to this day § 8. God doth not impute Adam's Sin to us because he will do it without any real participation of ours no nor beyond our true natural participation but according to it Otherwise God should have made us sinners meerly because he â—ould do so and not Adam § 9. We receive our Original Guilt and Pravity immediately from our next Parents and but remotely from Adam It could never have come to us but through them from whom we receive our Nature from them we receive the guilt and pravity of our Nature § 10. Therefore thus far at least our next Parents communicate Guilt and Pravity to us and not Adam only In which we see that God's Imputation goeth along with real Natural Participation § 11. It seemeth to me a strange oversight in too many Divines who deny or observe not our Guilt of all the rest of our Parents Sins while we were in their Loins as well as of Adam's seeing 1. there is that same reason of both save what the change of the Covenant maketh of which after And 2. Scripture is so full and express about it § 12. 1st If I have a guilty and deprayed Soul from my Parents it is because I was once in them Virtually or Seminally as truly and naturally as I was in Adam And had not the Guilt been theirs it had never been miâ—e And if it be mine because it was theirs why not one part of theirs as well as another § 13. It will be said Because God so Covenanted with Adam that he should stand or fall for himself and his Posterity I Answer That there was any such Covenant that if he stood his Posterity should all stand or be Confirmed and Saved is more than ever I found in Scripture or can prove or do believe But that it would have been to the benefit of his Posterity I doubt not And that his fall was to the Guilt and Corruption of his Posterity I doubt not but as I said not without and beyond their natural Interest in him and Derivation from him as the reason of it And we were as much naturally in our next Parents And the Covenant of Innocency and the Covenant of Grace do not so far differ as to exempt us from the Guilt of our next Parents sins For the difference lieth not in this That the first only made Death the due reward of all Sin nor that the first did interest Children in the Guilt of their Parents sin But in this that the first made us Guilty without a Remedy But the second giveth us a Remedy presently for Pardon and Recovery and so our Guilt is not so full because it is but a half Obligation having the Pardon annexed The first Law said If thou sin thou shalt be filius mortis and so shall those that are Propagated of thee The second Covenant saith For thy Original and Actual Sin death is thy due but I give thee a Pardon and Remedying Grace procured by the Righteousness of Christ. But note That this Covenant pardoneth our Original Sin as from Adam And yet it followeth not that we had none because it is pardoned Even so it pardoneth our guilt of our next Parents sins and therefore we had it to be pardoned Both are pardonable to us therefore we had both § 14. 2. And the Scripture is more copious and as plain in making punishment due to Children for their next Parents sins as for Adam's though Adam's only was the Original of all Sin and Misery I have elsewhere proved it at large The Case of Cain's Posterity and Cham's and Ishmael's and Esau's and Achan's Family and Ahab's and many more do fully prove it And more fully the Second Commandment and God's declaration of his Name to Moses Exod. 34. and many a Threatning to the Seed of the Wicked and Christ's express Words in Matth. 23. 36. so that Scripture puts us out of doubt § 15. The common Objection is that their Guilt would be greater on us towards the End of the World than on them at the Beginning because all our Ancestours Guilt would be ours But I answer 1. If it were so it would be but many Obligations to the same Punishment when it amounteth to that which God seeth our Nature capable of For a Finite Worm is not capable of more Suffering than is proportioned to his Nature 2. And this Objection vainly supposeth that none of our Ancestours Sins were pardoned Whereas all are pardoned to the Faithful and their Seed and much Temporal Punishment is pardoned to many of the Unsanctified And God himself by limiting it to the third and fourth Generation seemeth to set bounds to his own Justice 3. And the Guilt of our Parents Sins being of a more Diminute Nature than that of our own Actual Sin Coeteris paribus it falleth not so fully on us as it did on the Committers themselves nor as our own do 4. And God offereth us the full pardon of our own and all together And as long as the Law which tells us of our desert of punishment doth also give us a free pardon we have no Cause to complain § 16. That we have all Original Sin is proved in that else Infants should be saved without a pardoning Saviour or a cleansing Sanctifier which cannot be § 17. He that seeth the universal inclination of Mankind to Evil even in their Childhood and their backwardness to Good even that Evil and that Good which Nature it self assureth us are such must needs believe Original Pravity or else think hardly of God's Work § 18. He that seeth still that Drunkenness Gluttony Lust c. do vitiate both the Soul and Bodily Temperament of the Sinner and how frequently a diseased distempered Body inclining Men to particular Vices and an extraordinarily vitiated Soul is in their Children the plain fruit of the Parents Sin may the easilier believe that we drew down Pravity from Adam also when we derive so much from nearest Parents § 19. And they that consider that Mans Soul being made Holy for God this unholiness is not only a Negation but a Privation not of Sensitive and Natural only but of Moral Rectitude will not deny but that the name of Sin or Moral Pravity belongeth to it § 20. And they that consider that Parents Cause not Children as an Artificer maketh an Engine but by Generation which is a Communication of their own Essence and what Natural Interest Parents and Children have in each other and that it is real Sin that is in both and that the Moral Privation in its Nature containeth much of Mans misery will easily grant that it is both a Sin and Punishment and a Moral Cause of further punishment properly enough so called § 21. They that lay that Reason of their denying Original Sin upon the difficulty of understanding whether Souls are new Created or Derived from Parents do too little suspect their frail understandings and their own â—deductions and too easily suspect the
rather calleth it than a Habit at first even in the Adult And Calvin saith That some men semen fidei qualecunque perdunt Adam had such a Holiness as might be lost And why may we not say that Infants first Grace is of such a sort or degree 2. And yet that none are saved without more but that upon this first degree they have a right to Salvation and that their further Holiness shall be given them whom God will as part of their Salvation to which they have right At furthest at death in the same time and manner as perfect Holiness and Mortification of Sin is given to Believers that are till death imperfect A loseable degree of Holiness like Adam's may be the way to more in all that so die § 23. Divines use to mention three degrees of Grace in order to Faith it self 1. So much Grace as maketh a man able to believe which they call Sufficient Grace 2. So much more as efficiently determineth him to the Act of Believing This they call effectual special Grace and Protestants call it our Vocation effectual 3. So much more as giveth him a fixed habit of Faith Love and all Holiness together This Papists call Iustification and Protestants Sanctification Vid. Amesii Medull de voc sanct Rolloc de vocat Bishop Downame against Pemble Append. to his Treatise of Perseverance c. § 24. Now some hold all these loseable some hold only the last not loseable and almost all hold the first loseable Now 1. What if we think that Infant 's first Holiness besides relative Pardon and jus ad impunitatem regnum is but of the first degree Though a meer moral Power to believe be not enough to the Adult because the Act is necessary to them yet say Protestants The Habit is not necessary to their first Covenant-Right but is given by the Spirit in sanctification as a Covenant-Benefit And why may not Infants be in a pardoned state that at first have but that Grace which giveth a moral Power to believe when they come to age Consider of the matter § 25. I have so fully elsewhere proved That Infants Church-membership was instituted both in the Covenant of Innocency in the first edition of the Covenant of Grace in the Covenant of Peculiarity with Abraham and in the last edition of the Covenant of Grace by Christ and also that God never had a Church on Earth of which Infants were not Members if the adult Members had Infants that I will now supersede that Work CHAP. XX. Of the Nature of Saving-Faith § 1. SO much of this came in before on the by as will excuse my brevity here I have before shewed That the Faith now in question is not meerly our general Belief and Trust in God as a part of our Holiness but the mediate Belief and Trust in God our Redeemer and our Saviour which is made the Condition of the Covenant the means of our sanctification And also that as the editions of the Covenant vary and promulgation of it so it is not the same degree or acts of Faith as to the particular credenda or Articles to be believed that was and is necessary to all persons in all times § 2. Though the word Belief in English and Assent in Latin signifie strictly only the act of the Understanding and Saving Faith is oft named from one act yet really that Faith which in Scripture is made the Condition of Pardon and Salvation doth essentially contain the Acts of every Faculty even Assent Consent and Affiance