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
to be false But yet by such grounds they may very easily overthrow the safety also of unbeleevers while they teach them how to comfort themselves without Faith or to look at all out of themselves in Christ and so to silence the accusation of both Covenants by producing only the Righteousness of one THESIS LII WE must not plead for our Iustification that Christ hath made us free from the very fact nor 2 from the sinfulness of the fact nor 3 from its desert of punishment If Christ had done any of this for us he must verifie Contradictories But we must plead that the penalty is not due to our persons notwithstanding the fact and its sinfulness and demerit because Christ hath satisfied for all this EXPLICATION SO Mr Anthony Burgess in his book of Justif. pag 19. affirmeth as much though some take it for hainous doctrine 1. That the fact should be done and not done is a contradiction 2. So is it That the fact should be sinful and not sinful 3. Or that it should deserve death and not deserve it Or that it should be a sin against that threatening Law and yet not deserve the penalty threatened Besides if any of these three could have been taken off what need Christ have dyed But that which Remission and Justification freeth us from is the dueness of punishment to our persons notwithstanding the dueness of it to the sin because what is due to the sin is inflicted on the person of another already even Christ. So that you see in what sence Christ taketh away sin and guilt which you must observe lest you run into the Antinomian conceit That God seeth not sin in his justified ones When we say therefore that God looketh on our sins as if they had never been committed the meaning is that in regard to punishment they shall have no more power to condemn us then if they had never been committed THESIS LIII THe offending of God and the desert and procuring of punishment are not two distinct effects of sin as some make them nor is the removal of the curse and punishment and the obtaining of Gods favour two distinct parts of our Iustification EXPLICATION THis is plain because Gods displeasure against our persons for his dislike of the sin is never taken off is a chief part of our punishment and therefore not to be distinguished from it but as the Species from its Genus And so when all the punishment is removed then Gods displeasure or the loss of his favour must needs be removed Therefore that Justification in this differs from Remission of sin I cannot yet think as that godly and learned Servant of Christ whom I honour and reverence Mr Burgess of Iustificat pag. 259. doth That Justification besides the pardon of sin doth connote a state that the subject is put into viz. a state of favour being reconciled with God Because even Remission it self doth connote that state of favour For if the loss of Gods favour be part of the punishment and all the punishment be remitted then the favour which we lost must needs be thereby restored Indeed there is a two-fold Favour of God 1. That which we lost in the fall 2. More super-added by Christ besides the former restored Of these in the following Position THESIS LIV. REmission Iustification and Reconciliation do but restore the offender into the same state of freedom and favour that he fell from But Adoption and Marriage-Vnion with Christ do advance him far higher EXPLICATION THe three former are all concomitant consequents of one and the same Act of God by his Gospell The freedom from obligation to punishment is called Remission the freedom from Accusation and Condemnation is called Justification and the freedom from enmity and displeasure is called Reconciliation which are all at once do all denote but our Restauration to our former state Adoption and Marriage-Union do add the rest Some may blame me for putting Union among the relative Graces and not rather among those that make a real physicall change upon us as Sanctificition and Glorification But I do herein according to my judgment whereof to give the full reasons here would be too large a digression I know that Caspar Streso and divers others do place it in an unconceivable unexpressable medium between these two which yet must be called a Reall Union more then a Relative though not Physicall I will not now stand on â—his 〈◊〉 knowledg a Reall Foundation of a Relative Union and a Reall Communion following thereupon But am very fearfull of coming so near as to make Christ and sinners one reall Person as the late elevated Sect among us do lest blasphemously I should deifie man and debase Christ to be actually a sinner And if we are not one reall Person with Christ then one what It sufficeth me to know as abovesaid and that we are one with Christ in as strist a bond of relation as the wife with the husband and far stricter and that we are his body mysticall but not naturall That we shall be one with him as he is one with the Father is true But that as doth not extend the similitude to all respects but to a truth in some THESIS LV. BEfore it be committed it is no sin and where there is no sin the penalty is not due and where it is not due it cannot properly be forgiven therefore sin is not forgiven before it be committed though the grounds of certain Remission be laid before EXPLICATION FOr proof of this I refer you to Master Burgess of Iustificati Lect. 28. THESIS LVI BY what hath been said it is apparent That Iustification in Title may be ascribed to sever all Causes 1. The principall efficient Cause is God 2. The Instrumentall is the Promise or Grant off the new Covenant 3. The Procatarctick Cause â—o far as God may be said to be moved by any thing out of himself speaking after the manner of men is fourfold 1. And chiefly the Satisfaction of Christ. 