production of the Effect under the chief Cause And so you may call Faith an Instrument Quest. But though Faith be not the Instrument of Justification may it not be called the Instrument of receiving Christ who Justifieth us Answ. I do not so much stick at this speech as at the former yet is it no proper or fit expression neither For 1. The Act of Faith which is it that justifieth is our Actuall receiving of Christ and therefore cannot be the Instrument of Receiving To say our Receiving is the Instrument of our Receiving is a hard saying 2. And the seed or habite of Faith cannot fitly be called an Instrument For 1. The sanctified faculty it self cannot be the souls Instrument it being the soul it self and not any thing really distinct from the soul nor really distinct from each other as Scotus D'Orbellis Scaliger c. D. Iackson Mr. Pemble think and Mr. Ball questions 2. The holinesse of the Faculties is not their Instrument For 1. It is nothing but themselves rectified and not a Being so distinct as may be called their Instrument 2. Who ever called Habits or Dispositions the souls Instruments The aptitude of a Cause to produce its effect cannot be called the Instrument of it you may as well call a mans Life his Instrument of Acting or the sharpnesse of a knife the knives Instrument as to call our holiness or habituall faith the Instrument of receiving Christ. To the sixth and last Question I Answ. Faith is plainly and undeniably the condition of our Justification The whole Tenour of the Gospell shews that And a condition is but a Causa sine quâ non or a medium or a necessary Antecedent Here by the way take notice that the same men that blame the advancing of Faith so high as to be our true Gospell Righteousnesse Posit 17. 20. and to be inputed in proper sence Posit 23. do yet when it comes to the triall ascribe far more to Faith then those they blame making it Gods Instrument in justifying 1. And so to have part of the honour of Gods own Act 2. And that from a reason intrinsecall to faith it self 3. And from a Reason that will make other Graces to be Instruments as well as Faith For Love doth truly receive Christ also 4. And worst of all from a Reason that will make man to be the Causa proxima of his own Justification For man is the Causa proxima of believing and receiving Christ and therefore not God but man is said to beleeve And yet these very men do send a Hue and Crie after the Tò credere for robbing Christ of the glory of Iustification when we make it but a poor improper Causa sine qua non And yet I say as before that in Morality yea and in Naturality some Causae sine qua non do deserve much of the honour but that Faith doth not so I have shewed in the 23. Position Some think that Faith may be some small low Impulsive Cause but I will not give it so much though if it be made a Procatarctick Objective Cause I shall not contend THESIS LVII IT is the Act of Faith which justifieth men at age and not the habit yet not as it is a good work or as it hath in it's self any excellency in it above other Graces But 1. In the neerest sence directly and properly as it is The fulfilling of the Condition of the New Convenant 2. In the remote and more improper sence as it is The receiving of Christ and his satisfactory Righteousnesse EXPLICATION 1. THat the habit of Faith doth not directly and properly justifie appeares from the tenour of the Covenant which is not He that disposed to beleeve shall be saved But he that believeth 2. That Faith doth not properly justifie through any excellency that it hath above other Graces or any more usefull property may appear thus 1. Then the praise would be due to Faith 2. Then love would contend for a share if not a priority 3. Then Faith would justifie though it had not been made the Condition of the Covenant Let those therefore take heed that make Faith to justifie meerely because it apprehendeth Christ which is its naturall effentiall property 3. That it is Faith in a proper sence that is said to justifie and not Christs Righteousnesse onely which it receiveth may appear thus 1. From the necessity of two-fold righteousness which I have before proved in reference to the two-fold Covenant 2. From the plain and constant Phrase of Scripture which saith He that beleeveth shall be justified and that we are justified by Faith and that faith is imputed for righteousnesse It had been as easie for the Holy Ghost to have said that Christ onely is imputed or his righteousnesse onely or Christ onely justifieth c. If he had so meant He is the most excusable in an error that is lead into it by the constant expresse phrase of Scripture 3. From the nature of the thing For the effect is ascribed to the severall Causes though not alike and in some sort to the Conditions Especially me-thinks they that would have Faith to be the Instrument of Iustification should not deny that we are properly justified by Faith as by an Instrument For it is as proper a speech to say our hand and our teeth feed us as to say our meet feedeth us 4. That Faith doth most directly and properly justifie as its the fulfilling of the Condition of the New Covenant appeareth thus 1 The new Covenant onely doth put the stamp of Gods Authority upon it in making it the Condition A two-fold stamp is necessary to make it a current medium of our Justification 1. Command 2. Promise Because God hath neither Commanded any other meanes 2. Nor promised Justification to any other therefore it is that this is the onely condition and so only thus Justifieth When I read this to be the tenour of the New Covenant Whosoever believeth shall be justified doth it not tell me plainly why Faith Justifieth even because it pleaseth the Law-giver and Covenant-maker to put Faith into the Covenant as its condition 2. What have we else to shew at Gods barr for our Justification but the New Covenant The Authority and Legality of it must bear us out It is upon point of Law that we are condemned and it must be by Law that we must be Justified Therefore we were condemned because the Law which we break did threaten death to our sin If we had committed the same Act and not under a Law that had threatned it with death we might not have dyed So therefore are we Justified because the New Law doth promise Iustification to our faith If we had performed the same Act under the first Covenant it would not have Iustified As the formall Reason why sin condemneth is because the Law hath concluded it in its threatning so the formall Reason why Faith justifieth is because the New Law of Covenant hath concluded
of Divines about the former and exceeding difficult it is to determine because it hath pleased the Holy Ghost to speake of it so sparingly and who can here understand any more then is written 1. Whether Adams soule and body should immediatly have bin annihilated or destroyed so as to become insensible 2. Or whether his soule should have bin immediatly seprarated from his body as ours are at death and so be the only sufferer of the paine 3. Or if so whether there should have bin any Resurrection of the body after any certaine space of time that so it might suffer as well as the soule 4. Or whether soule and body without separation should have gone downe quick together into Hell Or into any place or state of torment short of Hell 5. Or whether both should have lived a cursed life on Earth through everlasting in exclusion from Paradise separation from Gods favour and gratious presence losse of his image c 6. Or whether hee should have lived such a miserable life for a season and then be annihilated or destroyed 7. And if so whether his misery on Earth should have bin more then men doe now endure And the more important are these Questions of because of some other that depend upon them As 1. what death it was that Christ redeemed us from 2. And what death it is that perishing infants die or that our guilt in the first transgression doth procure For it being a sinne against the first Covenant only will be punished with no other death then that which is threatned in that Covenant Much is said against each of these expositions of that first threatning 1. Against the first I have said somewhat before And that in 1. Thes. 1. 