and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and fides do properly signifie Trust even a consenting or voluntary Trust upon believing as is afore said § 3. We do very aptly call both the Act and Object by the same name fides in Latin and Faith in English oft-times For Faith is a trusting on another's Faith Fidelity or Trustiness and so the fides asserentis seu promittentis fides credentis are related § 4. The Faith that hath the promise of our Justification is not to be called one only Physical act in specie much less in numero That were but prophanely to jest with holy things but it is a moral act or work of the Soul containing many physical acts Otherwise we should be all confounded not knowing how to distinguish of all our physical acts of Faith secundum speciem and then to know which of them is the right And it would be but some very little of the true Objects of Faith that justifying Faith must be constituted by In a word the Absurdities are so numerous that would follow that I will not be so tedious as to name them § 5. Saving Faith is such a moral work as we use to express by the names Believing Trusting Consenting Taking Accepting Receiving in Contracts personal with men If we say You shall Trust such a Physician or take such a man for your Physician all men understand us and none is so logically mad as to think that by Taking or Trusting we mean only some one physical act of the smallest distribution If we say I take this man for my King my Master my Commander or Captain or this woman to be my Wife c. every one knoweth here what Taking meaneth viz. our Consent to that Relation according to the nature and ends of it § 6. Therefore though we use divers names for this Faith and also on several occasions give several half-descriptions of it we mean still the same thing and suppose what we omit to make the description entire § 7. When we call Faith a Believing or Assent we mean such an Assent as prevaileth with the Will to accept Christ with his Grace as offered in the Gospel and consent to the Baptismal Covenant and this indeed as a fruit of the assenting act but as essential to justifying Faith § 8. When we call it Consent or Acceptance or Receiving Christ we mean that as Man's Soul hath an Intellect and Will and a true actus humanus vel moralis is the act of both but of the Intellect as directive and of the Will as more perfective or as the Faculty primarily moral so the same Faith which is initially in the intellect's Assent is perfectlier in the will's Consent And it is the Receiving of a Saviour believed or the Consent to a believed Covenant We suppose Assent when we name it Consent § 9. And when we name it Affiance or Trust we include both the former and mean a resolved practical Trust and dedition of our selves accordingly to one that covenanteth to bring us from Sin and Misery to GOD and Glory where Belief and Consent to that Covenant are supposed § 10. And the Terminus a quo and the renunciation of Competitors and Opposites is connoted if not essentially included in Saving Faith And therefore Christ doth so often tell us of forsaking all if we will be his Disciples § 11. I use to express it by this similitude A Prince redeemeth a
extend to the Justification must extend to if perfect § 41. But no man is perfectly and absolutely just or justifiable For instance 1. If we be accused to have sinned we cannot be justified directly against this Accusation but must plead guilty by Confession For factum non potest fieri infectum and that Fact will for ever be culpable Adam did sin will for ever be a true assertion The Guilt of fact or fault is never done away in it self that it was really a fault and that we really did it will be an everlasting Truth Of which more afterward § 41. 2. If the Accusation be That in Adam we deserved Death it must be confessed Yea temporal Death and correcting Punishments are not only deserved but inflicted and not pardoned nor we justifiable herein § 42. 3. If the Accusation be that we deserved to have Abatements of Grace With-holdings of the Spirit and abatement of what Glory we might else have had all this must be confessed § 43. 4. Yea if it be said That our Sin primo instanti deserved Hell it must be confessed and against all this there is no direct Justification § 44. But against these Accusations we must be justified 1. If it be said that we are of Right to be damned or have no Right to Heaven but to Hell this must be denied And we must be justified by these several Causes 1. Because God's Iustice and the Ends of the violated Law are satisfied by Christ and by his Righteousness a free Gift of Pardon and Life are merited for us 2. And this free donation is the Law that we are to be judged by which giveth us Christ to be our Head and Pardon and Life with him § 45. 2. If it be said That we are Unbelievers impenitent or unholy and did not fulfill the Conditions of the Covenant of Grace we must deny it and be justified against this by our Faith Repentance and Holiness it self or else we must be condemned and perish for nothing else will do it § 46. And seeing it will be the work of the day to judge men as performers or non-performers of the said Conditions of the Law of Grace therefore it is that the Scripture speaketh so much of inherent or performed Righteousness and of Christ's judging men according to their works that is their works which are the performance of that Condition § 47. To be judged according to our Works is to be justified or condemned according to our Works For to be judged is the genus and to be justified or condemned are the species Iudging is justifying or condemning § 48. While all are agreed that all men shall be justified or condemned according to their Works it is unreasonable to quarrel at that height that many do about the syllable BY whether men be justified and condemned by their works as if according to them and by them had a different sence when as to judicial justification the sence is the very same though as to the making of men just the sence may differ § 49. We are commonly agreed that no man is justified by Works in any of these following sences 1. No man is justified either constitutively or judiciarily by his Works done according to the Law of Innocency that is by perfect personal Obedience and Love because we have it not 2. No man is justified constitutively or judiciarily by his Works done according to the Mosaical Iewish Law as such 3. Much less by any Works of his own or other mens invention which he accounteth good and are not so 4. No man is justified by any Works set in opposition to or competition or co-ordination with Christ but only in subordination to him and his Righteousness by which we are redeemed and for which we are all first conditionally pardoned and justified by the Law of Grace 5. No man could be justified by his Gospel-Obedience or his Faith if he were to be judged by the Law of Innocency as not redeemed 6. No man's Faith or Obedience will justifie him in Judgment against this accusation Thou art a Sinner or this Thy sin deserved Death Nor as one that hath fulfilled all the preceptive part of the law of Christ. 7. No Works do justifie us as meriting Life of God in proper commutative Justice 8. No man is justified by Tasks of working as contradistinct from believing and trusting on Free Grace or by external works without Christ's Spirit and spiritual Evangelical Duties 9. No good Work or Act of Man was a Condition of God's giving us a Redeemer or giving us a conditional justifying Law of Grace 10. Man's true Faith and Repentance is not before the Grace which worketh it and therefore is no Condition of that Grace 11. Man's antecedent common Works while he is impenitent merit not properly the special Grace which causeth Faith and Repentance 12. We have no Works that are acceptable to God but what are the fruits of his Spirit and Grace § 50. And on the other side we are agreed 1. That we are justified by the Works of Christ as the Meritorious Cause of our Justification 2. That the Justification purchased and given us by Christ is given us by a Law or Covenant of Grace which giveth as God's Instrument Right to Impunity and to Life to all true penitent Believers And therefore he that is justified according to this Law of Grace from the charge of Impenitence and Unbelief must be justified by his Repentance and Faith materially as being the Righteousness in question as is aforesaid 3. That without Holiness none shall see God And if any be accused as unholy and on that account no Member of Christ or Child of God or Heir of Heaven his Holiness must be the matter of his Justification 4. That though our Faith Repentance and Holiness be no universal absolute Righteousness yet they are that on which the judiciary Scrutiny must pass and which will be the question of the great day on which our Life or Death will depend as on the Condition or moral Qualification of the Receiver 5. That in this sence all men shall be judged by Justification or Condemnation according to their Works or what they have done that is as they have performed or not performed the Conditions of that Law of Grace which they were under as aforesaid 6. That therefore they that will be justified at last must trust in Christ that redeemed them and be careful to perform the Conditions of his Law of Grace and both must concurr 7. That that which is the Righteousness which must justifie us in Judgment is the same that must now constitute us just 8. That when our Right to Salvation is the thing in question to be judged that which justifieth our Right to Salvation justifieth the Person as to that Right and so far the same thing is the Condition of our Right to Salvation and to our Justification 9. And if any with Augustine will mean by Iustification God 's making us such
