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
in this Life 2. And Iustification in sentence of the Iudge which is at the last Iudgement 24. Betwixt justifying us against a true Accusation as of breaking the Law Thus Christ justifieth us and here it is that we must plead his Safaction 2. And justifying us against a false Accusation as of not performing the Conditions of the Gospell Here we must plead not guilty and not plead the Satisfaction of Christ. 25. Betwixt the Accusation of the Law from Christ doth justifie believers 2. And the Accusation of the Gospell or new Covenant for not per forming its Conditions at all from which no man can be justified and for which there is no sacrifice 26. Betwixt those Acts which recover us to the state of Relation which we fell from that is Pardon Reconciliation and Iustification 2. And those which advance us to a far higher state that is Adoption and Vnion with Christ. 27. Betwixt our first Possession of Iustification which is upon our contract with Christ or meer Faith 2. And the Confirmation Continuation and Accomplishment of it whose Condition is also sincere Obedience and Perseverance 28. Betwixt the great summary duty of the Gospell to which the rest are reducible which is Faith 2. And the Condition fully expressed in all its parts where of Faith is the Epitome 29. Betwixt the word Faith as it is taken Physically and for some one single Act 2. And as it is taken Morally Politically and Theologically here for the receiving of Christ with the whole soul. 30. Betwixt the accepting of Christ as a Saviour only which is no true Faith nor can justifie 2. And Accepting him for Lord also which is true Iustifying Faith 31. Betwixt the foresaid Receiving of Christ himself in his offices which is the Act that Iustifieth 2. And Receiving his Promises and Benefits a consequent of the former Or betwixt accepting him for Iustification 2. And beleeving that we are justified 32. Betwixt the Metaphysicall Truth of our Faith 2. And the Morall Truth 33. Betwixt the Nature of the Act of Faith which justifieth or its Aptitude for its office which is its receiving Christ 2. And the proper formall Reason of its Iustifying power which is because it is the Condition upon which God will give us Christs Righteousness 34. Betwixt Works of the Law which is perfect Obedience 2. And Works of the Gospell Covenant which is Faith and sincere Obedience to Christ that bought us 35. Betwixt Works of the Gospell used as Works of the Gospell i.e. in subordination to Christ as Conditions of our full Iustification and Salvation by him 2. And Works commanded in the Gospell used a-Works of the Law or to legall ends viz. to make up in whole or in part our proper legall Righteousness and so in opposition to Christs Righteousness or in co-ordination with it In the first sence they are necessary to Salvation In the second Damnable 36. Betwixt receiving Christ and loving him as Redeemer which is the Condition it self 2. And taking the Lord for our God and chief Good and loving him accordingly Which is still implyed in the Covenant as its End and Perfection And so as more excellent then the proper Conditions of the Covenant Glory to God in the highest and on Earth Peace Good-will towards men Luk. 2. 14. Postscript WHereas there is in this Book an intimation of something which I have written of Vniversall Redemption Understand that I am writing indeed a few pages on that subject onely by way of Explication as an Essay for the Reconciling of the great differences in the Church thereabouts But being hindered by continuall sickness and also observing how many lately are set a work on the same subject as Whitfield Stalham Howe Owen and some men of note that I hear are now upon it I shall a while forbear to see if something may come forth which may make my endeavour in this kinde useless and save me the labour Which if it come not to pass you shall shortly have it if God will enable me Farewell AN APPENDIX to the fore-going TREATISE BEING An Answer to the Objections of a Friend concerning some Points therein contained And at his own Desire annexed for the sake of others that may have the same thoughts Zanchius in Philip. 3. 13. What can be more pernicious to a Student yea to a Teacher then to think that he knoweth all things and no knowledge can be wanting in him For being once puft up vvith this false opinion he vvill profit no more The same is much truer in Christian Religion and in the Knovvledge of Christ. Rom. 3. 25. Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through Faith in his blood for Remission of sins that are past through the forbearance of God READER THe disorder of the Interrogations and Objections which extorted from me this whole Tractate by pieces one after another hath caused me an unfeigned lover of method to give thee such a disorderly immethodicall Miscellany Also the quality of these Objections hath occasioned me to answer many things triviall whilest I know more difficult and weighty points are overlooked these things need no excuse but this information That I was to follow and not to lead and that I write only for those who know less than my self if thou know more thank God and joyn with me for the instruction of the ignorant whose information reformation and salvation and thereby Gods glory is the top of my ambition R. B. AN ANSWER to some Objections and Questions OF One that perused this small TRACTATE before it went to the Press The sum of the Objections is as followeth 1. IT seemeth strange to me that you make the death which the first Covenant did threaten to be only in the everlasting suffering of soul seperated from the body and that the body should de turned to earth and suffer no more but the pains of death and consequently not whole man but only part of him should de damned 2. Though you seem to take in the Active Righteousness of Christ with the Passive into the work of Justification yet it is on such grounds as that you do in the main agree with them who are for the Passive Righteousness alone against the stream of Orthodox Divines 3. I pray you clear to me a little more fully in what sence you mean that no sin but finall unbelief is a breach or violation of the new Covenant and how you can make it good that temporary unbelief and gross sin is no violation of it seeing We Covenant against these 4. Whether it will not follow from this doctrine of yours that the new covenant is never violated by any for the regenerate do never finally and totally renounce Christ and so they violate it not the unregenerate were never truly in covenant and therefore cannot be said to violate the Covenant which they never made 5. How you will make it appear that the new Covenant is not made with Christ only 6.
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
in expediting the Arminian Controversies as you shall perceive after Some parts of Scripture do in severall respects belong to both these Wills such are some promises and threatnings conditionall which as they are predictions of what shall come to passe do belong to the will Purpose but as they are purposely delivered and annexed to the commands and prohibitions for incitement to Duty and restraint from Sin which was indeed the great end of God in them so they belong to the Will of Precept For the promise of Reward and the threatning of Punishment are reall parts of the Law or Covenant so of History All this is only a preparative to the opening more fully the nature of the Legislative Will and what falls under it For the Will of Purpose and what is under it I have no intention any further to handle THESIS III. First The Will of God concerning duty is expressed wholly in his written Laws Secondly Which Laws are promulgate and established by way of Covenant wherein the Lord engageth himselfe to reward those that performe its conditions and threateneth the penalty to the violaters thereof EXPLICATION 1. NOt but that much of Gods Will is also contained in the Law of Nature or may by the meere use of Reason be learned from Creatures and Providences But yet this is nothing against the Scriptures sufficiency and perfection For besides all the superadded Positives the Scripture also containes all that which we call the Law of Nature and it is there to be found more legible and discernable than in the best of our obscure deceitfull corrupted hearts 2. All perfect compulsive Laws have their penalty annexed or else they are but meerly directive but not usually any reward propounded to the obeyers It is sufficient that the Subject know his Soveraignes pleasure which he is bound to observe without any reward Meere Laws are enacted by Soveraignty Meere Covenants are entred by equalls or persons dis-engaged to each other in respect of the contents of the Covenants and therefore they require mutuall consent These therefore made by God are of a mixt nature neither meere Laws nor meere Covenants but both He hath enacted his Laws as our Soveraigne Lord whithout waiting for the Creatures consent and will punish the breakers whether they consent or no But as it is a Covenant there must be a restipulation from the Creature and God will not performe his conditions there expressed without the Covenanters consent engagement and performance of theirs Yet is it called frequently in Scripture a Covenant as it is offered by God before it be accepted and entered into by the Creature because the condescention is only on Gods part and in reason there should be no question of the Creatures consent it being so wholly and only to his advantage Gen. 9. 12 17. Exod. 34. 28. Deut. 29. 1. 2 Kings 23. 3 c. There are some generall obscure Threatnings annexed to the prohibitions in the Law of Nature that is Nature may discerne that God will punish the breakers of his Law but how or with what degree of punishment it cannot discern Also it may collect that God will be favourable and gratious to the Obedient but it neither knows truly the conditions nor the nature or greatnesse of the Reward nor Gods engagement thereto Therefore as it is in Nature it is a meer Law and not properly a Covenant Yea to Adam in his perfection the forme of the Covenant was known by superadded Revelation and not written naturally in his heart Whether the threatning and punishment do belong to it only as it is a Law or also as it is a Covenant is of no great moment seeing it is really mixt of both It is called in Scripture also the curse of the Covenant Deut. 29. 