2. The Intercession of Christ and supplication of the sinner 3. The necessity of the sinner 4. The opportunity and advantage for the glorifying his Iustice and Mercy The first of these is the Meritorious Cause the second the morall perswading Cause the third is the Objective and the fourth is the Occasion 2. Materiall Cause properly it hath none If you will improperly call Christs Satisfaction the remote matter I contend not 3. The formall Cause is the acquitting of the sinner from Accusation and Condemnation of the Law or the disabling the Law to accuse or condemn him 4. The finall Cause is the Glory of God and of the Mediator and the deliverance of the sinner 5. The Causa sine quâ non is both Christs Satisfaction and the Faith of the justified EXPLICATION HEre it will be expected that I answer to these Questions 1. Why I call the Gospell the Instrumentall Cause 2. Why I call Christs Satisfaction the meritorious Cause
APHORISMES OF JUSTIFICATION With their Explication annexed Wherein also is opened the nature of the Covenants Satisfaction Righteousnesse Faith Works c. Published especially for the use of the Church of Kederminster in Worcestershire By their unworthy Teacher RI. BAXTER Hebr. 9. 15. And for this cause he is the Mediator of the New Testament that by meanes of death for the Redemption of the transgressions under the first Testament they which are called might receive the promise of eternall inheritance HAGUE Printed by Abraham Brown Anno 1655. To the Learned zealous Faithfull Ministers of Jesus Christ Mr. Richard Vines Master of Pembroke-Hall in Cambridge and Mr. Anthony Burges Pastor of Sutton-Cold-field in Warwickshire Members of the Reverend Assembly of Divines my very much valued Friends and Brethren in the work and Patience of the Gospel Most Dear Brethren I Never well understood their meaning who crave Patronage to their Writings from the meere great ones of the times If they need or desire a borrowed honour methinks they quite mistake their way and go for water to the top of Teneriffe which they should seek in the valleys or stillflowing Springs To give them our Writings to instruct them is agreeable to our Office and duty but to submit them to their censures or crave the protection of their Greatnesses and prefix their names as the Signatures of Worth as if Truth did ever the more dwell within where this gilded sign is hang'd without this seemeth to me to be as needlesse as absur'd The self-idolizing sin of Pride is so naturall to all men especially when furthered by dignities and wordly pomp that they are apt enough without a tempter to take themselves for the summum genus in every Predicament as well as their owne A little help wil mount them above their Teachers and a little more above Ordinances but the top of the ambition is to be above God that on them as the Alpha all may depend and to them as the Omega all may ascribe I think it a more needfull work not for our honour but their own safety to make them understand that Princes and Parliaments are Schollers in that Schoole where Christ is the Master and we his Ushers and that at least in respect of our Nuncupative Declarative power we are their Rulers in spirituals whom they are bound to obey Heb. 13. 7. 17. and that all Ministers are Bishops or Overseers in the language of the holy Ghost Act. 20. 28. Phil. 1. 1. c. and not the servants or pleasers of men Gal. 11. 10. They leave us the bare name of their Teachers so that we will teach them nothing but what they have taught us first and leave out the hard sayings which they cannot beare For my part though I have found as much respect from such as most yet have I known very few of the most Religious great ones but if I would deal but half as plainly as my commission and patterns doe require I should quickly turne their respect into indignation If the old round dealing Prophets and Apostles were among us I doubt some pious Gentlemen would take them for sawcy proud pragmatical fellowes and would think their tongues though not their revenues did need a reformation All this is no blemish to Magistracie the Ordinance of God but to humane nature that for the most part can as ill beare a high estate as a mans brains can endure to stand on the pinacle of a steeple Nor is this to blame any due honor to such but to excuse my selfe that I employ not my breath to fill any empty bladder For you who are low and full I suppose the acknowledgement of your worth is lesse dangerous As I am more beholden to Reason and Religion then to Greatnesse so doe I feel them command my esteem and affections most powerfully Your names therefore have I chosen to prefix to this paper 1. As acknowledging you indeed fit censors of my Doctrine having alwayes valued the judgement of Aristotle in Philosophy before Alexanders and thinking your approbation more considerable then all the Lords or Commanders in the Land If you approve I shall be the more confirmed and so will my people for whom I write it who know and honour you If you disallow for I cannot conceit that there is nothing to be disallowed I shall suspect and search againe 2. I desire also hereby to acquaint the world with the reverend esteem I have of you and to shew the contemners of the ministry some examples for their confutation That they who think that England hath not as learned holy experimentall judicious humble heart-piercing Preachers as any other Nation whatsoever may look upon you and confesse their errour That for all the dissentions that have so wasted both Church and State it may appeare in you wee had some that were lovers of peace and if all had been so minded our wounds had bin heal'd That our ignorant yonglings that rush upon the Ministry who may see themselves in that glasse 1. Tim. 3. 