THis penalty the offender himselfe could not bear without his everlasting undoing EXPLICATION THat is not the full penalty for part of it hee did beare and the Earth for his sake and as I think all mankind doth beare part of it to this day But the full penalty would have bin a greater and everlasting suffering THESIS VII 1 Iesus Christ at the Will of his Father 2 and upon his own Will 3 being perfectly furnished for this Worke 4 with a Divine power 5 and personall Righteousnesse 6 first undertooke 7 and afterward discharged this debt 8 by suffering what the Law did threaten and the offender himselfe was unable to beare EXPLICATION 1 THe Love of God to the World was the first womb where the worke of Redemption was conceived Ioh. 3. 16. as it is taken conjunct with his own glory The Eternal Wisdome and Love found out and resolved on this way of recovery when it never entered into the thoughts of man to contrive or desire it 2 The Will of the Father and the Son are one The Son was a voluntary undertaker of this task it was not imposed upon him by constraint when he is said to come to do his Fathers Will Heb. 10. 7. 9. it doth also include his own Will And where he is said to do it in obedience to the Father as it is spoken of a voluntary obedience so is it spoken of the execution of our Redemption and in regard to the humane nature especially and not of the undertaking by the divine Nature alone Not only the consent of Christ did make it lawfull that he should be punished being innocent but also that speciall power which as he was God he had over his own life more then any creature hath Ioh. 10. 18. I have power 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith Christ to lay down my Life 3. No meere creature was qualifyed for this worke even the Angels that are righteous do but their duty and therefore cannot supererrogate or merit for us Neither were they able to beare and overcome the penalty 4. It must therefore be God that must satisfy God both for the perfection of the Obedience for dignifying of the duty and suffering for to be capable of meriting for the bearing of the curse and for the overcomming of it and doing the rest of the workes of the Mediatorship which were to be done after the Resurrection Yet meere God it must not be but man also or else it would have been forgivenesse without satisfaction seeing God cannot be said to make satisfaction to himselfe Many other reasons are frequently given by Divines to prove the necessity of Christs Incarnation Act. 20 28. Heb. 1. 1 2 3. 5. Had not Christ been perfectly righteous himselfe he had not been capable of satisfying for others Yet is it not necessary that he must be in all respects a fulfiller of Righteousnesse before he begin the work of satisfaction or that his righteousnesse and satisfaction be so distinct as that the same may not be both righteousnesse and satisfactory Though many great Divines do so distinguish between Iustitiam personae Iustitiam meriti as that the former is only a preparatory to the latter yet I cannot see any reason but the same obedience of Christ to the whole Law may be both personall and meritorious of the righteousnesse of the Divine nature or the habituall righteousnesse of the humane nature I do not now dispute Therefore I do not mean that all Christs personall righteousnesse was only preparatory to his satisfaction and merit when I speak of his being furnished with a personall Righteousnesse though I confesse I was long of that judgement See more after at pag. 45. 6. The undertaking of the Son of God to satisfie was effectuall before his actuall satisfying As a man that makes a purchase may take possession and enjoy the thing purchased upon the meere bargaine made or earnes paid before he have fully paid the sum To this purpose most understand that in Rev. 13. 8. whose names were not written in the book of life of the lambe slaine from the foundation of the World But I doubt not but Weemse his interpretation is the plaine truth that the words from the foundation of the World have reference to the writing of their names in the book of Life and not to the slaying of the Lambe as being thus to be read whose names were not written in the book of life of the slain Lambe from the foundation of the World It hath the same sence with Rev. 17. 