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 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
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
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
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
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
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
Ceremonial Law his Circumcision Offering and so his Baptism c. Luke 2. 21 24. Gal. 4. 4. Isa. 53. 12. Ioh. 7. 2 10. Mat. 26. 17 18 19. 20. 3. 13. 10. These were the proper duties of sinners which he was not These two are admitted by Mr Gataker and most others 3. Even his obedience to the Moral Law was not his duty till he voluntarily undertook it It being therefore upon his consent and choyce and not due before consent must needs be meritorious And though when he was once a servant he is bound to do the work of a servant yet when he voluntarily put himself in the state of a servant and under the Law not for his own sake but for ours his work is nevertheless meritorious Suppose when a Soulder hath deserved death his Captain should offer himself to the General to do the duty of the private Souldier and to perform some rare exploit against the Enemy though he lose his life in the Service and all this to ransom the Souldier when he hath undertaken the task it becomes due but yet is nevertheless satisfactory As he saith Bradshaw who to satisfie for another becomes a slave to men doth in and by all those acts which the Laws binde a slave unto make satisfaction yea though they be such acts as he becoming a slave is bound upon pain of death to undergo so Christ c. and the greater was the bond that he did undergo for the doing of them the greater was the merit Isa. 42. 1. 53. 11. Phili. 2. 7. Luk. 2. 20. Isa. 53. 9 10. Gal. 4. 4. 2 Corinth 5. 11. Heb. 7. 26. 1 Pet. 2. 22 24. 3. 18. 1 Ioh. 3. 5. 4. Even some works that are due may yet be so excellent for matter and manner and so exceeding pleasing to him that commands them that they may give him satisfaction for former injuries and he may think it his part to encourage the Actor with some reward So Ionathans delivering Israel by that rare exploit did save him from death Abners bringing in the Kingdom to David would have covered his former service against him Many of Ioabs faults were long covered by his good service Such were the actions of David in bringing in the fore-skins of the Philistins and of his Worthies in fetching him of the waters of Bethlehem 1 Sam. 14. 44 45 2 Sam. 2. 3. 1 Sam. 18. 26 27. 2 Sam. 23. 16. It was not onely the suffering or hazard in these actions that was meritorious but also the excellency of the actions themselves 5. The interest of the Divine Nature in all the works of Christ maketh them to be infinitely meritorious and so satisfactory THESIS VIII 1 WHerefore the Father hath delivered all things into the hands of the Son and given him all power in heaven and earth and made him Lord both of the dead and living Ioh. 13. 3. Mat. 28. 18. Ioh. 5. 21 22 23 27. Rom. 14. 9. EXPLICATION 1 FOr Explication of this there are several Questions to be debated 1. Whether the extolling of Christ the Mediator or the restoring and saving of the offendors were Gods more remote end and principal intention 2. Whether this Authority and Dignity of Christ be by Original Natural Right or by Donation or by Purchase 3. Whether Christs Lordship over all do imply or prove his redeeming of all or of all alike 4. Whether God hath delivered things out of his own power in any kinde by delivering them into the power of his Son or whether it be only the substituting him to be Vicegerent to the Father To the first I answer That the saving of sinners was the end both of the Father and the Son is plain through the Gospel and that the exalting of Christ to his Dominion was another end is plain in Rom 14. 9. But which of these was the principal end I think is an unwarrantable question for man to propound I dare not undertake to assert a natural priority or posteriority in any of Gods Decrees de mediis ad finem ultimum much less to determine which hath the first place and which the second Phil. 2. 9. To the second question I answer 1. The Divine Nature of Christ being one with the Godhead of the Father had an absolute soveraignty over all things from their first being and so derivately had the humane nature as soon as assumed by vertue of the Hypostatical Union 2. But there is further a power given him as Mediator to dispose of all at his pleasure to make new laws to the world and to deal with them according to the tenor of those laws This power is partly purchased and partly given but not gratis that is Though God might have refused the tendered fatisfaction and have made the sinner bear the punishment yet he willingly accepted the merits of his Son as a full ransom and delivered up all to the Purchaser as his own And so well was he pleased with the work of Redemption that he also gave a further power to his Son