6. may consider their distance from such as you and be humbled That those who wonder at the spreading of errors in our people may see in you we had some that taught them better And Alexander did unjustly hang Ephestions Physitian because hee dyed And that our Authors or defenders of Ieroboams worship whose fingers itch to be doing with the Prophets that gain say them may see what manner of men they have to deale with whose worth is sufficient to disgrace the proudest persecutors and make their names hatefull to all generations To whom I commend Sir Walter Rawleighs true observation Hist. of the world par 1. l. 4. c. 3. â— 6. If Antipater upon his conquest had carried all other actions never so mildly yet for killing Demosthenes all that read his eloquent Orations doe condemn him for a bloody Tyrant to this day Such grace and reputation doe the learned Arts finde in all civill Nations that the evill done to a man famous in one of them is able to blemish any action how good soever otherwise it be or honorably carryed To such ends as these have I here prefixed your names and not to interesse you in the dishonour of the imperfections of this slender Tractate Farewell Reverend Brethren and go on to be exemplary in all spirituall excellencies And that the Lord of the Harvest would send forth more such and lengthen and succeed your labours to his Church is the hearty prayer of Your unworthy fellow-servant RI. BAXTER Apr. 7. 1649. To the Reader THe slow progresse of knowledge and the small addition that each age doth make to the foregoing both in common Sciences and Divinity doth seem a wonder to many Among many others these foure are no small impediments to this desirable increase 1. Every ignorant empty braine which usually hath the highest esteem of it selfe hath the liberty of the Presse whereby through the common itch that pride exciteth in men to seeme
if there must be one cause of introducing light and another of expelling darkness or one cause to take away the crookedness of a line and another to make it streight 11. The like vain distinction it maketh between delivering from death and giving title to life or freeing us from the penalty and giving us the reward For as when all sin of omission and commission is absent there is no unrighteousness so when all the penalty is taken away both that of pain and that of loss the party is restored to his former happiness Indeed there is a greater superadded decree of life and glory procured by Christ more then we lost in Adam But as that life is not opposed to the death or penalty of the Covenant but to that of the second so is it the effect of Christs passive as well as of his active Righteousness So you see the mistakes contained in this first Opinion about the Imputation of Christs Righteousness to us The maintainers of it beside some few able men are the vulgar sort of unstudyed Divines who having not ability or diligence to search deep into so profound a Controversie do still hold that opinion which is most common and in credit If you would see what is said against it read Mr Wotton Pareus Piscator Mr Bradshaw Mr Gataker and Mr. Io Goodwin The other opinion about our Participation of Christs Righteousness is this That God the Father doth accept the sufferings and merits of his Son as a full satisfaction to his violated Law and as a valuable consideration upon which he will wholy forgive and acquit the offenders themselves and receive them again into his favour and give them the addition of a more excellent happiness also so they will but receive his Son upon the terms expressed in the Gospel This Opinion as it is more simple and plain so it avoydeth all the fore-mentioned inconveniences which do accompany the former But yet this difference is betwixt the maintainers of it Most of them think that Christs Passive Righteousness in the latitude before expressed is the whole of this Satisfaction made by Christ which they therefore call Iustitia Meriti and that his Actual Righteousness is but Iustitia Personae qualifying him to be a fit Mediator Of this judgment are many learned and godly Divines of singular esteem in the Church of God the more to blame some of the ignorant sort of their adversaries who so reproach them as Hereticks I have oft wondered when I have read some of them as M. Walker c. to see how strongly they revile and how weakly they dispute Sure if those two famous men Paraeus and Piscator beside Olevian Scultetus Cargius learned Capellus and many other beyond Sea be Hereticks I know not who will shortly be reputed Orthodox and if they be not mistaken all antiquity is on their side beside Calvin Vrsine and most other modern Divines that writ before this Controversie was agitated and sure they are neither unlearned nor ungodly that have in our own Country maintained that opinion witness Mr Anthony Wotten Mr Gataker Mr Iohn Goodwin and as I am informed that excellent Disputant and holy learned judicious Divine Mr Iohn Ball with many other excellent men that I know now living Some others though few do think that though Christs Righteousness be not imputed to us in that strict sense as the first Opinion expresseth but is ours under the fore-explained notion of Satisfaction only yet the Active Righteousness