10. seems to be much against it Iesus that delivered us from the wrath to come This wrath was either the execution of the threatning of the Covenant of works or of the Covenant of grace not the latter for Christ saveth none who deserve it from that therefore it must needs be the wrath of the first Covenant and consequently that Covenant did threaten a future wrath to all sinners which if the world or Adam himselfe had been destroyed or annihilated immediately upon his fall we had not been capable of 2. Against the second sense it seemeth unlikely that the soule should suffer alone and the body lie quietly in the dust because the body did sinne as well as the soule and the senses were the soules inticers and betrayers 3. Against the third there is no intimation of a Resurrection in the Scripture as part of the penalty of the Covenant of works or as a preparative to it That Adam should have risen againe to be condemned or executed if Christ had not come no Scripture speakes but rather on the contrary Resurrection is ascribed to Christ alone 1 Cor. 15. 12. 21. 22. 4. Against the fourth it seemeth evident by the execution that the separation of soule and body was at least part of the death that was threatned or else how comes it to be inflicted and the Apostle saith plainly that in Adam all dye viz. this naturall death 1 Cor. 15. 22. 5. Against the fift the same Argument will â—erve 6. Concerning the sixth seventh they lye open to the same objection as the second It is hard to conclude peremptorily in so obscure a case If wee knew certainly what life was the reward of that Covenant we might the better understand what death was the penalty Calvin and many more Interpreters think that if Adam had not fallen he should after a season have been translated into Heaven without death as Enoch and Elias but I know no Scripture that tells us so much Whether in Paradise terrestriall or celestiall I certainly know not but that Adam should have lived in happinesse and not have dyed is certain seeing therefore that Scripture tells us on the one hand that death is the wages of sinne and one the other hand that Jesus delivered us from the wrath to come the 2 6 and 7. Expositions doe as yet seem to me the most safe as containing that punishment whereby both these Scriptures are fulfilled Beside that they much correspond to the execution viz. that man should live here for a season a dying life separated from God devoid of his Image subject to bodily curses and calamities dead in Law and at last his soule and body be separated his body turning to dust from whence it came and his soule enduring everlasting sorrowes yet nothing so great as those that are threatned in the new Covenant The Objection that lyeth against this sense is easier then those which are against the other For though the body should not rise to torment yet its destruction is a very great punishment And the soule being of a more excellent and durable nature is likely to have had the greater and more durable suffering And though the body had a chief hand in the sin yet the soule had the farre greater guilt because it should have commanded and governed the body as the fault of a man is far greater then the same in a beast Yet I do not positively conclude that the body should not have risen againe but I finde no intimation of it revealed in the Scripture but that the sentence should have been immediately executed to the full or that any such thing is concluded in the words of the threat In the day thou eatest thou shalt die the death I doe not thinke for that would have prevented both the being the sinne and the suffering of his posterity and consequently Christ did not save any one in the world from sinne or suffering but Adam and Eve which seems to me a hard saying though I know much may be said for it Thus we see in part the first Question resolved what death it was that the Law did threaten Now let us see whether this were the same that Christ did suffer And if we take the threatning in its full extent as it expresseth not only the penalty but also its proper subject and its circumstances then it is undenyable that Christ did not suffer the same that was threatned For the Law threatned the death of the offender but Christ was not the offender Adam should have suffered for ever but so did not Christ Adam did dy spiritually by being forsaken of God in regard of holinesse as well as in regard of comfort and so deprived at least of the chief part of his Image so was not Christ. Yet it is disputable whether these two last were directly contained in the threatning or not whether the threatning were not fully executed in Adams death And the eternity of it were not accidentall even a necessary consequent of Adams disability to overcome death and deliver himself which God was not bound to doe And whether the losse of Gods Image were part of the death threatned or rather the effect of our sinne onely executed by our selves and not by God
case now the non-payment of the pepper corn is a breach of both Leases Of the old because though he had forfeited his title to the benefits of it yet he could not disanull the duty of it which was obedience during his life especially when the penalty was not fully executed on him but he was permitted still to enjoy some of the benefits So that as it is an act of disobedience in generall his non-payment is a further forfeiture of his old Lease But as it is the non-payment of a pepper-corn required of him in stead of his former Rent so it is a breach of his new Lease only Even so is Unbelief a violation of both Covenants THESIS XXXI THe Gospell doth establish and not repeall the Morall Law and so is perfect obedience commanded and every sin forbidden now as exactly as under the Covenant of Works But this is but an adjunct of the new Covenant and not a proper part of it Neither is it on the same terms or to the same ends as in the first Covenant EXPLICATION THat the Morall Law is yet in force I will not stand to prove because so many have written of it already See Mr. Anthony Burgesses Lectures But to what ends and in what sence the Gospell continueth that Law and commandeth perfect obedience thereto is a Question not very easie 1. Whether Christ did first repeall that Law and then re-establish it to other ends So some think 2. Or whether he hath at all made the Morall Law to be the preceptive part of the new Covenant And so whether the new Covenant do at all command us perfect obedience or only sincere 3. Or whether the Morall Law be continued only as the precepts of the old Covenant and so used by the new Covenant meerly for a directive Rule To the first I answer 1. That it is not repealed at all I have proved already even concerning the Covenant of Works it self and others enough have proved at large of the Morall Law 2. Yet that Christ useth it to other ends for the advantage of his Kingdom I grant To the other second Question I answer 1. That the Morall Law as it is the perceptive part of the Covenant of works is but delivered over into the hands of Christ and so continued in the sence before expressed seems plain to me 2. That the same Morall Law doth therefore so continue to command even believers and that the perfect obeying of it is therefore their duty and the not obeying their sin deserving the death threatened in that Covenant 3. That Jesus Christ hath further made use of the same Morall Law for a direction to his Subjects whereby they may know his Will That whereas your sincere subjection and obedience to Christ is part of the condition of the new Covenant that we may know what his Will is which we must endeavour to obey and what Rule our actions must be sincerely fitted to and guided by he hath therefore left us this Morall Law as part of this direction having added a more particular enumeration of some duties in his Gospel That as when the old Covenant said Thou shalt obey perfectly the Morall Law did Partly tell them wherein they should obey So when the new Covenant saith Thou shalt obey sincerely the Morall Law doth tell us wherein or what we must endeavour to do 4. But that the Morall Law without respect to either Covenant should command us perfect obedience or that Christ as the Mediator of the new Covenant should command us not only