to judge his Enemies and save his people with a far greater Judgment and Salvation So that this power may be said to be given Christ as it was the free act of God without constraint and yet to be purchased because it was given upon a valuable consideration To the third Question I answer This Authority of Christ implieth the purchasing of all things under his power or dominion as is explained in the last But what redemption or benefit is procured to the party I shall shew you more when I come to treat of universal Redemption by it self To the fourth Question I answer This is more then a substituting of Christ to be the Fathers Vicegerent It is also a power of prescribing new terms of Life and Death and judging men according thereto as is said before Yet is nothing properly given out of the Fathers power or possession but a power to suspend or dispense with the strict Covenant of Works is given to the Son and so God having parted with that advantage which his Justice had against the sinning world and having relaxed that Law whereby he might have judged us is therefore said to judge no man but to give all judgment to the Son Ioh. 5. 22 27. THESIS IX 1 IT was not the intenâ— either of the Father or Son that by this satisfaction the offenders should be immediately delivered from the whole curse of the Law and freed from the evil which they had brought upon themselves but some part must be executed on soul and body and the creatures themselves and remain upon them at the pleasure of Christ. Rev. 1. 18. 1 Cor. 15. 26. EXPLICATION THe Questions that are here to be handled for the Explication of this Position are these 1. Quest. Whether the redeemed are immediately upon the price payd delivered from any of the curse of the Law if not from all 2. Quest. Whether the sufferings of the Elect before conversion are
it in its Promise And as where there is no Law there is no Transgression nor Condemnation because sin is formally a transgression of the Law and Condemnation is but the execution of its Threatning so where there is no fulfilling the new Law there is no Righteousnesse nor Iustification because Righteousnesse is formally a conformity to the Law of Righteousnesse and Iustification is but the performing of part of its Promise 5. That Faith 's receiving Christ and his righteousnesse is the remote of secondary and not the formall Reason why it doth Iustifie appeareth thus 1. I would ask any dissenter this Question Suppose that Christ had done all that he did for sinners and they had believed in him thereupon without any Covenant promising Iustification to this faith Would this faith have justified them By what Law Or whence will they plead their Iustification at the barr of God Well but suppose that Christ having done what he did for us that he should in framing the New Covenant have put in any other Condition and said whosoever loveth God shall by vertue of my satisfaction be Iustified Would not this love have Iustified No doubt of it I conclude then thus The receiving of Christ is as the silver of this coin the Gospell-promise is as the Kings stamp which maketh it currant for justifying If God had seen meet to have stamped any thing else it would have passed currantly Yet take this Faith is even to our own apprehension the most apt and suitable condition that God could have chosen for as far as we can reach to know There cannot be a more Rationall apt condition of delivering a redeemed Malefactor from Torment then that he thankfully accept the pardon and favour of redemption and hereafter take his Redeemer for his Lord. So that if you ask me what is the formall Reason why Faith Iustifieth I answer Because Christ hath made it the condition of the New Covenant and promised Iustification upon that Condition But 2. If you ask me further Why did Christ chuse this rather then any thing else for the Condition I. Answer 1. To ask a Reason of Christs choice and commands is not alway wise or safe 2. But here the reason is so apparent that a posteriore we may safely adventure to say That this is the most self-denying and Christ advancing work Nothing could be more proportionable to our poverty who have nothing to buy with then thus freely to receive Nothing could be more reasonable then to acknowledge him who hath redeemed us and to take him for our Redeemer and Lord many more such Reasons might be given In a word then Faith Justifieth primarily and properly as it is the Condition of the New Covenant that is the formall reason And secondarily remotely as it is the receiving of Christ and his righteousnesse that is the aptitude of it to this use to which it hath pleased Cod to destinate it I stand the more on this because it is the foundation of that which followeth THESIS LVIII THe ground of this is because Christs Righteousness doth not Iustifie us properly and formerly because we Beleeve or receive it but because it is ours in Law by Divine Donation or Imputation THis is plain in it self and in that which is said before THESIS LIX