considered as such is part of this Satisfaction also as well as his Passive and Iustitia Meriti as as well as Iustitia Personae and though the Law do not require both obeying and suffering yet Christ paying not the Idem but the Tantundem not the strict debt it self but a valuable Satisfaction might well put the merit of his works into the payment The chief Divines that I know for this Opinion as it is distinguished from the two former are judicious and holy Mr Bradshaw and Grotius if I may call a Lawyer a Divine And for my own part I think it is the truth though I confess I have been ten years of another mind for the sole Passive Righteousness because of the weakness of those grounds which are usually laid to support the opinion for the Active and Passive till discerning more clearly the nature of Satisfaction I perceived that though the sufferings of Christ have the chief place therein yet his obedience as such may also be meritorious and satisfactory The true grounds and proof whereof you may read in Grotius de Satisfact cap. 6. and Bradshaw of Justification in Preface and cap. 13. The chief Objections against it are these 1. Object Christs Passive Righteousness being as much as the Law required on our behalf as satisfaction for its violation therefore the Active is needless except to qualifie him to be a fit Mediator I answer This objection is grounded upon the forementioned Error That Christ paid the Idem and not the Tantundem whereas it being not a proper payment of the debt but satisfaction therefore even his meritorious works might satisfie Many an offender against Prince or State hath been pardoned their offence and escaped punishment for some deserving acceptable service that they have done or that some of their predecessors have done before them And so Rom. 5. 19. By the obedience of one many are made righteous 2. It is objected That Christ being once subject to the Law could do no more but his duty which if he had not done he must have suffered for himself and therefore how could his obedience be satisfactory and meritorious for us I answer 1. You must not here in your conceivings abstract the Humane Nature which was created from the Divine but consider them as composing one person 2. Nor must you look upon the Works of Christ as receiving their valuation and denomination from the Humane Nature alone or principally 3. Nor must you separate in your thoughts the time of Christs servitude and subjection from the time of his freedom before his incarnation and subjection And so take these Answers 1. Christ Jesus did perform severall works which he was not obliged to perform as a meer Subject Such are all the works that are proper to his office of Mediator his assuming the Humane Nature his making Laws to his Church his establishing and sealing the Covenant his working Miracles his sending his Disciples to convert and save the world enduing them with the Spirit his overcoming Death and rising again c. What Law bindeth us to such works as these And what Law to speak properly did binde him to them Yet were the works in themselves so excellent and agreeable to his Fathers Will which he was well acquainted with that they were truly meritorious and satisfactory 2. Some works he performed which were our duty indeed but he was not bound to perform them in regard of himself Such as are all the observances of the
promise for it 3. Their sufferings if they will be ruled shall turn to their advantage To the sixth Question The last enemy to be overcome is death 1 Cor. 15 26. This enemy will be overcome perfectly at the Resurrection then also shall we be perfectly acquit from the charge of the Law and accusation of Satan Therefore not till the day of Resurrection and Judgment will all the Effects of Sin and Law and Wrath be perfectly removed 1 Cor. 15. 24. THESIS X. 1 MAn having not only broken this first Covenant but disabled himself to perform its Conditions for the future and so being out of all hope of attaining Righteousness and Life thereby 2 It pleased the Father aud the Mediator to prescribe unto him a new Law 3 and tender him a new Covenant 4 the Conditions whereof should be more easie to the Sinner and yet more abasing 5 and should more cleerly manifest and more highly honour the unconceiveable Love of the Father and Redeemer EXPLICATION 1 WHether Man were only the meritorious Cause of this his disability or also the Efficient is a great dispute but of no great moment as long as we are agreed that Man is the only faulty cause Whether he cast away Gods image or whether God took it from him for sin whether God only could annihilate it Or whether Man may annihilate a Quality though not a Substance I will not meddle with But too sure it is that we are naturally deprived of it and so disabled to fulfill the Law If Christ therefore should have pardoned all that was past and renewed the first violated Covenant again and set Man in the same estate that he fell from in poynt of guilt yet would he have fallen as desperately the next temptation yea though he had restored to him his primitive strength and holinesse yet experience hath shewed on how slippery and uncertain a ground his happiness would have stood and how soon he was likely to play the Prodigal again with his stock 2 God the Father and Christ the Mediator who have one will did therefore resolve upon a more suitable way of happines 3 This way as the former is by both a Law and Covenant As it is a Law it is by Christ prescribed and flatly enjoyned and either obedience or the penalty shall be exacted As it is a Covenant it is only tendered and not enforced It is called a Covenant as it is in Scripture written and offered as is said before improperly because it containeth the matter of the Covenant though yet it want the form Even as a Bond or Obligation before the sealing or agreement is called a Bond Or as a form of prayer as it is written in a book is called a prayer because it containeth the matter that we should pray for though to speak strictly it is no prayer till it be sent up to God from a desiring Soul 4 Though without Grace we can no more beleeve then perfectly obey as a dead man can no more remove a straw then a mountain yet the conditions of the Gospel considered in themselves or in reference to the strength which God will bestow are far more facile then the old conditions Mat. 11. 