sincere but also perfect obedience to the Morall Law and so hath made it a proper part of his Gospel not only as a Directory and Instruction but also as a Command I am not yet convinced though I will not contend with any that think otherwise my Reason is because I know not to what end Christ should command us that obedience which he never doth enable any man in this life to perform If it were to convince us of our disability and sin that is the work of the Law and the continuing of it upon the old terms as is before explained is sufficient to that But I judge this Question to be of greater difficult then moment THESIS XXXII IF there be any particular sins against the new Covenant which are not also against the old or if any sins be considerable in any of their respects as against the Gospel only then Christs death was not to satisfie for any such sins so considered For where no death is threatened there none is explicitely due nor should be executed and where it is not so due to the sinner nor should have been executed on him there it could not be required of Christ nor executed on him But the Gospel threateneth not death to any sin but final unbelief and rebellion and for that Christ never dyed as I shall shew anon therefore Christ died not for any sin as against the Gospell nor suffered that which is no where threatened EXPLICATION A Sin may be said to be against the Gospel 1. As Christ and his Gospel are the object of it 2. Or as it breaketh the conditions of the Gospel In the latter sence only I here take it To prove the point in hand there needs no more then the Argument mentioned For to all that unbelief and other sins of the godly which are forgiven the Gospel doth no where threaten death and therefore Christ could not bear it as to satisfie the Gospel-threatening Though I confess I have been long in this point of another judgment while I considered not the Tenor of the Covenants distinctly some further proof you shall have in the next conclusion Read Heb. 9. 15. THESIS XXXIII AS the Active Obedience of Christ was not the Righteousness of the second Covenant or the performing of it Conditions but of the first properly called a Legall Righteousness so also his Passive Obedience and Merit was only to satisfie for the violation of the Covenant of Works but not at all for the violation of the Covenâ—nt of Grace for that there is no satisfaction made and there remaineth no sacrifice EXPLICATION THat Christ did not fulfill the conditions of the new Covenant for us I have proved already That he hath not satisfied for its violation I think to the considerate will need no proof If you think otherwise consider 1. Christ is said to be made under the Law to have born the curse of the Law to have freed us from the curse of it but no where is this affirmed of him in respect of the Gospel 2. There be terms by him propounded upon which men must partake of the benefits of his Satisfaction but these terms are onely conditions of the new Covenant therefore he never satisfied for the non-performance of those conditions 3. If he did upon what conditions is that satisfaction enjoyed by us 4. But the Question is out of doubt because that every man that performeth not the
Gospel-conditions doth bear the punishment himself in eternall fire and therefore Christ did not bear it So that as it was not so grievous a death which was threatened in the first Covenant as that is which is threatened in the second so it was not so grievous a kind of death which Christ did bear as that is which finall unbelievers shall bear except as â—he accumulation of sins of so many might increase it Therefore when we say That Christ suffered in his Soul the pains of hell or that which is equall we must not mean the pains which is threatned in the Gospell and the damned unbelievers must endure but only of that death which the Law of Works did threaten Wo therefore to the rebellious unbelieving world that must bear this second death themselves For of how much soever punishment shall they be thought worthy who tread under foot the blood of the Covenant Heb. 10. 29. THESIS XXXIV THe Covenant of Grace is not properly said to be violated or its conditions broken except they be finally broken For the violation consisteth in non performance of the conditions and if they are performed at last they are truly performed if performed then the Covenant is not so violated as that the offendor should fall under the threatening thereof EXPLICATION I Deny not but the new Covenant may be said to be neglected and sinned against and the Command of Christ broken by our long standing out in unbelief though we come home at last But the Covenant conditions are not broken when ever the precept of the Gospel is transgressed or the Covenant neglected except it be finall The Condition is Who ever believeth shall be saved not limitting it to a particular season Though both the precept of Christ common Reason requireth that we be speedy in the performance because we have no promise that the day of Grace shall continue and because our neglect will increase our disability and our frequent resisting Will grieve the Spirit So that the new Covenant doth not threaten death to every particular act of disobedience or unbelief nor to any but what is finall though the precept require that we believe immediately and every degree of unbelief be forbidden THESIS XXXV YEt the sins of Beleevers against the Gospel Precepts have need of pardon and are properly said to be pardoned in reference to their deserved punishment 1. Both because the punishment which naturally and implicitely is due to them is not so much as threatened in this gentle Covenant and so becomes not explicitely due or in point of Law 2. But specially because the old Covenant condemning all sin is yet unrepealed which would be executed on us even for our sins against GRACE did not the efficacy of CHRISTS Satisfaction dayly interpose which makes us therefore have continuall need of that Satisfaction EXPLICATION THis is layd down to prevent the Objection which might arise from the fore-going Doctrine For many are ready to ask If Christ dyed not for sin as it is against the Gospell-Covenant then how are such sins pardoned to Beleevers I answer in the fore-expressed way For certainly the Gospel cannot be said to remit the punishment which it never threatened further then as it is only implicitely due And that which it doth threaten it doth never remit THESIS XXXVI THe pardoning of sin is a gracious act of God discharging the Offender by the Gospell-Promise or grant from the Obligation to punishment upon consideration of the satisfaction made by Christ accepted by the sinner and pleaded with God EXPLICATION THe true definition of Pardon and of Justification doth much conduce to the understanding of this whole mysterious Doctrine The former I have here laid down as neer as I can I shall briefly explain the whole Definition 1. I call it an Act of God for so the Scripture ordinarily doth Mat. 6. 12. 14 15. Mar. 11. 24. 26. Luk. 23. 34. Ephes. 3. 32. Some may object If all things be delivered into the hands of Christ the Redeemer and all Judgement committed to the Son as is shewed before then the Son should forgive rather then the Father I answer 1. So the Son is said to forgive also Mar. 2. 7 10. Luk. 5. 24. 2. I shewed you before That the Father giveth not away any power from himself by giving it to the Son but onely doth manage it in another way upon other terms 3. As the Mediator is a middle person interposing between God and the world for their reconciliation so the Acceptance Pardon and Kingdom of the Mediator is as it were a Mean or step towards the Pardon Acceptance and Kingdom of God First Christ doth cleanse men by his Spirit and Blood and then offereth them blameless and undefiled without spot or wrinkle to God who so accepts them at his hands and even the Kingdom also will he deliver up to the Father Ephes. 5. 27. Col. 1. 22 28. Iude 24. 1 Cor. 15. 24. Therefore the Sons pardoning and accepting being first in order of Nature and so but a mean to Gods pardoning and accepting where the whole work is compleatly perfected when the sinner is fully brought home by Christ to God from whom he first fell the act of pardoning is therefore most usually and fitly ascribed to the Father that being the ultimate perfecting pardon and we are said to ask it of him through Christ. 