he sinned if he performed not one Act of Love and Obedience to his Maker This Fancy I dismiss § 17. Others say That if he had overcome one Temptation he should have been confirmed but I find no Promise or Proof of it in Nature nor in Scripture and I suppose they feign not a secret conditional Will of God § 18. Though it be agreed on by most Protestants That Adam had been an Heir of Death and Hell if he committed the least Sin even an idle thought or word though he had not eaten the forbidden Fruit and so that the Law of Nature made Hell the due punishment of the least Sin and doth so still if it be not pardoned yet the Law of Nature in our lapsed state is herein somewhat dark and the Scripture not so clear for it as some imagine But thus much methinks Nature it self still speaketh § 19. 1. That the least sin deserveth some degree of Punishment 2. That God hath various degrees of Punishment suited to the degrees of Sin 3. That the least Sin hath a tendency to more and that still to more till Man be utterly miserable And that both in its own Nature and in the forfeiture of some measure of God's Grace or Help 4. That if you suppose that vain thought or word to consist still with true Love to God God could not immediately hate and damn that Soul that so loved him But if that Person perish it must be by that idle thought or word producing worse till it had turned his love from God to the Creature 5. That antecedently to Gods undertaking to be the Ruler of Man no doubt but as an absolute Owner he might have taken away all that he gave him even his Life and Being without any fault in Man for he may do as he list with his own And therefore he might have done the same for the smallest fault which he might have done without it And therefore he might have inflicted any Pain which to Man is not worse than Annihilation for ever But whether his three forementioned Acts 1. Antecedently placing Man as he did 2. Making him such Duty as he made him 3. And such Inclination to better do not imply that God would not punish him unless he sinned and then but according to the degree of his Sin I leave to Consideration § 20. But whether God must and whether he might punish the least Sin with Hell are different questions Whether by the Law of Nature he must do it or be unjust and so a vain thought was not pardonable by or under that Law and so Adam was an Heir of Hell when his thought first failed before he did eat or consent to eat the forbidden Fruit are questions which I cannot resolve from Nature and are to me more difficult in Scripture than to wiser men § 21. The supernatural part of the Law is known to us only by Scripture but perhaps the Fathers before the Flood might know more of it by Tradition than God hath thought meet to write for our times § 22. The preceptive part was the not eating the forbidden Fruit and consequently the overcoming all Temptations thereto The Law of Matrimony and the Sabbath also are partly supernatural called Positive § 23. The Penalty is called Death which signifieth Undoing and Misery But whether it was only temporal Death or also Hell Divines are not agreed They that are for the former seem chiefly drawn to it by comparing the Law with the Iudgment and Execution thinking it indecent to say that God fulfilled not his Threatning but dispensed with it And therefore seeing Temporal Death only is in the Sentence and Execution they think that no more was meant And consequently that Christ did not by Redemption prevent the sentence and execution of that Death but only when it was fulfilled deliver us from continuance under it by a Resurrection § 24. But I would have such remember 1. That the Soul was made naturally immortal that is not tending to Annihilation unless God should against Nature or settled Course annihilate it And if it were not annihilated it must be in some state good or bad If it was to be penally annihilated Christ prevented that And such an annihilation is as little desirable as a tolerable degree of Pain 2. And that God's Law determining directly but de debito poenae what should be Man's due and not absolutely and peremptorily then de eventu God reserved to himself a pardoning Power so it were done upon valuable Considerations more fully glorifying him and his Government and Law than Man's Destraction would have done And thus to dispense with his Law is no dishonour to God § 25. It is the Wrath to come that Christ delivereth us from and Hell and the Power of Satan that he redeemed us from Therefore it seemeth that it was no less that our Sin deserved And spiritual death is contained in Sin and Apostacy it self § 26. What the Reward was to be besides what I said before from Nature it is not easie to gather out of Scripture nor to find there any plainer a Promise of Life but in both I think it is certainly implied § 27. It is ordinary to say That the Condition of Adam's Confirmation was That he should have eaten first of the Tree of Life But to find that among the Commands much less the Condition with a Promise of Confirmation requireth more discerning than I have notwithstanding the words Lest he eat and live c. from which they gather it § 28. How far this Law is yet in force is also difficultly disputed In brief 1. The general Command of perfect Love and Obedience for the future and the Commands of the unalterable Duties of Nature are still so far in force as to oblige us 2. But whether sub poena mortis is the doubt Punishment is due either absolutely and statedly and so it maketh it due only to the Impenitent and Unbelievers Or only in primo instanti inceptively with an annexed Remedy And so every Sin maketh Punishment so far due to the Faithful as that they have need of the Grace of Christ and the new Covenant to pardon it 3. But the premiant part of the Law of Innocency from whence it is named a Covenant is now truly null Which maketh our Divines say That the Law of Nature which they call moral bindeth as a Rule of Duty but the Covenant ceaseth § 29. This was not done by GOD but Man who ceased to be a capable Subject of that Covenant Promise or Reward And so the Condition Innocency or perfect Obedience being become naturally impossible we must not feign God to say to Sinners On condition you be no Sinners you shall live But Cessante capacitate subditi cessat promissio conditionalis transit in sententiam But of the Cessation of the Law and Covenant of Innocency see more after Sect. 5 § 32 c. § 30. They pervert this Covenant by their unproved Fictions who
capable of performing at that time though viciously indisposed it being only natural disability and not moral vicious unwillingness that hindereth Obligation But though not to do all that we can be peccare yet it is not to sin unto Death or Damnation if he perform so much as is made by Christ the Condition of life In short 1. Before mans sin he was under the proper Law and Covenant of Innocency which made perfect personal Innocency the Condition of life 2. Immediately after sinning before the Promise man was not under any Promise of life on condition of Innocency nor yet under the Command of being innocent nor of seeking and hoping for life on that Condition For upon the Impossibility these ceased without a Repeal cessante capacitate subditi But man was then under no Covenant or premiant Law But under 1. The Command of perfect Obedience for the future 2. The Obligation to Punishment not peremptory but due for every sin unless it should be pardoned on due satisfaction These two Obligations man was under between the Fall and the Promise 3. But next sinful condemned man with his said Obligation was delivered into the hands of the Redeemer who now continueth the said Law of lapsed Nature making perfect Obedience de futuro due or Death for sin in primo instanti but adding the Remedying Law of Grace giving Christ Pardon and Life to penitent Believers § 36. The Question What Punishment is due to Venial sin must be resolved from the sence of the Law that obligeth us And the Question is not what Punishment would have been due to the smallest sin if the Covenant of Innocency had continued but what is due to it by the Law of Redeemed Nature and of Grace which is in force § 37. There is a three-fold Dueness or Desert here considerable without distinguishing of which many such Questions cannot be answered 1. A Dueness of natural Congruity without any Remedy which the Law gave or took notice of So Death was due for every sin by the Law of Innocency as I think 2. A Dueness of natural Congruity with an affixed Remedy which hindereth the guilt from being compleat and fixed And such is the Dueness of punishment to the least real sin by the Law of Redeemed Nature to which the Law of Grace is annexed giving a Conditional Pardon to all the World for the Merits of the Redeemer As if God said Thy sin in strict Iustice is worthy of death but I will forgive thee if thou repent and believe in Christ. Here is so much Dueness as needeth pardon but it is virtually conditionally pardoned as soon as committed and so it is not a plenary Obligation to punishment 3. A Remediless Dueness or Guilt by natural Congruity and peremptory determination of the Law-giver And such was the Guilt of temporal death for sin against the Law of Innocency at least the eating of the forbidden Fruit for so far it is not forgiven and the Guilt of perpetual misery to impenitent Unbelievers and ungodly Ones that so die § 38. By this it appeareth that sins of meer Infirmity consistent with sincere Faith Repentance and Holiness in the second sence deserve punishment not all alike but according to the degree of the Offence But not in the first sence or the last § 39. Accordingly a great Question must be determined Whether the sins of the Faithful deserve any more than a temporal Chastisement And whether they may pray for pardon of perpetual punishment or need any such pardon Ans. The sins of the Godly deserve everlasting punishment in the second Sence or Degree of Desert or Dueness which is so far as to need a Saviour and Pardon and so as they must pray for and receive that pardon But not in the first or third Sence § 40. It is the Law of Christ or of Grace which is norma officit judicii and by which we must be judged at the last day § 41. It is of great importance in the Controversies of Justification to know whether or how far we shall be judged by the Law of Innocency or whether only by the Law of Grace He that is judged by the Law of Innocency must be justified by personal perfect perpetual Obedience not by anothers or be condemned But he that is judged by the Law of Grace must be justified by Christ's Merits and Sacrifice or Righteousness as purchasing his Grant of a Pardon and life or Right to Impunity and Glory given by the Covenant of Grace conditionally with his own performance of that Condition CHAP. XIII Of the Universality and Sufficiency of Grace § 1. IT was not only the Nature of the Elect but of all Mankind that Christ assumed in his Incarnation § 2. It was not to Adam only as the Father of the Elect but as the common Father of Mankind lapsed that God made the Promise or conditional Law or Covenant of Grace Gen. 3. 