8. which doth expound this in leaving out the mention of the slaying of the Lambe 7. I know mans guilt and â—â—â—igation to suffer is but Metaphorically called his debt Therefore when we would search into the nature of these things exactly wee must rather conceive of God as the Lawgiver and Governour of the World then as a creditor lest the Metaphor should mislead us Yet because it is a common a Scripture phrase and conveniently expresseth our Obligation to beare the penalty of the violated Law I use it in that sense But here we are cast upon many and weighty and very difficult Questions Whether Christ did discharge this debt by way of solution or by way of satisfaction 2. whether in his suffering and our escape the threatning of the Law was executed or dispensed with 3. And if dispensed with how it can stand with the truth and justice of God 4. And whether sinners may thence be encouraged to conceive some hope of a relaxation of the threatnings in the Gospell 5. And whether the faithfull may not feare lest God may relaxe a promise as well as a threatning 6. And lastly whether if the Law be relaxable God might not have released his Son from the suffering rather then have put him to so great torment and so have freely pardoned the offendours I shall briefly answer to all these 1. Quest. Meere and proper solution or payment is when the very same thing is paid which wâ—â— in the obligation or suffered which was threatned This payment the creditor cannot refuse nor the Ruler refuse this suffering nor to acquit the person that hath so payed or suffered Satisfaction is the paying of somewhat that was not directly in the Obligation but is given to satisfye the creditor in stead of the debt which payment the Creditor may chuse to accept and if hee do not consent to accept it though it were paid yet the debtour should not be acquit So also in regard of suffering Here we take payment and satisfaction in the strict legall sence and not in the large sence wherein they are confounded And now the Question is whether Christs suffering were the payment of the very debt or of somewhat else in its stead The resolving of this depends upon the resolving of two other quaestions both great and difficult 1. What it was which the Law did threaten 2. What it was that Christ did suffer 1. Various are the judgements
participation of that and whereby we must escape the condemnation of the Gospell which is Faith as I have opened before 5. If the Apostle should meane otherwise it were as much against your Doctrine as mine For is not Faith a work or act of ours But you will say That though Faith which is a work do justifie yet not as a work but as an instrument I answer 1. To be an actuall apprehension of Christ which you call its instrumentality is to bee a work Therefore if it justifie as it is such an apprehension it justifieth as a work 2. So also say I that subjection and obedience justifie 1. Not as works simply considered 2. Nor as legall works 3. Nor as meritorious works 4. Nor as Good works which God is pleased with 5. But as the conditions to which the free Law-giver hath promised justification and life Nay your Doctrine ascribeth farre more of the work to man then mine for you make justification an effect of your own Faith and your Faith the instrumentall cause of it and so make your selfe your owne justifier And you say your Faith justifieth as it apprehendeth Christ which is the most intrinsecall essentiall consideration of Faith and so Faith hath much of the honour But while I affirm that it justifieth onely as a condition which is an extrinsecall consideration and aliene from its essence or nature I give the glory to him that freely giveth me life and that made so sweet a condition to his Covenant and that enableth me to performe the said condition And thus I have according to my measure of understanding answered your Objections as fully as necessitated brevity would permit And for that question which you propounded about Relaxation Abrogation c. of the Law which you confesse you doe not well understand I refer you to Vossius Defens Grotii de Satisf cap. 27. where among other things hee telleth you that Apud Romanos seu ferenda esset Lex populus rogabatur an ferrivellet seu tollendae rogabatur an tolli eam placeret Hinc rogari lex dicebatur quae ferrebatur ut dicit Vlp. Tit. 1. Regal Eâdemque de causâ abrogari dicebatur cum antiquaretur c. And then he explaineth all those phrases to you out of Vlpian Lex rogatur id est fertur vel abrogatur idest prior lex tollitur vel Derogatur id est pars primae tollitur aut subrogatur id est adjicitur aliquid primae legi aut Obrogatur id est mutatur aliquid ex primâlege And so concludeth that the first Law was not abrogated but relaxed dispensed with and obrogate How farre it was executed I have shewed you in the Treatise But the last task you set me is of all the rest most ungratefull endlesse and in my judgement unnecessary viz. To answer what other men have written against some doctrines which I have here asserted 1. It is a work ungratefull to search into other mens weaknesse and mistakes to handle the truth in a way of contention or to speak in way of derogation of the labours of the learned and godly 2. And should I fall upon a confutation of every man that hath written contrary to any thing in my Book the task would be endlesse and I might stuffe a great deale of paper with words against words and perhaps adde little matter to what is already written which is a work unfit me for to undertake who have so much better work to doe and am like to have so short a time to doe it in 3. And it seemes to me a needlesse task partly because from the cleering and confirmation of the positive truth you may be enabled to answer opposers your selfe 2. The Authors which you mention doe so easily and effectually assault the doctrines mentioned that I should think no judicious man can thereby be staggered But at your request I will briefly consider them particularly The Authors which you refer me to are two D. Maccovius and Mr. Owen The points which they contradict are three 1. That our legall Righteousnesse which we have in Christ consisteth not formally in obedience to the Precept of the first Covenant but onely in satisfaction for our Disobedience This Maccovius opposeth in Colleg. Theol. par 1 Disp. 10. par 4. Disp. 9. 