2. I call this Pardon a gracious Act For if it were not in some sort gratuitous or free it were no Pardon Let those think of this who say We have perfectly obeyed the Law in Christ and are therefore righteous If the proper debt either of obedience or suffering be payd either by our selves or by another then there is no place left for Pardon For when the Debt is payd we owe nothing except obedience de novo and therefore can have nothing forgiven us For the Creditor cannot refuse the proper Debt nor deny an Acquittance upon receit thereof But Christ having payd the Tantundem and not the Idem the Value and not the strict Debt this satisfaction the Father might have chosen to accept or to have discharged us upon Christs sufferings which yet because he freely doth therefore is his gracious Act properly called Pardon The ignorant Antinomians think it cannot be a Free Act of Grace if there be any Condition on our part for enjoying it As if in the fore-mentioned comparison pag. 153. the Tenants redemption were the less free because his new Lease requires the Rent of a pepper corn in token of homage As if when a pardon is procured for a condemned Malefactor upon condition that he shall not reject it when it is offered him but shall take him that procured it for his Lord that this were therefore no free pardon Indeed if we payd but a mite in part of the debt it self so far our pardon were the less free But I will not further trouble the Reader with these senceless conceits the confutation whereof
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
they shall be like wooll So Ezek. 33. 14. 15 16. 18. 21. 22. Neither let any object that this is the Law of works For certainly that hath no promises of forgivenesse And though the discoveries of the way of Justification be delivered in the old Testament in a more dark and Legall language then in the New yet not in termes contradictory to the truth in the New Testament Thus you may see in what sence it is that Christ will judge men according to their Works will say Come ye blessed of my Father inherit the kingdome c. For I was hungry ye fed me c. Well done good faithfull Servant thou hast been faithfull in few things I will make thee Ruler over many things Enter thou into the joy of thy Lord Matth. 25. For being made perfect he became the Author of Eternall salvation to all them that obey him Hebr. 5. 9. Of whom it shall be said when they are glorified with him These are they that come out of great tribulation and have washed their robes in the blood of the Lambe and made them white Therefore are they before the throne of God and serve him day and night in his temple and he that siâ—teth on the throne shall dwell among them Revel 7. 14. 15. To whom be Glory for ever Amen REader because an exact Index would contain a great part of the Book I shall omit it and instead of it I here lay thee down some of the chief Distinctions upon which this Discourse dependeth desiring thee to understand them and keep them in memory You must distinguish 1. BEtwixt Gods Decretive or Purposing Will And his Legislative or Preceptive Will The 1. is his Determining of Events The 2. of Duty and Reward 2. Betwixt 1. the Covenant or Law of Works which saith Obey perfectly and Live or sin and Dye 2. And the Covenant or Law of Grace which saith Beleeve and be saved c. 3. Betwixt the two parts of each Covenant viz. 1. The Primary discovering the duty in Precepts and prohibiting the Sin 2. The secondary discovering the Rewards and Penalties in Promises and Threatnings 4. Betwixt a two-fold Righteousness of one and the same Covenant 1. Of perfect Obedience or performance of the Condition 2. Of suffering or satisfaction for disobedience or non-performance which maketh the Law to have nothing against us though we disobeyed See Pemble of Iustification pag. 2. Our Legall Righteousness is of this last sort not of the first Both these sorts of Righteousnesse are not possible to be found in any one person except Christ who had the former Righteousness as his own incommunicable to us in that form The second he had for us as he was by imputation a sinner And so we have it in or by him Mark this 5. Betwixt two kinds of Righteousness suitable to the two Covenants and their Conditions 1. Legall Righteousness which is our Conformity or satisfaction to the Law 2. And Evangelicall Righteousness which is our Conformity to the new Covenant Note that 1. Every Christian must have both these 2. That our Legall righteousness is onely that of Satisfaction but our Evangelicall is only that of obedience or performance of the Condition 3. That our Legall Righteousnesse is all without us in Christ the other in our selves 6. Betwixt Evangelicall Righteousness improll perly so called viz. because the Gospell doth reveain and offer it This is our Legall righteousness o Christ. 2. And Evangelicall righteousness prnt perly so called viz. Because the new Covenar is the Rule to which it is conformed This is ou performance of the new Covenants Conditions 7. Betwixt the Life or Reward in the first Covenant viz. Adams paradise happiness 2. And the Life of the second Covenant which is Eternall glory in heaven 8. Betwixt the death or curse of the old Covenant which is opposite to its reward This onely was laid on Christ and is due to Infants by nature 2. And the death of the second Covenant opposite to its life called the second death and far sorer punishment This finall unbeleevers suffer 9. Betwixt sins against the first Covenant For these Christ died 2. And sins against the second Covenant For these he dyed not 10. Betwixt sinning against Christ and the Gospell as the object of our sin only So Christ died for them 2. And sinning against the new Covenant as such or as a threatning Law So Christ dyed not for them 11. Betwixt delaying to perform the conditions of the new Covenant This is not threatned with death 2. And finall non-performance This is proper violation of the Covenant and a sin that leaveth no hope of recovery 12. Betwixt paying the proper debt of obedience as Christ did himself or of suffering as the damned do 2. And satisfying for non-payment as Christ did for us 13 Betwixt repealing the Law or Covenant which is not done 2. And relaxing it or dispensing with it which is done 14. Betwixt relaxation or dispensation in the proper subject and circumstances of the Penalty This is done in removing it from us to Christ. 2. And dispencing with the Penalty it self This is not done for Christ did bear it 15. Betwixt the change of the Law 2. And of the sinners relation to the Law 16. Betwixt the Lawes forbidding and condemning the sin so it doth still 2. And its condemning the sinner So it doth not to the justified because Christ hath born the curse 17. Betwixt the Precepts as abstracted from the Covenant termes which really they are not at all 2. And as belonging to the severall Covenants 18. Betwixt perfection of Holinesse which is a quality This is not in this life 2. And Perfection of Righteousness which is a Relation This is perfect or none at all 19. Betwixt recalling the Fact or the evil of the Fact or its desert of punishment These are never done nor are possible 2. And removing the duenesse of punishment from the Offendor This is done 20. Betwixt Pardon and Iustification Condiditionall which is an immediate effect of Christs Death and Resurrection or rather of the making of the new Covenant 2. And Pardon Iustification Absolute when we have performed all the Conditions 21. Betwixt Conditionall Pardon and Iustification which is only Potentiall Such is that which immediately followeth the enacting of the new Covenant to men before Faith or before they have sinned 2. And Conditionall Iustification which is actual of which the person hath true possession such is our Iustification after Faith till the last Iudgement which is ours actually but yet upon condition of perseverance in Faith and sincere Obedience 22. Betwixt Pardon and Iustification as they are Immanent Acts in God improperly and without Scripture called Pardon or Iustification 2. And Pardon and Iustification as they are Transient Acts performed by the Gospell-Promise as Gods Instrument This is the true Scripture Iustification 23. Betwixt Iustification in Title and Sence of Law which is