15. And so renewed it with Noah § 3. It was not the sin of the Elect only but of all Mankind that were the occasion of Christ's sufferings called by some An assumed meritorious Cause because by his consent they were loco Causae meritoriae § 4. It is not to the Elect only but for all the World as to the Tenor of it that Christ hath purchased and given a conditional Pardon of sin and a conditional Donation of Life eternal in the Covenant of Grace both of the first and second Edition That is the conditional Grant is Universal Whoever believeth shall be saved Though the Promulgation of it may have many stops § 5. It is not to the Elect only but to All that Christ hath commanded his Ministers to proclaim this Law or Covenant and offer the Benefits and require their Consent as far as the said Ministers are able § 6. It is not only to the Elect but to all Mankind that many Mercies procured by pardoning and reconciling Grace are actually given which were forfeited or not due by reason of sin against the Law of Innocency § 7. These Mercies given to all Mankind after sin and contrary to desert are not given by Gods Mercy alone without respect to the Blood and Merits of Christ But his Blood and Merits are the Cause of them as truly as of the greater Mercies of the Elect. And they that say That God doth give all these Mercies without a Saviour's Merits as the Cause prepare the way for Infidels to inferr That then he might have done so by the Mercies of the Elect. § 8. All these actual Mercies given to mankind contrary to Merit are a degree of Promulgation of the Law of Grace telling all the World That God doth not now rule and judge them meerly by the Law of Innocency but upon Terms of Mercy as is aforesaid § 9. Hereby it is signified to all the World that God is as he proclaimed his Name to Moses Exod. 34. 5 6 7. The Lord the Lord God merciful and gracious long-suffering and
abundant in goodness and truth keeping mercy for thousands forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin and that will by no means clear the guilty by false judging and that the World have no cause to despair of forgiveness as if they were under the remediless or unremedied Sentence of Damnation § 10. There are no People on Earth that are not obliged to the use of some means appointed them to be used for their full Pardon and Salvation else Despair would be their Duty and they should not be judged Sinners for neglecting any such means And were they not bound to do any thing for their own Salvation their Sin and Misery that neglect so to do would be far less than it is § 11. Therefore all People have some such Means that have a tendency to Recovery and Salvation afforded them by God § 12. They that say That all the Mercies of the Non-elect are no Mercies because through mens Sin they end in their Misery do perversely extenuate Gods Mercies and Man's Sin and teach Sinners falsely to plead in Judgment That they never abused or sinned against Mercy which God and their own Consciences will easily confute § 13. In the Controversie Whether Christ died for the Elect only or for all Mankind it seemeth to me that we little differ about the matter but only strive about ambiguous Words even about one Syllable for If to die for signifie for their sins under the reason of a Cause of Christ's Death so as Paraeus doth we must all grant that Christ died for all 2. If for signifie eorum loco in their stead so the Phrase hath yet great Ambiguity and will require a great deal of distinguishing for its due Explication The various kinds and degrees of Benefits to which the Intention is limitted do leave the word liable to various Sences Christ died so far in the stead of all Mankind as to suffer Death by his voluntary sponsion as a punishment deserved to themselves by sin to free them all from it on condition of their suitable acceptance of his Grace But if by for be meant in the civil person of all men as representing them the Word is still among Lawyers and all Writers ambiguous In a large sence he may be said to persenate or represent another who doth it but secundum quid and not simpliciter in parte aliqua vel in tantum ad hoc and not in omni vel ad omne And if any will so far stretch the Phrase and because Christ suffered in the common Nature of man will say that he suffered in every man's Person or because he had a special purpose of saving his Elect will thence say He died in the person of Peter Iohn and every elect Sinner I will not strive against mens Phrases if they will explain them soundly But in strict Sence as Representing a man or doing it in his Person signifieth that Christ so died and merited in several mens Persons as that the Law or Lawgiver doth take it to have been in sensu civili their own suffering and doing and meriting or to all intents purposes and uses all one to them as if they had so died and merited themselves thus Christ neither died nor obeyed for any man as shall be hereafter proved But if by for is meant for mens benefit or good so it is yet ambiguous and liable to a threefold sence viz. 1. Intentionally 2. Aptitudinally 3. Eventually for their good And 1. Intentionally the Controversie either speaketh of Christ's Divine Nature and Will or of the Humane Concerning the former the Question is the same with that about Election or Gods Decrees which is before spoken to viz. How far God decreed good to all men by Christ's Death As to Christ's Humane Nature and Will it will prove but an arrogant unprofitable Question Whether Christ as Man knâ—w the Names of every individual person in the World or of every one of the Elect and had a distinct Intent to save every one of those by Name that are saved It 's better let such Questions alone 2. And Aptitudinally there is no question but there is that in Christ's Sufferings and Obedience Sacrifice and Merit which is in its moral Nature adapted to the Good and Salvation of all and hath that sufficiency thereto which would accomplish it if it were duly accepted and improved 3. And as to the Event we are agreed viz. That some and not all are saved by Christ's Death and Merits but that all have great Mercies which are the fruits of these though many wilfully turn them to their Sin and Misery § 14. By all this it appeareth that it is a most unfavoury thing for men called Divines to dispute hotly That Christ did or did not die and merit for all and bitterly revile their Adversaries in the Controversie without ever explaining that one ambiguous syllable FOR or telling men what they mean And when it is well explained we scarce know how to differ § 15. For few will deny but that Christ suffered not immediately because Man sinned as if Suffering were due to him meerly because we sinned but because he undertook so to do and was obliged so to do by the Law of Mediation But remotely he suffered not only because the Elect had sinned but because all Mankind had sinned That is The Conditional Pardon and Mercies given to all Mankind are such as Christ's Sacrifice and Merits must be congruously the Causes of as well as the actual Pardon of Believers § 16. But if the stress of the Controversie be laid on Christ's personating or representing this man or that by that time this humane invented ambiguous unscriptural Phrase is explained either we shall be â—ound to be all of a mind or else some will run into an intolerable errour about Christ's dying and meriting in our civil person and our dying and meriting by his natural person or else they will dispute themselves into a Wood of Uncertainties and be lost about the sence of a word that cannot be sufficiently explained § 17. And they that will lay the stress of the Controversie on the Aptitude or the Event must be men of some singular Conceits and not of the common judgment of the Reformed Churches the Lutherans the Iesuites or the Dominicans if they will disagree for here we are commonly agreed § 18. But as far as I can discern most Contenders lay the Controversie upon the point of Divine Intention Purpose or Decree viz. Whether Christ as God did purpose to justifie and save all men by his death or else Whether he purposed to do good to all men by his death Which Purpose is nothing but God's eternal Will or Decree And why then do they make two Controversies of Election and Redemption when they mean the same in both And here methinks there cannot easily be a difference For in a few plain words whatever good Christ giveth to any that he from Eternity decreed to give them But we are agreed