2. That Christ payed not the same debt which was in the first obligation but the value and so the Law was not properly and fully executed but relaxed This you say Mr. Owen confuteth in Grotius in his late Treatise of Vniversall Redemption lib. 3 cap. 7. p. 140. 3. That no man is actually and absolutely justified no not so much as in point of Right either from eternity or upon the meere payment of the bebt by Christ till themselves doe beleeve This you say is confuted by both of them Maccov par 3. Disp. 16. par 1. Disp. 17. Et owen ubi supra If mens names did not more take with you then their Arguments you might have spared me this labour But briefly to the first of these I answer 1. Most passages in Maccovius doe affirm but that Christ obeyed for us as well as suffered for us and who denyeth that 2. Of those passages which yet goe further there is few of them that say any more then this that Christs active Righteousnesse did merit for us that life and glory which is given by the New Covenant more then we lost by breaking the Old But this is nothing to our Question which is onely about justification For I have cleared to you before that Justification is properly and strictly taken one of those acts whereby we are recovered from the condemnation of the Law and set in statu quo prius and not one of those acts which give us that additionall glory which is Adoption Union Glorification 3. Those few Arguments which yet doe drive higher then this are so fully answered already by Mr. Gataker against Lucius Gomarrus c. and Mr. Goodwin notwithstanding Mr. Roboroughs Answer and divers others that I am resolved not to lose so much time and labour as to doe that which is better done already then can be expected from me 4. Onely one argument more then usuall I finde in part 1 Disput. 10. And which I confesse deserveth a speciall consideration And that is this If Christ onely suffered for us then the righteousnesse of Adam had hee continued in innocency would have been more excellent then the righteousnesse of Christ For the law requireth obedience principally and suffering but per accidens But the consequence is false because else Christ hath not set us in as good a state as we fell from To this I answer 1. This righteousnesse may be termed excellent in severall respects 1 In reference to its Rule 2. Or in reference to its Ends. The 1. denominateth it Good in it self The second denominateth it good to us Now the Rules to measure it by are two 1. The neerest inferiour Rule which is the
168. that while wee are busie in examining our forefathers inventions and posterity imployed in trying our examinations neither we nor they have much time to adde any thing for the increase of Learned Knowledge Whence you may guesse at one cause why many Sciences for some thousands of yeares have kept one pitch and not growne above that dwarfish stature that they had in their infant invention and also what the reason is that many that read most prove not the deepest Schollers for no greater impediment to exact Learning then to make use of other mens understandings and neglect our owne I speak not this as if I had overcome these impediments any more then others but because I have perhaps more beene hindred by them and so take my selfe bound to warne thee of the pit that I have falne in And with all to let thee know that if godly men themselves while they lye in these snares shall oppose any truth in this Tract it is no wonder but a thing to be expected To give thee the History of the conception and nativity of these Aphorismes the reason why I trouble the world with more Bookes which I blame in others understand that this is but an Appendix to another Treatise going to the Presse on a more excellent Subject Also that having occasion therein to touch upon Matth. 25. 