IVstification is not a momentaneous Act begun and ended immediately upon our Believing bnt a continued Act which though it be in its kind compleat from the first yet is it still in doing till the finall Iustification at the Iudgement day EXPLICATION THis is evident from the nature of the Act it being as I shewed before an Act of God by his Gospell Now 1. God still continueth that Gospell-Covenant in force 2. That Covenant still continueth Justifying Believers 3. God himself doth continue to esteem them accordingly and to Will their Absolution 1. This sheweth you therefore with what limitation to receive the Assersion of our Divines that Remission and Justification are simul semel performed 2. And that the Justified pardoned may pray for the continuance of their pardon and Justification 3. That of Christs satisfaction and our Faith are of continuall use and not to be laid by when we are once Justified as if the work were done See Dr. Downame of Iustific of this point THESIS LX. THe bare Act of beleeving is not the onely Condition of the New Covenant but severall other duties also are part of that Condition EXPLICATION I Desire no more of those that deny this but that Scripture may be Iudge and that they will put by no one Text to that end produced till they can give some other commodious and not forced Interpretation 1. Then that pardon of sin and salvation are promised upon condition of Repenting as well as beleeving is undeniably asserted from these Scriptures Prov. 1. 23. 28. 13. Mar. 1. 15. 6. 12. Luk. 13. 3 5. Act. 2. 38. 3. 19. 8. 22. 17. 30. 26. 20. 5. 31. 11. 18. Luk. 24. 47. Heb. 6. 1. 2 Pet. 3. 9. Ezek. 18. 27 28. 33. 12. Hose 14. 2. Ioel 2. 14 15. Deut. 4. 30. 30. 10. 2 That praying for Pardon and forgiving others are Conditions of Pardon is plain 1 King 8. 30 39. Mat. 6. 12 14 15. 18. 35. Mar. 11. 25 26. Luke 6. 37. 11. 4. 1 Ioh. 1. 9. Iam. 5. 15. Io. 14. 13 14. 1 Ioh. 5. 15. Act. 8. 22. 3. That Love and sincere Obedience and Works of Love are also parts of the Condition appeareth in these Scriptures Luk. 7. 47. though I know in Mr Pinks Interpretation of that Ma. 5. 44. Lu. 6. 27. 35. 10. 11. 12. 17. 1 Cor. 2. 9. Rom. 8. 28. Ephes. 6. 24. 1 Cor. 16 22. Iam. 1. 12. 2. 5. Ioh. 14. 21. Pro. 8. 17 21. Ioh. 16. 27. Ma. 10. 37. Luk. 13. 24. Phil. 2. 12. Rom. 2. 7. 10. 1 Corinth 24. 9. 2 Tim. 2. 5. 12. 1 Tim. 6. 18. 19. Rev. 22. 14. Luk. 11. 28. Mat. 25. 41 42. Iam. 2. 2 22 23 24 26. THESIS LXI THerefore though the non-performance of any one of these be threatned with certain death yet there must be a Concurrence of them all to make up the Conditions which have the promise of life EXPLICATION THerefore we oftner read death threatned to those that repent not then Life promised to them that Repent And when you do read of Life promised of any one of these you must understand it caeteris partibus or in sensu composito as it stands conjunct with the rest and not as it is divided Though I think that in regard of their existence they never are divided For where God giveth one he giveth all yet in case they were separated the Gospell would not so own them as its intire Conditions THESIS LXII YEt Faith may be called the onely Condition of the new Covenant 1. Because it is the principall Condition and the other but the less principall And so as
which an Hypocrite may not perform and inward works they cannot discern nor yet the principles from which nor the ends to which our works proceed and are intended There is as much need of a divine heart-searching knowledge to discern the sincerity of Works as of Faith it self So that if it be not certain that the Text speaks of Justification before God I scarce know what to be certain of Once more 1. Was Abraham justified before men for a secret Action 2. Or for such a◠Action as the killing of his onely Son would have been 3. Was not he the justifier here who was the imputer of Righteousness But God was the imputer of Righteousness vers 23. therefore God was the Justifier So I leave that interpretation to sleep 2. That it is the Person and not his Faith onely which is here said to be justified by Works is as plain in the Text almost as can be spoken vers 21. Abraham not his faith is said to be justified by works Vers. 24. By Works a man is justified If by a man were meant a mans Faith then it would run thus sencelessely By Works a mans Faith is justified and not by Faith onely so Vers 25 3. For Mr. Pembles interpretation That by Works is meant a Working Faith I Answer I dare not teach the holy Ghost to speak nor force the Scripture nor raise an exposition so far from the plain importance of the words without apparent necessity But here is not the least necessitie There being not the least inconvenience that I Know of in affirming Justification by Works in the fore-explained sence Men seldom are bold with Scripture in forcing it But they are first bold with Conscience inforcing it If it were but some one Phrase dissonant from the ordinary language of Scripture I should not doubt but