29 30. 1 Ioh. 5. 3. And more abasing they are to the sinner in that he hath far lesse to doe in the work of his salvation And also in that they contain the acknowledgement of his lost estate through his own former self destroying folly 5 Such incomprehensible amazing Love of God the Father and of Christ is manifested in this New Covenant that the glorifying thereof doth seem to be the main end in this design Oh sweet and blessed End should not then the searching into it be our main study and the contemplating of it and admiring it be our main employment Rom. 5. 8. Tit. 3. 4. 1 Ioh. 4. 9. Eph. 3. 18. 19. Ioh. 15. 13. No wonder therefore that God did not prevent the fall of man though he foresaw it when he could make it an occasionall preparative to such happy ends THESIS XI NOt that Christ doth absolutely null or repeal the old Covenant hereby but he super-addeth this as the only possible way of Life The former still continueth to command prohibite promise threaten So that the sins even of the justified are still breaches of that Law and are threatned and cursed thereby EXPLICATION I Acknowledge that this Assertion is disputable and dificult and many places of Scripture are usually produced which seem to contradict it I know also that it the judgement of learned and godly men that the Law as it a Covenant of works is quite null and repealed in regard of the Sins of beleevers yea many do beleeve that the Covenant of works is repealed to all the world and only the Covenant of grace in force Against both these I maintain this Assertion by the Arguments which you finde under the following Position 13. And I hope not withstanding that I extoll free Grace as much and preach the Law as little in a forbidden sence as though I held the contraty opinion THESIS XII THerefore we must not plead the repeal of the Law for our Iustification but must refer it to our Surety who by the value and efficacy of his once offering and merits doth continually satisfie EXPLICATION I Shall here explain to you in what sence and how far the Law is in force and how far not and then prove it in and under the next head You must here distinguish betwixt 1. The repealing of the Law and the relaxing of it 2. Between a dispensation absolute and respective 3. Between the alteration of the Law and the alteration of the Subjects relation to it 4. Between a Discharge conditional with a suspension of execution and a Discharge absolute And so I resolve the question thus 1. The Law of Works is not abrogated or repealed but dispensed with or relaxed A Dispensation is as Grotius defineth it an act of a Superior whereby the obligation of a Law in force is taken away as to certain persons and things 2. This Dispensation therefore is not total or absolute but respective For 1. though it dispence with the rigorous execution yet not with every degree of execution 2. Though the Law be dispenced with as it containeth the proper subjects of the penalty viz. the parties offending and also the circumstances of duration c. Yet in regard of the meer punishment abstracted from person and circumstances it is not dispenced with for to Christ it was not dispenced with His satisfaction was by paying the full value 3. Though by this Dispensation our Freedom may be as full as upon a Repeal yet the Alteration is not made in the Law but in our estate and relation to the Law 4. So far is the Law dispenced with to all as to suspend the rigorous execution for a time and a Liberation or Discharge conditional procured and granted them But an absolute Discharge is granted to
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
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
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
acknowledgeth that the payment is not made by the party to whom remission is granted and so saith every man that is a Christian 2. He saith It was a full valuable compensation therefore not of the same 3. That by reason of the Obligation upon us we our selves were bound to undergo the punishment therefore Christs punishment was not in the Obligation but only ours so the Law was not fully executed but relaxed 4. He saith he meaneth not that Christ bore the same punishment due to us in all accidents of duration and the like but the same in weight and pressure therefore not the same in the Obligation because not fully the same Not the same numerically nor perhaps specifically in all respects if the losse of Gods Love and Image and incurring his hatred the corruption of the body the losse of right to and use of all the creatures and the losse of all comforts corporall or spirituall c. were any part of the curse yet that it was in the greatest respects of the same kinde I doubt not 5. He saith God had power so farre to relax his owne Law as to have the name of a surety put into the Obligation