unpleasing controversy But when you are next at leisure privately I shall undertake to prove all this to you from Scripture and that the Keyes are put by Christ into the hands of every Minister singly and that with sobriety and wisdome you may thus name the offendours publickly as all Scripture Ministers have been used to do And if you question whether our ordinary Congregations are true reall Churches where such works may be managed I shall prove that they are by giving you a better definition of a Church then that which you gave me and then trying our Churches by it In the mean time this is not matter to intermix here BUt you cannot it seems digest Mr. Blakes assertion that the Sacraments do seal but conditionally Answer I have not Mr. Blakes book by me and therefore how he explaineth himself I cannot tell But I remember he hath oft said so in conference with me But let me tell you two or three things 1. That I question whether you well understand him 2. Or whether you be able to confute it as thus to except against it 3. That Mr. Blake is as truly conscientious whom he admitteth as you But for the Controversy you must consider it a little more distinctly before you are like to understand it rightly It is in vain to enquire whether the Sacraments do seal absolutely or conditionally till you first know well what it is that they seal Let us first therefore resolve that Question what they seal and then enquire how they seal You know a Christian doth gather the assurance of his Justification and Salvation by way of Argumentation thus He that believeth is iustified and shall be saved But I believe therefore I am justified and shall be saved Now the Question is which of the parts of this Argument the Sacrament doth seal to Whether to the Major the Minor or the Conclusion To which I answer 1. That it sealeth to the Truth of Gods promise which is the Major proposition is unquestionable But whether to this alone is all the doubt 2. That it sealeth not to the truth of the Minor Proposition that is to the truth of our Believing I take also for to be beyond dispute For first it should else seal to that which is now here written For no Scripture saith that I do believe 2. And then it should be used to strengthen my Faith in that which is no object of Faith For that I do believe is not matter of Faith or to be