How make you Faith and Repentance to be â—â—â—ditions of the Covenant on our part seeing the bestowing of them is part of the condition on Gods part Can they be our conditions and Gods too 7. Seeing God hath promised us these which you call conditions is not the Covenant therefore rather absolute and more properly a promise 8. In making a generall Covenant to all you bring wicked men under promise whereas all the promises are Yea and Amen in Christ and so belong only to those in Christ I find no promise in Scripture made to a wicked man 9. May you not else as well give the seals to wicked men as the Covenant Except you will evade as Mr Blake and say the Sacrament seals but conditionally and then let all come that will 10. How can you make it appear that Do this and live is not the proper voyce of the Covenant of Works Or that according to the new Covenant we must act for life and not only from life or that a man may make his attaining of life the end of his work and not rather obey only out of thankfulness and love 11. Why do you single out the book called The marrow of modern Divinity to oppose in this point 12. Seeing you make faith and covenanting with Christ to be the same thing do you not make him to be no reall Christian that never so covenanted and consequently him to be no visible Christian who never professed such a Covenant and so you bring in a greater necessity of publique covenanting then those who are for Church-making Covenants 13. Do you not go against the stream af all Divines in denying the proper act of Faith as it justifieth to be either Recumbency Affiance Perswasion or Assurance but placing it in Consent or Acceptance 14. Do you not go against the stream of all Divines in making the Acceptance of Christ for Lord to be as properly a justifying act as the accepting him for Saviour and all that you may lay a ground work for Justification by Gospell obedience or Works so do you also in making the Acceptance of Christs Person and Offices to be the justifying act and not the receiving of his Righteousness and of pardon 16. How can you reconcile your Justification by Works with that of Rom. 3. 24 4. 4 5 6 11. I desire some satisfaction in that which Maccovius and Mr owen oppose in the places which I mentioned THE ANSWER TO the first Objection about the death threatened in the first Covenant I answer 1. I told you I was not peremptory in my opinion but inclined to it for want of a better 2. I told you that the Objections seem more strong which are against all the rest and therefore I was constrained to make choice of this to avoid greater absurdities then that which you object For 1. If you say that Adam should have gone quick to Hell you contradict many Scriptures which make our temporall death to be the wages of sin 2. If you say that He should have dyed and rose again to torment 1. What Scripture saith so 2. When should He have risen 3. You contradict many Scriptures which make Christ the Mediator the only procurer of the Resurrection 3. If you say He should have lived in perpetuall misery on earth then you dash on the same Rock with the first opinion 4. If you say He should have dyed only a temporall death and his soul be annihilated then 1. you make Christ to have redeemed us only from the grave and not from hell contrary to 1 Thes. 1. 10. Who hath delivered us from the wrath to come 2. You make not hell but only temporall death to be due too or deserved by the sins of believers seeing the Gospell only according to this opinion should threaten eternall death and not the Law but the Gospell threateneth it to none but unbelievers You might easily have spared me this labour and gathered all this Answer from the place in the book where I handled it but because other Readers may need as many words as you I grudg not my pains TO your second Objection about Christs active and passive Righteousness You should have overthrown my grounds and not only urge my going against the stream of Divines As I take it for no honour to be the first inventing a new opinion in Religion so neither to be the last in embracing the truth I never thought that my faith must follow the major vote I value Divines also by weight and not by number perhaps I may think that one Pareus Piscator Scultetus Alstedius Capellus Gataker or Bradshaw is of more authority then many Writers and Readers View their Writings and answer their Arguments and then judg TO your third about the violation of the Covenant I shall willingly clear my meaning to you as well as I can though I thought what is said had cleared it The 34 Aphorism which is it you object against doth thus far explain it 1. That I speak of Gods Covenant of Grace only or his new Law containing the terms on which men live or dye 2. That by Violation I mean the breaking or non-performance of its conditions or such a violation as bringeth the offendor under the threatning of it and so maketh the penalty of that Covenant breaking due to him 3. I there tell you that the new Covenant may be neglected long and sinned against objectively and Christs Commands may be broken when yet the Covenant is not so violated The Tenor of the Covenant me-think should put you quite out of doubt of all this which is He that believeth shall be saved and he that believeth not shall be damned The unbelief and rebellion against Christ which the godly were guilty of before believing is a neglect or refusall of the Covenant and I acknowledg that all that while they were in a damnable state that is in a state wherein they should have been damned if they had so dyed for then their unbelief had been finall But your doubt may be whether they did not deserve damnation while they were in their unbelief for resisting Grace I answer you as before 1. I look upon no punishment as deserved in sensu forensi in the sense of the Law but what is threatened by that Law Now you may easily resolve the Question your self Whether the new Covenant do threaten damnation to that their unbelief If they believe not at all before death it pronounceth them condemned otherwise not 2. Yet might they in this following sense be said to deserve the great condemnation before they obeyed the Gospell viz. as their unbelief is that sin for which the Gospell condemneth men wanting nothing but the circumstance of finality or continuance to have made them the proper subjects of the curse and it was no thanks to them that it proved not finall for God did make them no promise of one hour of time and patience and therefore it was meerly his mercy in not cutting
Many Divines say that God did not take away his Image but man thrust it away So Capell of Temptations pag. 8. c. Though most judge otherwise because the same power must annihilate that must create I conclude then that in regard of the proper penalty Christ did suffer a paine and misery of the same sort and of equall weight with that threatned but yet because it was not in all respects the same it was rather satisfaction then the payment of the proper debt being such a payment as God might have chosen to accept The 2. Question was Whether the threatning was executed or relaxed and dispensed with Answ. The Answer to this is plaine in the answer to the former In regard of the meer weight of punishment considered as abstracted from person duration it was executed not relaxed yet taking the threatning intirely as it was given out and we must say it was dispensed with for mankinde doth not suffer all that is there threatned Yet some who think that the death threatned did consist in out present miseries and temporal death onely do also think that the threatning is fully executed upon the sinners and that Christ hath onely delivered us from the accidentall duration of it but not prevented the execution If I could think that the threatning intended no punishment to the soule further after it is separated from the body then I should think as they The 3. Question is How it can stand with the Truth and Justice of God to dispense with his Threats Concerning his Justice the question is