20. 21. THESIS IIII. THe first Covenant made with Adam did promise life upon condition of perfect obedience and threaten death upon the least disobedience EXPLICATION THe promise of life is not expressed but plainly implyed in the threatning of death That this life promised was onely the continuance of that state that Adam was then in in Paradice is the judgement of most Divines But what death it was that is there threatned is a Question of very great difficulty and some moment The same damnation that followeth the breach of the New Covenant it could not be no more then the life then enjoyed is the same with that which the New Covenant promiseth And I cannot yet assent to their judgement who think it was onely that death which consisteth in a meer separation of soule and body or also in the annihilation of both Adams separated soule must have enjoyed happinesse or endured misery For that our soules when separated are in one of these conditions and not annihilated or insensible I have proved by twenty Arguments from Scripture in another booke As Adams life in Paradise was no doubt incomparably beyond ours in happinesse so the death threatned in that Covenant was a more terrible death then our temporall death For though his losse by a temporall death would have bin greater then ours now yet hee would not have bin a Subject capable of privation if annihilated nor however capable of the sense of his losse A great losse troubleth a dead man no more then the smallest Therefore as the joy of Paradise would have bin a perpetuall joy so the sorrow and pain it is like would have bin perpetuall and wee perpetuated capable Subjects See Barlow exercit utrum melius sit miserum esse quam non esse I do not thinke that all the deliverance that Christs Death procured was onely from a temporall death or annihilarion or that the death which hee suffered was aequivalent to no more THESIS V. THis Covenant being soon by man violated the threatning must bee fulfulled and so the penalty suffered EXPLICATION WHether there were any flat necessity of mans suffering after the fall is doubted by many and denyed by Socinus Whether this necessity ariseth from Gods naturall Justice or his Ordinate viz. his Decree and the verity of the threatning is also with many of our own Divines a great dispute whether God might have pardoned sinne if he had not said the sinner shall die may be doubted of though I believe the affirmative yet I judge it a frivolous presumptuous question But the word of his threatning being once past methinks it should bee past question that hee cannot absolutely pardon without the apparent violation of his Truth or Wisdome Some think that it proceedeth from his Wisdome rather then his Justice that man must suffer see Mr. Io. Goodwin of justif part 2. pag. 34. but why should we separate what God hath conjoyned However whether Wisdome or justice or Truth or rather all these were the ground of it yet certaine it is that a necessity there was that the penalty should be inflicted or else the Son of God should not have made satisfaction nor sinners bear so much themselves THESIS VI
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
84. Who directeth those that doubt of their Gospel sincerity to see it in Christ because Christ hath beleeved perfectly he hath sorrowed for sin perfectly he hath repented perfectly he hath obeyed perfectly he hath mortisied sin perfectly and all is ours c. If this be meant of Gospel-beleeving repenting sorrowing obeying and mortifying then it is no uncharitable language to say It is blasphemy in its clear consequence as if Christ had a Saviour to beleeve in for pardon and life or sin to repent of and sorrow for and mortifie But if he meant it of legall beleeving in God or repenting sorrowing for mortifying of sin in us and not in himself then is it no more to the business he hath in hand then a Harp to a Harrow as they say It is not legall beleeving which is the evidence doubted of or enquired after and sure Christs repenting and sorrowing for our sin is no clearing to us that we repent of our own nor any acquitting of us for not doing it And for his mortifying sin in us that is the doubt whether it be done in the doubting soul or not If he mean it of destroying the guilt of sin meritoriously on the Cross that is but a strange evidence of the death of it in a particular soul except he think as divers that I met with in Glocestershire and Wilt-shire That Christ took our naturall pravity and corruption together with our flesh But I let go this sort of men as being fitter first to learn the grounds of Religion in a Cathechism then to a