Conclusion helped by Grace whereof the major only is de fide He that believeth is justified but not the Minor I believe Therefore we usually call it a fruit of Faith § 42. Some incautelous Divines in the heat of Dispute do indeed say That it is de fide divina or a Divine Word that I am a true Believer And Chamier too unhappily goeth about to prove it by saying That it is the Word of the Spirit in us which is the Word of God As if the Spirit spake in us new Articles of Faith or a new Word to be believed whose work in those that are not inspired Prophets is but 1. to cause us to believe that Word already given 2. To be a witnessing Evidence that we are God's Children by making us holy as he is holy as similitude witnesseth a Child to be his Fathers 3. And to help us to discern that Holiness or Evidence and to exercise it and to gather Comfort from such discerning it and exercise § 43. We now commonly disown all such Assertions I meet with no sober Divine that owneth them because we grant that Conclusio semper sequitur partem debiliorem But yet we find that those few that call it de fide do most of them mean no more but that it 's partly de fide because the Major Proposition is so and so they differ but about a Logical Notion § 44. Some have said indeed beyond-Sea That a man cannot believe and not know it but we know thousands may believe and yet doubt whether it be a sincere and saving sort of Faith But I have written so many Books of these matters that I here add no more CHAP. XXI Of the nature of Righteousness Iustification and Pardon § 1. THE Controversies about Justification have made a great noise but I think that those de re are few in comparison of those de nomine even among all sorts of Christians and the confounding them by unskilful Heads who have made the ignorant believe that those which are but de nomine are de re hath kindled foolish Wrath and quenched Christian Love and taken up poor Souls with a deceitful Zeal who have thought that they were contending for great and necessary Truths when it was but for Logical Notions Names and Modes of Expression over-commended to them by their several Teachers § 2. The Words Iustice Righteousness and Iustification are very ambiguous used in many sences in the Scriptures and in the Writings of Divines and in the common use of men which I have opened in so many Books and so largely as shall here excuse my breviâ—y The Sences which we are now most concerned to take notice of are these following § 3. Righteousness is considered materially or formally Materially it is 1. immediately 1. A righteous Action 2. A righteous Disposition or Habit 2. And thence a righteous Person § 4. Righteousness materially is 1. in some or other particular Action 2. Or in the main bent of Heart and Life 3. Or in Perfection The first denominateth the Person Righteous in hoc or secundum quid The second denominateth him a sincerely Righteous Man The third a perfectly Righteous Man § 5. In the notion of the material Cause is included also the Comparative or Relative State and Proportion of Actions When the Action is duly qualified and modified in its physical Nature and Circumstances it is materially just § 6. The form enquired of is Quid morale And it is the Relation of the Action and Habit and Person as congruous to the justitia mensurans or the Rule of Righteousness The Rule or Law first maketh jus vel debitum and saith This shall be your Duty and your Neighbour's Due and declareth God's Due And the jus being constituted by the Law natural or positive that which agreeth to it is jâ—stum So that Righteousness formally is a moral Relation resulting from the physical mode and relation of Actions and Habits as compared with the Law or Rule A moral Relation founded in a physical Congruity § 7. Righteousness is both materially and formally distinguishable as towards God or Man Materially as it is God or Man that we deal â—ustly or injuriously by Formally as it is God himself or Men ruling under him who give us Laws and make the debitum vel jus or dispose of Propriety § 8. Righteousness towards God being Relative to his Laws is to be distinguished according to the several Laws that men are under and according to the several parts of the Law which give the word divers Sences § 9. 1. Righteousness as related to the Precept as such is nothing but Obedience whether partial sincere or perfect He that doth righteousness is righteous § 10. 2. Righteousness related to a meer Condition of Pardon or Salvation c. is the performance of that Condition which may be the Causa judicanda § 11. 3. Righteousness as related to the premiant or donative part of the Law or Promise is our jus ad praemium our Right to that Reward or Gift § 12. 4. Righteousness as relative to the penal part is our jus ad impunitatem or when punishment is not due to us according to that Law § 13. 1. Righteousness as related to the Precept of the Law of Innocency is materially perfect personal continued Obedience to our Creator § 14. 2. Righteousness as related to the Condition of that Law is the same because nothing but the said perfect Obedience is there made the Condition of Life § 15. 3. Righteousness related to the rewarding part of that Law is right to that Life which is there promised that is to God's Love and Felicity § 16. 4. Righteousness related to the Penalty of that Law is a Right to Impunity as to the Death which it threatneth to Sinners § 17. 1. Righteousness as related to the meer preceptive part of the Law of Grace is also perfect Obedience for the future not Innocency as to the time past for even Christ maketh perfect Obedience our Duty though he pardon sin § 18. 2. Righteousness as related to the Condition of the Law of Grace is sincere Faith and Repentance as the Condition of our first Right to the present Gifts of the Covenant and also sincere Love and Obedience to the end as the Condition of our final Iustification and Glory § 19. 3. Righteousness as related to the Reward of the Law of Grace is our Right to our Relation to the Father Son and Holy Ghost and all the Gifts of the Covenant Christ Grace and Glory § 20. 4. Righteousness as related to the penal part of the Law of Grace is our Right to Impunity as to the Punishment threatned specially by that Law § 21. The meritorious Cause of both these last our Right to Impunity and to Life is the Righteousness of Christ for the sake of which the Condonation and Donations of the Covenant of Grace are given us § 22. This Righteousness of Christ is his fulfilling the Conditions
no Cause nor Dependance upon any Creature § 12. But there are other Acts of God's justice which are comprized in Reprobation or Rejection as the word is commonly understood As 1 Cutting off a sinner untimely in his Impenitency 2. Denying him some inward helps of Grace which once he had or was fair for so far as that is quid positivum and depriving him positively of some Means of Grace for his sinful refusal or abuse or for abuse of other Means and Mercies And all these punishments God so far decreeth as he Executeth which is upon none but such as by sin against the Law of Grace deserve them § 13. But where Negations are no Punishments nor Privations they fall not under the notion of Positive Effects or Objects and so are not fit to denominate a Positive Decree or Will Therefore when it is not a Punishment Not to give Faith Repentance Preaching c. is no act of Reprobation As not to give that Faith Repentance and Pardon which he needed not to Adam in Innocency not to give them in act to Infants c. § 14. Yea when a Penal Privation is only the consequent of God's not Acting and not of any Positive Act there the Ratio Poenae is of God and is quid positivum and God causeth it by that Law which did make the debitum poenae But yet the Negation or Privation in which it consisteth is Nothing or nothing of God's causing and therefore not fit to denominate a distinct Decree e. g. Not to give special Grace Pardon Iustification Glory to Iudas is nothing and so as nothing not the object of a positive Decree But both the positive acts by which any Mercy is withdrawn and also the relation of Punishment which is in these Nothings or Privations is caused by God and therefore Decreed by him As if God say This shall be his punishment that will not Eat that he shall die of Famine Here not eating is nothing but the penal reason which is in Famine which is but the privation of Meats resulteth from the Law of Nature and will of God § 15. By all this it appeareth that Election and Reprobation go not pari passu or are not equally ascribed to God For in Election God is the Cause of the means of Salvation by his Grace and of all that truly tendeth to procure it But on the other side God is no cause of any sin which is the means and merit of Damnation nor the Cause of Damnation but on the supposition of Man's sin So that sin is foreseen in the Person Decrâ—e'd to Damnation but not Caused seeing the Decree must be denominated from the Effect and Object But in Election God decreeth to give us his Grace and be the chief Cause of all our Holiness and doth not elect us to Salvation on foresight that we will do his Will or be Sanctiâ—ied by our selves without him Therefore Augustin Prosper and Fulgentius still make this difference That the decree of Damnation goeth on foresight of sin but the Decree of Salvation containeth a Decree to give that Grace that shall certainly Save us An ANSWER TO Mr. Polehill's Exceptions about Futurition SIR IAm much chidden already for writing many Books and Answering so many that object and am told That if the Case well Stated will not satisfie men no Answer will do it bâ—eause it is for want of their Receptive Capacity which long and right Studies must help them