not difficult I shall say nothing to that all the question is how to reconcile this dispensation with Gods truth Here you must distinguish 1. Betwixt the letter of the Law and the sense 2. Between the Law and the end of the Law 3. Between a Threat with exception either expressed or reserved and that which hath no exception 4. Between a threatning which onely expresseth the desert of the sinne and what punishment is due and so falleth only under the will of precept and that which also intendeth the certaine prediction of event and so falleth under the will of purpose also And now I answer 1. The end of the Law is the Law and that end being the manifestation of Gods Justice and hatred of sinne c. was fulfilled and therefore the Law was fulfilled 2. Most think that the Threatning had this reserved exception Thou shalt dye i. e. by thy selfe or thy surety And though it be sinfull in man to speak with mentall reservations when he pretends to reveale his mind yet not in God because as he is subject to no Law so he is not bound to reveale to us all his minde nor doth he indeed pretend any such thing 3. So that the sense of the Law is fulfilled 4. But the speciall answer that I give is this When Threatnings are meerly parts of the Law and not also predictions of event and discoveries of Gods purpose thereabouts then they may be dispensed with without any breach of Truth For as when God saith Thou shalt not eate of the Tree c. the meaning is onely It is thy duty not to eate and not that eventually he should not eate So when he saith Thou shalt die the death The meaning is Death shall be the due reward of thy sinne and so may be inflicted for it at my pleasure and not that he should certainly suffer it in the event And I judge that except there be some note added whereby it is apparent that God intended also the prediction of event no meer Threatning is to be understood otherwise but as it is a part of the Law and so speaks of the duenesse of punishment onely as the Precept speaks of the duenesse of obeying If this be Grotius his meaning I assent that Omnes minae quibus non adest irrevocabilitatis signum intelligendae sunt ex suâpte naturâ dejure comminantis ad relaxandum nihil imminuere viz. so farre as they are no predictions of event otherwise Gods bare prediction is a note of irrevocability And his two notes viz. An Oath and a Promise are not the onely signes of irrevocability Gods Word is as sure as his Oath and a Threatning as true as a Promise and when it falls under Voluntas propositi will as surely be fulfilled See Grotius de satisfactione Christi cap. 3. Vossium ejus defenforem The 4. Question is whether sinners may not hence be encouraged to conceive some hope of a relaxation of the Threatnings in the New Covenant To this I answer 1. No For God hath fully discovered that it is his purpose and resolution to execute those Threats and not to relax or reverse them that he will come in flaming fire to render vengeance on them that know not God and obey not the Gospel of our Lord Iesus Christ c. 2. Thes. 1. 7 8. That there is no more sacrifice for sin Heb. 10. 26 27. And hath revealed the manner how they shall be condemned Mat. 25. 2. If there were any hope of this yet were it unexpressable madnesse to venter ones everlasting state on that when we see that God did not remit the penalty of the first Covenant wholly but would have his justice satisfied though by the suffering of his Sonne Christ And yet that it also cost the offendors so deare themselves The 5. Question is May we not feare lest God may dispense with his Promises as well as his Threats I answer 1. He did not dispense with his Threatning but upon a valuable consideration 2. No for though the Promise as well as the Threat doe belong to the Law and so discover what is due rather then what shall come to passe yet the thing promised being once our due cannot be taken from us without our consent and so as Grotius saith Ex promisione jus aliquod acquiritur ei cui facta est promtssio justice bindeth to give all to another that is his due but not alwayes and absolutely to inflict upon an offender as much punishment as he deserveth 3. Beside God hath revealed it to be the will of his purpose also to confer the things promised in the Gospel upon all Beleevers The 6 and last Question was If the Law be relaxable whether God might not have freely remitted the offence and have spared his Son his satisfactory sufferings I answer 1. It yet remaines under dispute whether the Threat speak not de eventu as to the sinne though but de jure as to the sinner And then the Truth of God would forbid a dispensation as to the sinne 2. Though the Threatning doe not flatly determine of the execution de eventu yet it intimates a strong probability of it seemes to tell the world that ordinarily the Law-giver will proceed according thereto and gives the sinner strong grounds to expect as much Therefore if God should relax his Law much more if he should wholly dispence with it by
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
in execution of any part of the curse of the Law 3. Whether the sufferings of Beleevers are from the curse of the Law or only afflictions of Love the curse being taken off by Christ 4. Whether it be not a wrong to the Redeemer that the people whom he hath ransomed are not immediately delivered 5. Whether it be any wrong to the redeemed themselves 6. How long will it be till all the curse be taken off the Beleevers and Redemption have attained its full effect To the first Question I answer In this case the undertaking of satisfaction had the same immediate effect upon Adam as the satisfaction it self upon us or for us To determine what these are were an excellent work it being one of the greatest and noblest questions in our controverted Divinity What are the immediate effects of Christs Death He that can rightly answer this is a Divine indeed and by the help of this may expedite most other controversies about Redemption and Justification In a word The effects of Redemption undertaken could not be upon a subject not yet existent and so no subject though it might be for them None but Adam and Eve were then existent Yet as soon as we do exist we receive benefit from it The suspending of the rigorous execution of the sentence of the Law is the most observable immediate effect of Christs death which suspension is some kinde of deliverance from it Of the other effects elsewhere To the second Question The Elect before conversion do stand in the same relation to the Law and Curse as other men though they be differenced in Gods Decree Eph. 2. 3â—â—2 To the third Question I confess we have here a knotty Question The common judgment is That Christ hath taken away the whole curse though not the suffering by bearing it himself and now they are only afflictions of Love and not Punishments I do not contradict this doctrine through affectation of singularity the Lord knoweth but through constraint of Judgement And that upon these grounds following 1. It is undenyable that Christs taking the curse upon himself did not wholly prevent the execution upon the offendor in Gen. 3. 7 8 10 15 16 17 18 19. 2. It is evident from the event seeing we feel part of the curse fulfilled on us We eat in labour and sweat the earth doth bring forth thorns and bryars women bring forth their children in sorrow our native pravity is the curse upon our souls we are sick and weary and full of fears and sorrows and shame and at last we dye and turn to dust 3. The Scripture tells us plainly that we all dye in Adam even that death from which we must at the Resurrection be raised by Christ 1 Cor. 15. 21 22. And that death is the wages of sin Rom. 6. 23. And that the sickness and weakness and death of the godly is caused by their sins 1 Cor. 11. 30 31. And if so then doubtless they are in execution of the threatening of the Law though not in full rigor 4. It is manifest that our sufferings are in their own nature evils to us and the sanctifying of them to us taketh not away their natural evil but only produceth by it as by an occasion a greater good Doubtless so far as it is the effect of sin it is evil and the effect also of the law 5. They are ascribed to Gods anger as the moderating of them is ascribed to his love Psal. 30. 