it must be reduced to the rest But when it is the very scope of a Chapter in plain and frequent expressions no whit dissonant from any other Scripture I think he that may so wrest it as to make it unsay what it saith may as well make him a Creed of his own let the Scripture say what it will to the contrary what is this but with the Papist to make the Scripture a Nose of wax If Saint Iames speak it so oft over and over that Justification is by works and not by Faith onely I will see more cause before I deny it or say he meanes a Working Faith If he so understand a Working Faith as that it justifieth principally as Faith and lesse principally as working then I should not differ from him only I should think the Scripture Phrase is more fafe and more propert But he understandeth it according to that common assertion and exposition that Fides solum justificat non autem fides sola Faith alone justifieth but not that faith which is alone The question therefore is Whether Works do concur with Faith as part of the Condition in the very businesse of Justifying or whether they are onely Concomitants to that Faith which effecteth the business without their assistance The ground of the mistake lyeth here They first ascribe to much to Faith and then because that nimium which they give to Faith is not found agreeable to Works therefore they conclude that we are not justified by works at all They think that Faith is an Instrumentall efficient cause of Justification which that properly it is not I have proved before when if they understood that it justifieth but as a Causa sine quanon or condition they would easily yeeld that Works do so too I will not say therefore that Works do effectually produce our Justification For faith doth not so Nor that they justifie as equall parts of the condition For faith is the principall But that they justifie as the secondary lesse-principall part of the Condition not onely proving our Faith to be sound but themselves being in the Obligation as well as Faith and justifying in the same kind of causality or procurement as Faith though not in equality with it I prove thus 1. When it is said that we are Iustified by Works the word By implyeth more then an Idle concomitancy If they only stood by while Faith doth all it could not be said that we are Justified by Works 2. When the Apostle saith By Works and not By Faith onely he plainly makes them concomitant in procurement or in that kind of causality which they have Especially seeing he saith not as he is commonly interpreted not By Faith which is alone but not by Faith only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 3. Therefore he saith that Faith is dead being alone Because it is dead as to the use and purpose of Justifying for in it self it hath a life according to its quality still This appears from his comparison in the former verse 16. that this is the death he speaks of And so Works make Faith alive as to the attainment of its end of Justification 4. The Analysis which Piscator and Pemble give contradicteth not this Assertion If in stead of a Working Faith they will but keep the Apostles own words I shall agree to most of their Analysis Though conclusious drawn from the Analysis are often weak it is so easie for every man to feign an Analysis suited to his ends onely the explication of the 22. vers they seem to fail in For when the Apostle saith that Faith did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 work in and with his works it cleary aimeth at such a working in and with as maketh them conjunct in the work of Justifying And when he saith that Faith was made perfect with Works it is not as they and others interpret only a manifesting to be perfect But as the habit is perfected in its Acts because they are the end to which it tendeth And as Marriage is perfected per congressum procreationem or any Covenant when its conditions are performed Faith alone is not the entire perfect Condition of the New Covenant but Faith with Repentance and sincere Obedience is A condemned Gally-slave being Redeemed is to have his deliverance upon condition that he take his Redeemer for his Master This doth so directly imply that he must obey him that his conditions are not perfectly fulfilled except he do obey him as his Master And so taking him for his Redeemer and Master and obeying him as his Master do in the same kind procure his continued freedom Indeed his meer promise and consent doth procure his first deliverance but not the continuance of it So I acknowledg that the very first point of Justification is by Faith alone without either the concomitancy or co-operation of Works for they cannot be performed in an instant But the continuance and accomplishment of Justification is not without the joynt procurement of obedience As a woman is made a mans wife and instated in all that he hath upon meer acceptance consent and contracts because conjugall actions affection the forsaking of others
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