35. I was desired to explaine in what sence it is that Christ giveth the reason of his sentence in judgement from mens works In answer hereto and to cleare some other incident doubts of the like nature I wrote these Positions or Aphorismes which when some had got they complained of obscure brevity and desired some fuller explication which when I had done that which before was but two or three leaves annexed as an Appendix to the fore-mentioned Treatise did swell to this bignesse that I was faine to let it goe alone Could I have got Copies enow for my owne friends whom I am bound to instruct other men had not beene like to have been troubled with it If thou please thou mayest let it passe without thine observation If otherwise it is so small that it will take up but little of thy time to read it nor adde much to the common burden Some few passages here are which I am not so cleare and confident in my selfe As the nature of the Death threatned in the first Covenant The necessity of the punctuall performance or execution of all threatnings The interest of Christs Active Obedience to those Laws which did binde men in innocency in the work of satisfaction as conjoyned with his Passive Obedience to make up the same price But as these are but few so I am not utterly at a losse concerning them but seeme to discerne a strong probability of what I have written therein For you my Friends whom Christ hath committed to my Teaching and Oversight as to an unworthy Vsher under him in his Schoole and Steward in his House and of his Mysteries I publish this for your sakes and use 1. Because I have still thought that points controverted are better written than preached and read than heard especially where the greatest part of the Auditory is uncapable of understanding them 2. Yet is this Doctrine of so great concernment and so neer the Foundation that of all the controversies agitated in the Church there 's few that doe better deserve your study and few that I am so loath you should be ignorant of It is my exceeding joy that God hath kept you in his distracted age from doting about questions that engender strife and hath given you to cleave to the most fundamentall undoubted and practicall Truths and to spend your time in practice and peace and promoting the salvation of the ignorant about you when others are taken up in censuring their brethren renting the Church opposing the truth or wrangling about lesser things which are quite above their understandings Hold on this way and if you have not in it more Communion with Christ more growth in Grace and on your Death-beds a more comfortable review of your lives and at last a better reckoning made thereof then the other then say I have deceived you Yet as I would have you neglect no truth so especially what time â—ou can spare for controversie let it chiefely be spent upon these that are so weighty Be ashamed that men shâ—uld heare you disputing about Circumstantiâ—lls of Discipline Baptisme Supper c. before you know how to bee justified before GOD or understand the Doctrine of the Covenants Redemption Faith Obedience c 3. The Bookes that are written of justification are many and some great which I knew you had not time to read and if you did perhaps would lose much of your labour as I have done Therefore I desired to set the most necessary part before you in a narrower compasse I never intended the full handling of the Doctrine of justification these Apherismes being but for the Answering of a particular Question Especially what is in Master Bradshaw I omit because I expect that you will read and study him the Book being so small and of such singular worth containing as much as the greatest Volumes In some places I have omitted the proofe of my Assertions partly because they seemed plaine or to be the evident consectaries of former Positions partly for brevâ—ty and partly because it is for your use to whom I am yet at hand to cleare what you doubt of and who I hope doe understand that to take upon trust from your Teachers what you cannot yet reach to see in its owne evidence is lesse absurd and more necessary than many doe imagine Moreover knowing that I must shortly put off this Tabernacle and be taken from you I thought good to use this endeavour that you may bee able after my departure to have these things in your understandings and remembrance 2 Pet. 1. 14. 15. And while I am in this flesh I shall not cease to admonish you and pray on your behalfe that you may beware lest yee also being led away with the errour of the wicked fall from your owne stedfastnesse but may grow in Grace and in the Knowledge of our LORD and SAVIOVR JESUS CHRIST Nor shall I desire any greater Honour or Advancement on this Earth than with Abilitie Sinceritie and Successe to be A Servant of Christ in the work of your Salvation RI. BAXTER Kederminster Novemb. 17. 1648. APHORISMES OF JUSTIFICATION With their Explication Annexed Wherein also is opened the Nature of the Covenants Satisfaction Righteousnesse Faith Works c. THESIS I. GOd hath first a Will of purpose whereby he determineth of Events what shall be and what shall not be de facto Secondly And a Legislative or Preceptive Will for the government of the Rationall Creature whereby he determineth what shall be and what shall not be de jure or in point of duty and in order thereto concludeth of Rewards and Punishments EXPLICATION THis
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
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