5. and a thousand places more 6. They are called punishments in Scripture and therefore we may call them so Lev. 26. 41 43. Lam 3. 39. 4. 6 22. Ezra 9. 13. Hosea 4. 9. 12. 2. Lev. 26. 18 24. 7. The very nature of affliction is to be a loving punishment a natural evil sanctified and so to be mixt of evil and good as it proceedeth from mixt causes Therefore to say that Christ hath taken away the curse and evil but not the suffering is a contradiction because so far as it is a suffering it is to us evil and the execution of the curse What reason can be given why God should not do us all that good without our sufferings which now he doth by them if there were not sin and wrath and Law in them Sure he could better us by easier means 8. All those Scriptures and Reasons that are brought so the contrary do prove no more but this That our afflictions are not the rigorous execution of the threatning of the Law that they are not wholly or chiefly in wrath but as the common Love of God to the wicked is mixt with hatred in their sufferings and the hatred prevaileth above the love so the sufferings of the godly proceed from a mixture of love and anger and so have in them a mixture of good and evil but the Love overcoming the Anger therefore the good is greater then the evil and so death hath lost its sting 1 Cor. 15. 55 56. There is no unpardoned sin in it which shall procure further judgment and so no hatred though there be anger 9. The Scripture saith plainly That death is one of the enemies that is not yet overcome but shall be last conquered 1 Cor. 15. 26 and of our corruption the case is plain 10. The whole stream of Scripture maketh Christ to have now the sole disposing of us and our sufferings to have prevented the full execution of the curse and to manage that which lyeth on us for our advantage and good but no where doth it affirm that he suddenly delivereth us To the fourth Question It can be no wrong to Christ that we are not perfectly freed from all the curse and evil as soon as he had satisfied 1. Because it was not the Couenant betwixt him and the Father 2. It is not his own will volenti non fit injuria 3. It is his own doing now to keep us under it till he see the fittest time to release us 4. Our sufferings are his means and advantages to bring us to his Will Mankind having forfeited his life is cast into prison till the time of full execution Christ steppeth in and buyeth the prisoners with a full purpose that none of them yet shall scape but those that take him for their Lord. To this purpose he must treat with them to know whether they will be his subjects and yield themselves to him and his terms Is it not then a likelier way to procure their consent to treat with them in prison then to let them out and then treat and to leave some of the curse upon them to force them to yield that they may know what they must expect else when the whole shall be executed To the fift Question It is no wrong to the sinner to be thus dealt with 1. Because he is but in the misery which he brought upon himself 2. No man can lay claim to the Satisfaction and Redemption upon the meer payment till they have a word of
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
none in this life For even when we do perform the Condition yet still the Discharge remains conditional till we have quite finished our performance For it is not one instantaneous Act of beleeving which shall quite discharge us but a continued Faith No longer are we discharged then we are Beleevers And where the condition is not performed the Law is still in force and shall be executed upon the offender himself I speak nothing in all this of the directive use of the Moral Law to Beleevers But how far the Law is yet in force even as it is a Covenant of Works because an utter Repeal of it in this sence is so commonly but inconsiderately asserted That it is no further overthrown no not to Beleevers then is here explained I now come to prove THESIS XIII IF this were not so but that Christ had abrogated the first Covenant then it would follow 1. That no sin but that of Adam and final Vnbelief is so much as threatned with death or that death is explicitely that is by any Law due to it or deserved by it For what the Law in force doth not threaten that is not explicitely deserved or due by Law 2. It would follow That Christ dyed not to prevent or remove the wrath and curse so deserved or due to us for any but Adams sin nor to pardon our sins at all but only to prevent our desert of wrath and curse and consequently to prevent our need of pardon 3. It would follow That against eternal wrath at the day of Iudgment we must not plead the pardon of any sin but the first but our own non-desert of that wrath because of the repeal of that Law before the sin was committed All which consequences seem to me unsufferable which cannot be avoyded if the Law be repealed EXPLICATION WHen God the absolute Soveraign of the World shall but command though he expresly threaten no punishment to the disobedient yet implicitely it may be said to be due that is the offence in it self considered deserveth some punishment in the generall for the Law of Nature containeth some generall Threatenings as well as Precepts as I shewed before Whether this Dueness of punishment which I call implicite do arise from the nature of the offence only or also because of this generall threat in the Law of Nature I will not dispute But God dealeth with his Creature by way of legall government and keepeth not their deserved punishment from their knowledge no more then their duty it being almost as necessary to be known for our incitement as the Precept for our direction Gods laws are perfect laws fitted to the attainment of all their ends And by these laws doth he rule the world and according to them doth he dispose of his rewards and punishments So that we need not fear that which is not threatened And in this sence it is that I say That what no law in force doth threaten that sin doth not explicitely deserve Not so deserve as that we need to fear the suffering of it And upon this ground the three fore-mentioned consequences must needs follow For the new Covenant threateneth not Death to any sin but final unbelief or at least to no sin without final unbelief And therefore if the old Covenant be abrogated then no law threateneth it And consequently 1 Our Sin doth not deserve it in the sence expressed Nor Christ prevent the wrath deserved but only the desert of wrath 3. And therefore not properly doth he pardon any such sin as you will see after when I come to open the nature of pardon 4 We may plead our non deserving of death for our discharge at judgment 5. And further then Christ in satisfying did not bear the punishment due to any sin but Adams first For that which is not threatened to us was not executed on him This is a clear but an intolerable consequence 6. Scripture plainly teacheth That all men even the Elect are under the Law till they beleeve enter into the Covenant of the Gospel Therefore it is said Ioh. 3. 18. He that beleeveth not is condemned already And the wrath of God abideth on him ver 26. And we are said to beleeve for Remission of sins Acts 2. 38. Mark 1. 4. Luk. 24. 47. Act. 10. 43. 3. 19. Which shew that sin is not before remitted and consequently the Law not repealed but suspended and left to the dispose of the Redeemer Else how could the Redeemed be by nature the children of wrath Ehp. 2. 3. The circumcised are debters to the whole Law Gal. 5. 3 4. and Christ is become of none effect to them But they that are led by the Spirit are not under the law and against such there is no law Gal. 5. 18 23. The Scripture hath concluded all under Sin and so far under the Law no doubt that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to them that beleeve Gal. 3. 22. We are under the Law when Christ doth redeem us Gal. 4. 5. See also Iam. 2. 9 10. 1 Tim. 18. 1 Cor. 15. 56. Gal. 3. 19 20 21. Therefore our deliverance is conditionally from the curse of the Law viz. if we will obey the Gospel And this deliverance together with the abrogation of the Ceremonial Law is it which is so oft mentioned as a priviledge of beleevers and an effect of the blood of Christ which deliverance from the curse is yet more full when we perform form the Conditions of our freedom And then we are said to be dead to the Law Rom. 7. 