to and not a meer Answer to their Objections I very highly value the worthy Gentleman whose Papers you sent me hearing of few if any among us more commended for Knowledge and Piety The question is but whether it be he or I that by half confused conceptions of the matters in question speaketh in the Dark or which of us hath the more ripe digested and ordered thoughts hereof And must others be troubled with such Cases It is those that he pleadeth for that have made the edge of the Razor so thin that they or I do Cut our Fingers with it and have spun such subtile Notions which if their wits when they have done be not subtile enough to manage they will oft slip through or be as Spiders Webs As to the first Controversie of Futurity or Possibility this Gentleman's method will do me no good being no whit fitted to that which I expect I should expect from him that he had taken notice of my Distinctions and Explications â—f Futurity and that he had directly pleaded only for that sort or sence which I deny and had Answer'd the Reasons which both in the First and Second Part I bring against it But it is not so And to Dispute at such rates is but to try who shall live longest to have the last word it being easie at this rate to talk against one another as long as we live which I cannot expect and therefore shall give any man herein the best All that he hath said against me is materially Answered in the Book already and if he perceive it not how can I help that More Books are not like to do it nor have I leisure for such tasks Yet briefly I return I. As to my sence of the words Future and Possible 1. As they are predicated of the thing future or possible they are termini diminuentes quod realitatem existentem and futurity as it is rei ipsius futuritio is nothing 2. Whether Time be any thing distinct à re durante or Nothing is a Controversie which I conjecture Mr. P 's Pen and mine are never like to decide It is enough for me now to say that I take it for nothing Distinct 3. Yet shallow man that seeth not uno intuitu the Universe as God doth nor hath his essential Eternity is in motion where there is mensura motus and must think of things by partial Conceptions and must make past present and future his differing Notions in Duration 4. The internal Conceptâ—â— in man of a thing as future that it will be is quid reale for it is an act of the mind and a Verâ—um mentis and an act dâ— niâ—ilâ— A mental Negation is a real act To think and say in the mind the World was not from Eternity Darkness Death c. are nothing are real thoughts 5. The verâ—â—â— prolatum ore vel scripto sin will be c. the Suâ— will rise c. is quid reale It is a Word a Proposition 6. The fundamentum or premises from which such a Conclusion may be fetch'd iâ— quid reale e. g. God's Will or Knowledge or any necessitating Cause 7. God that knoweth man knoweth all his mental Conceptions and his Propositions de futuro without Imperfection knowing our Imperfection and so knoweth whether they are true or false 8. God's willing and knowing that things were are or will be are all one ex parte Dei being nothing but his simple perfect Essence thus knowing and willing But ex parte rei cognitae aut
Miracles Therefore a Servant of Christ may most comfortably suffer Martyrdome for his testimony to the Deity Christianity the Life-to-come or Charity and Justice against Malice and Persecution and Cruelty which even a Miracle would not justifie more than for a disputable Opinion § 20. It 's a great Question How a true Prophet might be known antecedently before his Prophecy was fulfilled And it 's of great moment to consider the difference between a Legislative Prophet and a meer particular Message Moses and CHRIST the Legislators confirmed their Laws and Word by multitudes of uncontrouled Miracles For Life and Death lay upon mens Obedience or Disobedience to them And if a Prophet did reprove any Sin against that Law the Miracles that confirmed the Law did justifie them But if it were but a Prophecy about some other temporal Event as Ieremy's of the Captivity it needed no Miracle for it was but a temporal Suffering that followed the not believing them The Law of God which should here be handled I shall speak of afterward CHAP. VIII Of God's causing or not causing Sin § 1. HOw certainly the Doctrine of the necessity of immediate efficient physical predetermining Premotion doth make God the principal Cause of all Sin I have so oft shewed and so fully proved that I shall here be very short upon that Subject § 2. To say that God is the principal determining Cause of every sinful act with all its Objects and Circumstances called the materiale peccati and also the Cause of the Law that forbiddeth it and the Person that committeth it is to make him the chief Cause of Sin as far as it is capable of a Cause even of the formal Cause § 3. To say That such a Cause is the Cause only of the Act but not of the Obliquity is absurd because the obliquity is a Relation necessarily resulting from the Law and Act with all its modes and circumstances And the obliquity can have no other Cause § 4. To say That God willeth and loveth and causeth Sin not as Sin but for good ends and uses is to say no more for God than may be said for wicked men if not for Devils save only that God's Ends are better than theirs § 5. To say That God willeth not Sin but the Existence and Futurity of Sin is but as aforesaid to say that He wills not Sin as Sin or sub ratione â—ali but that it exist for better ends or else it is a contradiction For to will or cause Sin is nothing else but to will and cause the existence of Sin § 6. They that say That God willeth the Existence of Sin as it is summe conducibile to the Glory of his Justice and Mercy yea and that per se and not only per accidens do wrong the Glory of God's Holiness and Wisdom A Physician can love his own skill and compassion and the honour that cometh to him by curing a Disease without loving or willing the Disease it self but only supposing it as an Evil which he can turn to Good § 7. They that say That God is the Cause indeed of our Sin but is no Sinner himself because he is under no Law say nothing in the latter but what all grant and nothing in the former but what God's Church doth commonly abhorr excepting some few singular presumers § 8. They that hold That God doth by immediate physical efficient predetermining Premotion principally and unresistibly cause every sinful act with all its modes and circumstances do certainly deny all certainty of Faith and so subvert all Christianity For the formal Object of all Divine Faith is God's Veracity that God cannot lye if God could lye our Belief could have no certainty Now God speaketh to us but by inspired men and not by an essential voice of his own And if God cause as aforesaid all the Lyes that ever were spoken by Men or Devils in the World then no man can be sure that he doth not so by Prophets and Apostles or that ever they say true And God's Veracity then is gone § 9. They that think â—o evade this Evidence by the difference of Predetermination and Inspiration and say God inspireth no Lyes though he predetermine all by physical Premotion do labour in vain For 1. No man can ever prove that any Inspiration doth interest God more in the Act or Lye than physical Predetermination doth For how can God be more the Author of any Act than by effectual premoving the Creature to act it and that by immediate physical Predetermination What doth Inspiration do but so move the Mind Will and Tongue of a Prophet No man can name more that Man is capable of 2. But if there were a difference we are not capable of understanding that difference so well as to prove that God can cause all the Lyes in the World by predetermining Premotion and yet can cause none by Inspiration shall none believe him that know not this difference 3. And were it intelligible it would be only to inspired men themselves So that I am past doubt that we must part with all Certainty of Christianity and of all Divine Belief if we receive this Doctrine of Predetermination because the objectum formals fidei is then gone § 10. They that say that if we make not God the Predeterminer to every act in specie morali and in every comparative respect and mode we shall make Man a God by making him a Causa prima do thereby as much conclude God to be the first and principal predetermining efficient Cause of every wicked Habit as of Malignity or Hatred of God c. because a Habit hath as much Entity as an Act Therefore if it deifie Man to make him the first Cause e. g. of a Lye or Murder in specie then so it will do to make him the first Cause of the Habit. § 11. If it be as impossible for Man to do any thing but what he doth or not to do all that he doth without God's foresaid predetermining Premotion as it is to be Gods or to overcome God or make a World then if Men are counted Sinners and condemned it is for not doing such impossibilities for not doing what God alone can do or for not overcoming Almighty premoving Power § 12. â—t cannot rationally be expected that they that believe that God is the chief Cause and Willer of all Sin should think it very bad or themselves bad for it or that when God hath unresistibly made all men to sin he yet hateth it and sent his Son into the World to testifie his Hatred by dying for it and that he is serious in all that he saith against it in his word nor that such men should hate it and rather die than sin § 13. Therefore as the Church of God hath ever abhorred to make God the Cause of Sin and kept up the sence of the Evil of Sin for our hatred of it and departing from it and our Humiliation as a