manage those Disputes wherewith they trouble the World THESIS XXI NOt that we can perform these Conditions without Grace for without Christ we can do nothing But that he enableth us to perform them our selves and doth not himself repent beleeve love Christ obey the Gospel for us as he did satisfie the Law for us EXPLICATION THis prevention of an Objection I add because some think it is a self-ascribing and derogating from Christ to affirm our selves to be but the Actors of these duties though we profess to do it only by the strength of Grace But that it is Christ that repenteth and beleeveth and not we is language somewhat strange to those ears that have been used to the language of Scripture or Reason Though I know there is a sort of sublime Platonick Plotinian Divines of late sprung up among us who think all things be but one and those branches or beams of Gods Essence which had their Being in him before their Creation and shall at their dissolution return into God again and so the souls of men are but so many parcels of God given out into so many bodies or at least but beams streaming from him by a fancyed Emanation These men will say not only that it is Christ in us that doth beleeve but the meer Godhead in essence considered But it sufficeth sober men to beleeve that Christ dwelleth in us 1. By his graces or spirituall workings 2. By our constant love to him and thinking of him as the person or thing that we are still affectionately thinking on is said to dwell in our mindes or hearts because their idea is still there or our mindes and hearts to dwell upon them But in regard of the Divine Essence which is every where as it dwells no otherwise for ought I know or have seen proved in the Saints then in the wicked and devils so I think as Sir Kenelm Digby thinks of the Soul That the Body is more properly said to be in the Soul then the Soul in the Body so we are more properly said to live and move have our Being in God then God to live and move and have his Being in us I will not digress from my intended subject so far as to enter here into a disquisition after the nature or workings of that Grace which doth enable us to perform these Conditions I refer you to Parkers Theses de Traductione Peccatoris ad vit THESIS XXII IN this fore-explained sence it is that men in Scripture are said to be personally righteous And in this sence it is that the Faith and duties of Beleevers are said to please God viz. as they are related to the Covenant of Grace and not as they are measured by the Covenant of Works EXPLICATION THose that will not acknowledg that the godly are called righteous in the Scripture by reason of a personal Righteousness consisting in the rectitude of their own dispositions actions as well as in regard of their imputed righteousness may be convinced from these Scriptures if they will beleeve them Gen. 7. 2. 18. 23 24. Iob 17. 9. Psa. 1. 5 6. 37. 17 21 c Eccl. 9. 1 2. Ezek. 18. 20 24. 33. 12 13 18. Mat. 9. 13. 13. 43. 25 37 46. Luk. 1. 6. Heb. 11. 4. 1 Pet. 4. 18. 2 Pet. 2. 8. 1 Ioh. 3. 7 12. Rev. 22. 11. Mat. 10. 41. Rom. 5. 7. So their ways are called Righteousness Psal. 15. 2. 23. 3. 45. 7. c. Mat. 5. 20. 21. 32. Luke 1. 75. Act. 10. 35. Rom. 6. 13. 16 18 19 20. 1 Cor. 15. 34. 1 Ioh. 2. 29. 3. 10. Eph. 4. 24. c. That men are sometime called righteous in reference to the Laws and Judgments of men I acknowledge Also in regard of some of their particular actions which are for the substance good And perhaps sometimes in a comparative sense as they are compared with the ungodly As a line less-crooked should be called streight in comparison of one more crooked But how improper an expression that is you may easily perceive The ordinary phrase of Scripture hath more truth and aptitude then so Therefore it must needs be that men are called Righteous in reference to the new Covenant only Which is plain thus Righteousness is but the denomination of our actions or persons as they relate to some rule This rule when it is the Law of man and our actions suit thereto we are then righteous before men When this Rule is Gods Law it is either that of Works or that of Grace In relation to the former there is none righteous no not one for all have sinned and come short of the glory of God Only in Christ who hath obeyed and satisfied we are righteous But if you consider our actions and persons in relation to the rule of the new Covenant so all the Regenerate are personally righteous because they all perform the conditions of this Covenant and are poperly ponounced righteous thereby Neither can it be conceived how the works of Beleevers should either please God or be called righteousness as they relate to that old Rule which doth pronounce them unrighteous hatefull and accursed Two sorts among us therefore do discover intolerable Ignorance in this point 1. Those that commonly use and understand the words Righteous and Righteousness as they relate to the old Rule as if the Godly were called righteous
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