4. And the Obligation to punishment dead as to us ver 6. But not the Law void or dead in it self 7 Lastly All the Scriptures and Arguments pag. 60. 61. which prove That afflictions are punishments do prove also that the Law is not repealed For no man can suffer for breaking a repealed Law nor by the threats of a repealed Law yet I know that this Covenant of Works continueth not to the same ends and uses as before nor is it so to be preached or used We must neither take that Covenant as a way to life as if now we must get salvation by our fulfilling its condition nor must we look on its curse as lying on us remedilesly THESIS XIV 1 THe Tenor of the new Covenant is this That Christ having made sufficient satisfaction to the Law Whosoever will repent and believe in him to the end shall be justified through that Satisfaction from all that the Law did charge upon them and be moreover advanced to far greater Priviledges and Glory then they fell from But whosoever fulfilleth not these conditions shall 2 have no more benefit from the blood of Christ then what they here received and abused but must answer the charge of the Law themselves and for their neglect of Christ must also suffer a far greater condemnation Or briefly Whosoever believeth in Christ shall not perish but have everlasting life but he that
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
the curse and take away the Obligation which was against us ipso facto And I think to be justified is but to be freed from the curse or condemnation and to be pardoned is nothing else but to be freed from the obligation to punishment And is remission and justification the immediate effect of Christs death What ever this Writer thinketh in this is nothing to us But because I would not have you so palpably and dangerously erre let mee say a little more against this mistake You may remember I have oft told you of how great moment it is in Divinity to be able soundly to distinguish betwixt immediate Mediate Effects of Christs Death I think Tho. Moore meant the Immediate and Mediate Effects which he calleth Ends which hath caused a great many pages about the Ends of Christs Death to be written by his Antagonists to little purpose Now I would have you know that this actuall Remission and Justification are no Immediate but Mediate effects of Christs Death no nor a personall right thereto if there be any such thing distinct from actuall freedome And to this end I pray you weigh these Arguments 1. What Right soever God giveth to men to things supernaturall such as justification remission adoption he giveth by his written Lawes But by these Lawes hee hath given no such thing to any Beleever such as are the Elect before conversion therefore c. The major is evident Gods Decree giveth no man a personall right to the mercy intended him And for the minor no man can produce any Scripture giving to unbeleevers such a right 2. If God hate all the workers of iniquity and we are all by nature the children of wrath and without faith it is impossible to please God and he that beleeveth not is condemned already then certainly the Elect while they are unbeleevers are not actually de facto no nor in personall Right delivered from this hatred wrath displeasure and condemnation But the major is the very words of Scripture therefore c. 3. If we are justified onely by Faith then certainly not before Faith But we are justified onely by Faith therefore c. I doe in charity suppose that you will not answer so groslely as to say we are justified in foro Dei before Faith and onely in foro conscientiae by Faith till you can finde one word in Scripture which saith that an unbeleever is justified If I thought you were of this opinion I should think it an easie task to manifest its falshood And if you say that we are justified in Gods Decree before Faith I answer 1. It is no justification shew me the Scripture that calleth it so 2. Nay it clearely implyeth the contrary For Decreeing is a term of Diminution as to justifying He that saith he is purposed to free you from prison c. implyeth that as yet it is not done To be justified or saved in Decree is no more but that God decreeth to justifie and save us and therefore sure it is yet undone 4. If we are exhorted while we are unbeleevers to be reconciled to God and to beleeve for remissions of sins then sure we are not yet reconciled nor remitted But the former is evident in Scripture therefore c. 5. No man dare affirm that we are immediatly upon Christs death delivered actually and ipso facto from the power or presence of sin nor from afflictions and death which are the fruits of it nor yet that we are freed from the distance and separation from God which sin procured And why then should we think that we were immediately delivered from the guilt and condemnation I know the common answer is that justification is an immanent act and therefore from eternity but Sanctification is a transient act But I have disproved this in the Treatise and cleared to you that justification is also a transient Act Otherwise Socinianisme were the soundest doctrine that Christ never needed to satisfie if we were justified from eternity Yet to confesse the truth I was long deceived with this Argument my self taking it upon trust from Dr. Twisse and Mr. Pemble whom I valued above most other men and so continued of that same judgement with these Authors you alledge and remained long in the borders of Antinomianisme which I very narrowly escaped And it grieveth me to see many of our Divines to fight against Jesuites and Arminians with the Antinomian weapons as if our cause afforded no better and so they run into the far worse extream I undertake to manifest to you that this Doctrine of Christs immediate Actuall delivering us from guilt wrath and condemnation is the very pillar and foundation of the whole frame and fabrick of Antinomianisme But these things which you draw out of me here unseasonably I am handling in a fitter place in a small Tract of Vniversall Redemption But the last week I have received Amiraldus against Spanhemius exercitations who hath opened my very heart almost in my own words and hath so fully said the very same things which I intended for the greater part that I am now unresolved whether to hold my hand or to proceed The Lord give you to search after the truth in love with a humble unbyassed submissive soul neither losing it through negligence and undervaluing nor yet diverted from it by inferiour controversies nor preverted by self-confidence nor forestalled by prejudice nor blinded by passion nor lost in contentions nor subverted by the now-ruling spirit of giddinesse and levity nor yet obscured by the confounding of things that differ that so by the conduct of the Word and Spirit you may attaine the sight of amiable naked truth and your understanding may be enlightned and your soul beautified by the reflexion and participation of her light and beauty that your heart being ravished with the sense of her goodnesse and awed by her Authority you may live here in the constant embracements of her and cordiall obedience to her till you are taken up to the prime eternall Truth and Goodnesse Rom. 14. 9. For to this end Christ both dyed and rose and revived that he might bee Lord both of the dead and living Ephes. 1. 22. And God hath put all things under his feet and gave him to be the head over all things to the Church Heb. 5. 9. And being made perfect hee became the Author of eternall salvation to all them that obey him Revel 20. 14. Blessed are they that doe his commandements that they may have right to the Tree of Life and may enter in by the gate into the City Sayings of excellent Divines added to satisfie you who charge mee with Singularity D. Twisse his Discovery of Dr. Iacksons vanity p. 528. WHat one of our Church will maintain that any one obtaines actuall Redemption by Christ without Faith especially considering that Redemption by the Blood of Christ and forgivenesse of sinnes are all one Eph. 1. 17. Col. 1. 14. Byshop Hooper cited by Doctor Jackson