dependent on him and still upheld by him and used under him § 7. Though some would have more Power ascribed to Nature and others appropriate more to Grace yet in this it is no Controversie How much is to be ascribed to God For both Nature and Grace and the Powers of both are totally from God But all the question is Which way God giveth it to man § 8. In general we should be most cautious 1. That we disparage not any Power or Endowment which is God's own Work whether natural or gracious 2. That we give not too much to any Work that is proper to Man § 9. Natural Power of Vital Action Intellection and Volition is supposed by God as Lawgiver in his Subjects that is that we are Men. § 10. Every act of Knowledge Faith Repentance Love and Obedience is done by our natural Powers or Faculties and none without them § 11. The word Moral Power signifieth 1. Sometimes a Power to moral actions and so natural Power in Man is also moral in some degree 2. Sometimes a Holy Disposition especially in the Will to such holy moral actions which is the Rectitude of our natural Powers or the Health of them in a saving degree or sort and is the Gift of Grace since Sin departed 3. Most frequently I use the words for such a degree of God's helping or healing Influx or Grace as is short of a Habit for promptitude and facility but yet puts the soul in such a disposition by which Man can do the Act and it may come to pass without more Grace whether it do or not which the Dominicans call Sufficient Grace and I rather call Necessary Grace 4. Sometimes it is meant as causa moralis for that which is Power Reputatively § 12. Power hath several degrees some can act easily yea is hardly restrained some can act with difficulty yet constantly some difficultly and very rarely some can act but the Impediments are so great and its weakness such as that it never will do what it can And these we call a moral Impotency as being reputative impotency in these three last degrees § 13. Sin hath debilituted Man's very natural Vivacity and Activity to things spiritual and also darkened and undisposed his Understanding to them but especially disâ—ffected him and perverted his will with an indisposition averseness and enmity to God And none of these are cured but by the Grace of Christ quickening or strengthening and awakening illuminating and converting the Soul Of which more after in due place § 14. Adam had Power to have stood when he fell God took no power from him nor let out such a Temptation as he could not resist But Sin entered at his Will and corrupted it before he lost his Power § 15. There is therefore in 〈…〉 such a thing as a true Power to do more good and less evil than we do § 16. And there was such a Power in Adam's Will by which he could have willed what he did not â—ill and by which he could have rejected the Temptation And this without any other Grace than that which he then had and used not § 17. Otherwise all the sin of Adam and the World would be resolved into the necessitating Will and Work of God and so all Faith would be subverted § 18. Therefore Man's Will was such a Faculty as could be a causa prima of the moral modification or specification of its own Acts Not a causa prima simpliciter but thus secundum quid For else God must be the causa prima of Sin which is the ill modification of that Act. § 19. I know that to Nature the Reasonings of our late Infidels to prove That every Act of the Will is as truly necessitated as the motions of a Clock do seem plansible and hard â—o answer because it seemeth strange that in any mode of Action Man should be a first Cause of it and that a Creatures Act should have no superiour Cause in any mode But on the other side the Evidence is cogent 1. That God is able to make a self-determining Power that can thus do For it is no contradiction 2. That it is congruous that below the happy Race of confirmed Spirits there should be a Race of such undetermined free Agents left much to their own self-determining Power 3. And Experience perswadeth us de facto that so it is 4. And they that deny it must unavoidably make God the prime Cause of all Sin in a higher degree than it is or can be ascribed to Satan And is all this with the rejection of Christianity more eligible than the Concession that God can and doth make a Creature with such self-determining Free-will as can as a first Cause of its modified act sin without God's Predetermination And by his help could forbear Sin when he doth not The Contest is Whether GOD or Man shall be counted the causa prima of Sin we say Man is the first Cause and GOD is none at all Some say God must be the causa prima of all that can have a Cause in it and rather than deny him the Honour which is given to Satan they will deny Christianity and deny him to be holy and to be GOD. § 20. GOD made this natural Free-will that Man might be a governable Creature fit to be morally ruled by Laws and rational Motives and as part of God's Image on Man CHAP. X. Of Original Sin § 1. BY one man Sin entred into the World and Death by Sin and so Death passed upon all in that all have sinned § 2. We were not in Adam distinct Persons really for our Persons then existed not and therefore did not inexist § 3. God doth not repute us to have been what we were not for he judgeth truly and is not mistaken Therefore he judged not Peter and Iohn to have been those Persons in Adam then nor Adam's person the same with theirs § 4. Therefore we were not then when he sinned persons guilty in Adam for Non existentis non sunt accidentia § 5. We were Seminally or Virtually in Adam when he sinned Which is but that he had that Virtus generativa from which we naturally sprang in time But to be Virtually in him is Not to be personally in him but Potentially it being as to Existence terminus diminuens § 6. As soon as we were Persons we were Persons derived by Generation from Adam Therefore with our Persons we derived Guilt and Pravity For he could beget no better than himself § 7. When Adam sinned his whole Person was guilty and no part innocent Therefore his very Semen prolificum had its part in the guilt according to its Capacity And though it was not a guilty Person it was a part of a guilty Person and a part that was the Semen personae so that when that Semen became a pâ—rson Cain it became a guilty person the guilt following the subject according to its Capacity And so downward by Propagation
of his own proper Law or Covenant of Mediation which is materially 1. His habitual 2. and actual Perfection in Resignation Obedience and Love 3. and therein his Humiliation and offering himself a Sacrifice for sin 4. And all this exalted to acceptable Dignity by the Conjunction of the Divine Perfection § 23. The Donative Covenant of Grace to Man being but a meer Instrument of Donation and Condonation that which procured it is the procuring Cause of Pardon and Life that is Christ's meritorious Righteousness § 24. Though this Covenant pardon and justifie no man till he perform the Condition and be a capable Subject by that moral Disposition yet when that Condition is performed its performance maketh us but meet Recipients and it is still the meritorious Righteousness of Christ for which we have the free gift of Pardon and Life for the performance of the Condition doth but remove the receptive Incapacity of the Patient and the suspension of the Donation § 25. Iustification signifieth 1. making us righteous and judicially justifiable 2. Iudicial Justification 1. By Plea 2. By Evidence and Witness 3. By Sentence 3. Using us as Righteous by Execution Or 1. Constitutive 2. Iudicial and 3. Executive Iustification § 26. No man of common Understanding will deny the real difference of these three And if the Name only be questioned no man will reasonably deny That in humane use the name is accordingly applicable to each And that use of it is easily proved also in the Scripture 1 Cor. 6. 11. Tit. 3. 7. Rev. 22. 11. c. And the word Righteous and Righteousness is so frequently used in Scripture for that called Inherent or Self-performed Righteousness incomparably oster than in any other Sence as will help to inform us what Constitutive Iustification is And if any dislike the Name let them call it Making us righteous if that will please them better than the word justifying § 27. Constitutive Iustification is ever first God never judged a man righteous that was not righteous § 28. No man on earth is righteous by the Condition or by the rewarding Part of the Law of Innocency Not by the Condition as performed for that Condition is perfect perpetual personal Innocency which no man hath nor is any righteous in conformity to the Precept unless secundum quid as a damnable Sinner's less unrighteousness may be called Righteousness Nor is any one justified by the Retributive or Promissory part of that Law because perfect Innocency is its Condition § 29. Though that Law perfectly justifie Christ who perfectly fulfilled it we are not therefore righteous in the sence of that Law or justified by it because Christ fulfilled it of which more anon Because the sence of the Law was not Thou shalt obey or another for thâ—e It never mentioned a vicarious Obedience But thou thy self shalt perfectly obey § 30. We are justified from or against the curse of that first Law by deliverance or grace but it is by a Redeemer and not by that Law § 31. The Causes of our whole Iustification whose parts were before-mentioned are these 1. The constitutive Causes called Material and Formal are before opened being divers in their divers parts In brief our Righteousness now is our Interest in the meritorious Righteousness of Christ and our own performing of the Conditions of that Interest or of the New Covenant by his Grace and thereupon our Right to Impunity and Life or to Salvation from destructive Punishment and to Glory 2. The efficient Causes are 1. Principal God 2. Mediatory and meritorious Christ and his Righteousness 3. Instrumental