which before was not there and then to require the whole debt of that surety And what saith Grotius more then this If the same thing in the Obligation be paid then the Law is executed and if executed properly and fully then not relaxed Here he confesseth that the sureties name was not in the Obligation and that God relaxed the Law to put it in Now the maine businesse that Grotius there drives at is but to prove this relaxation of the Law and the non-execution of it on the offenders threatned I Iudge that Mr. Owen hath no better successe in his next assault of Grotius on that question whether God manage this work of relaxing the Law punishing Christ for us c. as a Creditor or as an absolute Master or as a Judge under Lawes or as the supreme Rector the last of which Grotius maintaineth He that readeth Grotius and Vossius own words doth need no further defensative against the force of Mr. Owens Answers But this is nothing to me Onely I would not have any truth to fare the worse for Grotius his defection It was himself that deserved the discredit and not the Truth of God The third and last contradicted Article is That no man is actually and absolutely justified upon the meer payment of the debt by Christ till they become Beleevers Against this you send me to both the forementioned Authors Answ. 1. When I first cast my eye upon the two fore-cited Disputations in Maccowski I had thought he had spoke onely of the universall conditionall Justification of men when he saith that active Iustification was at the begining of the first promise But my charitable thoughts I soon saw were mistaken But I find as his Doctrine is very strange so are his proofs as slender as any mans you could have sent me to 1. Is it not strange that Active justification should be perfected 5000. yeares before Passive justification is in being I thought Passive justification had been the mediate effect of the Active And that God had justified no man who is not thereby justified 2. And as strange and abhorred to me is the other part of his doctrine viz. That Faith onely taketh knowledge of justification formerly wrought And his Arguments are as weak as the doctrine erroneous 1. The first is Because the Object must needs go before the Act. Answ. But is it not pity that so excellent a Doctor should think that justification that not only in offer but in actuall being should be the object of justifying Faith I am ashamed to confute so sencelesse an assertion Sure it is Christ and not actuall justification that is the object When the Scripture saith that Whosoever beleeveth shall be justified is it a learned Exposition which thus interpreteth it You that are elect are already justified and if you will beleeve it you shall know it 2. He citeth Paraeus saying that Faith doth not effect justification but accept it Answ. 1. They that say Faith is the instrumentall cause of justification must needs say that Faith effectth it 2. Faith accepteth Christ for justification 3. It accepteth not justification as being actually and absolutely our owne before the acceptance But it accepteth a conditionall justification offered to me that by the acceptance it may become absolutely mine His citing of Tossanus words is nothing for him For when hee saith that All the Elect are justified in Christ in respect of the merit thereof it is no more then to say that Christ hath merited their justification which who denyeth But the great Argument which he and all of his judgement do trust to is this If the surety so undertake or discharge the debt that the creditor rest satisfied with that undertaking or discharge then is the debtor free from the debt But Christ hath so undertaken and discharged the particular debts of the Elect therefore the Elect are freed Answ. 1. Payment is refusable or not refusable That payment which is of the same thing in the Obligation either by our selves or our Delegate is not by the Creditor refusable so that if we had paid it or Christ had been our Delegate appointed by us to pay the same that was due then God could not have refused to take that payment But Christ being appointed to this by the Father and not by us and also paying not the very same but the value God might have refused the payment 2. Where the payment is not refusable there the discharge of the debtor is not refusable but doth follow ipse facto But where the payment is refusable as here it was the Creditor may accept it upon what termes he pleases and chuse to give the Debtor an absolute discharge so that it being the full agreement and pleasure both of the Creditor and the Surety the father and the sonne that the Debtor should have no discharge by the payment but upon a certaine condition by him to be performed no doubt he shall have none till he have performed it 3. So that Gods accepting the payment and being satisfied with it may be understood 1. In respect to the Surety and the value of his payment and so God was well pleased and fully satisfied in Christs payment as bein the full value that his justice did require and beyond which he expected no more at his hands 2. Or it may be spoken in reference to the debtor the sinner and the effecting of his freedome And so God was not immediately upon Christs payment so satisfied or well pleased with the particular offenders as to deliver and discharge them without requiring any thing at their hands 1. For he will first have them perform the imposed condition of taking Christ who hath bought them for their only Saviour Husband and Lord. To these of Maccovius Mr. Owen in
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