as to our jus ad impunitatem gloriam the Condonative and Donative Covenant 4. The material Dispositio receptiva of this Right is our Faith and Repentance or performance of the Covenant's Condition hereof 5. The principal Cause of this Faith or Disposition is the Holy Ghost 6. The instrumental is the Word 7. The mediate Agent is Man § 32. That Justification which consisteth in our jus impunitatis quoad poenam damni sensus our right to impunity as to Loss and Sense is the same thing with Pardon of sin whether you take both actively or passively § 33. Obj. If the Law of Innocency as a Covenant ceased upon Adam's Fall no man but he and Eve was ever under it And if so they deserved not Damnation for any Sin but final Unbelief and Impenitency according to the Law of Grace And if so no such desert is forgiven them by Christ. § 34. Ans. The Law of Grace taketh in the Law of Nature naturae lapsae though not on the Terms of the first Covenant as it was naturae integrae for preservation of Innocency And still all that God commandeth is our Duty and all that he forbiddeth is Sin and every sin deserveth death in the nature of it for it cannot be Sin and not deserve Punishment but the difference is That under the Law of Innocency it was Desert unremedied but now it is Desert with present Remedy or an affixed Pardon to every penitent Believer So much of the Law of Nature remaineth as maketh Punishment due in primo instanti naturae conjunct with a Pardon which maketh Impunity due in secundo instanti As if the King should grant a future Pardon by a Law to every man that will list himself in his Wars under his Son lest in primo instanti their faults deserve punishment while they are daily pardoned § 35. II. Publick judicial Iustification for private I pass by is virtually in the Law or constitutive Justification before described For when a man is righteous the Law justifieth him virtually And this is the sence that we are said to be justified by Faith in primarily in Scripture A Believer is made just indeed and so is justifiable in Iudgment that is justified virtually by the Law As we use to say The Law doth justifie such a man § 36. 2. But actual judicial Iustification is principally by our Iudge and subordinately by Christ as our Advocate by Plea and by Evidence and Witness which is chiefly by the Righteousness of the Cause laid open to all the World § 37. It is by the Law of Grace the edition which men lived under that Christ will judge the World Therefore we must accordingly judge of his Justification § 38. Seeing the thing to be judged of is the meritum causae the Merits of a man's Cause therefore the same may be the meritorious Cause and the material of this judicial Justification and they err that take this for an Absurdity § 39. Though the great end of God's Judgment of Man will be to glorifie his own Iustice Mercy and Wisdom and to glorifie Christ's Righteousness yet the Cause of the day which is to be decided is not whether Christ be righteous but We Nor whether he fulfilled his mediatorial Law which is presupposed § 40. Iustification being related to real or possible Accusation so many things as the Accusation may
Holy Ghost Ans. God hath not tied us to use only Scripture-words or Phrases and use may make them convenient and needful for some times and places which else are less significant or congruous And in this case I see not but that the Phrase is lawful well explained But if any will pretend their own Phrases to be more necessary than they are and will calumniate those as not Orthodox who will not use them or subscribe to them I cannot justifie such from the guilt of Presumption and Injury to the Church the Truth and Christ and the Love of Brethren § 17. 5. Whether they that affirm That Christ's Righteousness is imputed to us or those that deny it are to be accounted Orthodox Ans. Perhaps both if they both hold the same sound Doctrine under various Phrases And perhaps neither if by their various Phrases each mean something that is unsound § 18. They heinously err who deny Christ's Righteousness to be so far imputed to us as to be reputed the meritorious Cause of our Pardon and Right to Life or our Justification performed by our Mediator as the Sponsor of the New Covenant for our sakes and his Sufferings in our stead as is afore-expressed § 19. And they heinously err and subvert the Gospel who say that Christ's Righteousness is so imputed to us as that God reputeth or judgeth Christ to have been perfectly holy and righteous or obedient and to have suffered though not in the Natural yet in the Legal or Civil Person of the Sinner or Believer as their strict and proper Representer and reputeth us to have been perfectly holy righteous or obedient in Christ as our Representer and so to have our selves fulfilled all righteousness in and by him and in him to have satisfied Justice and meriâ—ed Eternal Life and Christ's Righteousness to be ours in the same sence of Propriety as it was his own For his Divine Righteousness is the Essence of God and his Humane his Habits Acts and Relations which are the Accidents of his own Person only as the Subject and cannot be in another as is after shewed § 20. Though most of us now leave this Doctrine to the Antinomians or Libertines yet so many Protestants formerly have seemed to own it by their unmeet Phrases in extreme opposition to the Papists or at least to come too near it as hath greatly scandalized and hardened their Adversaries and injured the Reformed Churches § 21. The Person of our Mediator was neither in the Sence of the Law or in God's account properly the person of the Sinner Christ and we are distinct persons § 22. Had we been perfectly holy innocent and obedient in Christ it would follow 1. That we are justified by the Law of Innocency as having perfectly done all that it commanded us which is not true It is by the pardoning Law of Grace that we are justified § 23. 2. That we have no need of Pardon nor of Christ's Sufferings for our Pardon nor of Prayer for Pardon nor any means for it for he needeth no pardon that is perfectly innocent § 24. 3. Therefore they assert Contradictions when they say that we both perfectly obeyed by and in Christ and yet suffered or satisfied in or by him for our Disobedience § 25. 4. It would follow that all penalties even corrective laid on us by God are injuries or no penalties because we are innocent § 26. 5. And that God's denying us any helps of his Spirit and permitting the remnant of our Sin yet unhealed and the weakness of our Graces are an injurious denying us our Right § 27. 6. It would follow that we have present Right to the present possession of the whole Reward both Grace and Glory and that our delay is our wrong because he that is supposed to have done all that the Law maketh his Duty from his Birth till his Death hath right to the Reward by the Law or Covenant § 28. 7. And it would follow That no Duty could be required of us as a Condition of any Benefit purchased by Christ nor any sin charged on us so far as to be indeed our sin because we are reputed perfectly holy and innocent § 29. Many other such Consequents I pass by and other Arguments against this Opinion and the Confutation of the contrary because I have done it all elsewhere especially in a peculiar Discourse on this Subject and in my Disputations of Justification § 30. Christ's own Righteousness habitual or actual is not ours as it is his in strict sence in it self as if we were the Proprietors the Subjects of his Habits or the Agents of his Acts For it is impossible that the Accidents of several Subjects should be the same § 31. And the form of Christ's Righteousness is therefore no more ours than the Matter For Righteousness in Christ and Righteousness in each Believer are distinct Righteousnesses § 32. Many Divines have pleaded That Christ's Righteousness is the form of ours and others that it is the Matter and others that it is the meritorious Cause and have too much troubled the Church with Logical Notions The meritorious Cause it is undoubtedly and they that say That it cannot then be the material Cause must consider that we mean that it is the Matter of the meritorious Cause And had we been innocent our selves would not our Innocency have been both the Matter of our righteousness or Merit and the meritorious Cause of our right to Life § 33. But this supposeth that the Matter of the Gospel subordinate righteousness which consisteth in that Repentance Faith and Holiness which is required in us to our right to life is to be found in our selves and not in Christ for us § 34. But the form of Christ's righteousness cannot be the form of ours as is aforesaid but it is the form of that which is the meritorious Cause of ours But what need have we of thâ—se Disputes § 35. The Not imputing of sin is called also by some the Form of Iustification and by others that and the Imputation of righteousness conjunct and by others that and God's accepting us as righteous others call these the Matter of Iustification and thus mens Logick ill-managed troubleth the Hearers which I would not mention had it not been necessary to disintangle them § 36. They that will dispute what is the form of Iustification must first confess the Ambiguity of the Word and tell us in which Sence they take it There are so many things that are truly the form of Iustification taken in many Sences that without such distinguishing to dispute of the form of Iustification is worse than to say nothing Iustification taken actively as the Act of the Iustifyer hath one form Iustification passively taken for the state of the justified hath another form And â—â—ch of these are subdivided into many Acts and many Effects which have each their form The Act of pardoning sin is one thing and therefore hath one form The Act of