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 That it is not repealed at all I have proved already even concerning the Covenant of Works it self and others enough have proved at large of the Morall Law 2.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
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
a whole Country hath of its name from the chief City so may the Conditions of this Covenant from Faith 2. Because all the rest are reducible to it either being presupposed as necessary Antecedents or means or contained in it as its parts properties or modifications or else implied as its immediate product or necessary subservient means or consequents EXPLICATION SUbservient Actions are in common speech silently implyed in the principall If the besieged be bound by Articles to surrender a Town to the besiegers at such a time it need not be expressed in the Articles that they shall withdraw their Guards and cease resistance and open the gates and yeeld up this house or that street c. All this is implyed clearly in the Article of surrender If a redeemed gally-slave be freed upon condition that he take him for his Redeemer and Master that did deliver him it need not be expressed that he shall leave the gallies and his company and employment there and go with him that bought him and do what he bids him do All this is plainly implyed in the foresaid words of his Conditions So here the great condition of Beleeving doth include or imply all the rest I confess it is a work of some worth and difficulty to shew how each other part of the Condition is reducible to Beleeving and in what respect they stand towards it I dare not determine too peremptorily here but I think they stand thus 1. Hearing the Word consideration conviction godly sorrow repentance from dead works are implyed as necessary means antecedents 2. Knowledge of Christ and Assent to the Truth of the Gospell are at least integrall parts of flat necessity if not essentiall parts of Faith 3. Subjection Acceptance Consent cordiall covenanting self-resigning are the very proper essentiall formall Acts of Faith 4. Esteeming Christ above all in Judgement preferring him before all in the Will loving him above all I say this preferring of Christ above all in Judgement Will and Affection is in my Judgement the very Differentia fidei maxime propria quae de ea essentialiter praedicatur sic pars ejus essentialis the very essentiall property of true Faith differencing it from all false Faith and so an essentiall part of it I know this is like to seeme strange but I shall give my reasons of it anon 5. Sincerity and perseverance are the necessary Modifications of Faith and not any thing really distinct from its Being 6. Assiance and sincere obedience and works of Love are the necessary immediate inseparable products of Faith as heat and light are of fire or rather as Reasoning is the product of Reason or yet rather as actions most properly conjugall are the effects of Conjugall contract And as Faith is in some sort more excellent then Affiance Obedience as the cause is better then the effect so in some sort they may be more excellent then Faith as the effect may be preferred before its Cause the Act before the habit as being that which is the end of the habit for whose sake it is and to which it tendeth as to its perfection 7. The praying for forgivenesse the forgiving of others the pleading of Christs satisfaction are both parts of this obedience and necessary consequents of Faith and Acts subseruient to it for the attaining of its Ends. 8. The denying and humbling of the flesh the serious painfull constant use of Gods Ordinances Hearing Praying Meditating c. are both parts of the foresaid obedience and also the necessary means of continuing and exercising our Faith 9. Strength of Grace Assurance of Pardon and Salvation Perswasion of Gods favour setled peace of Conscience Ioy in this Assurance and Peace the understanding of Truths not fundamentall or necessary in practice All these are no properties of the Condition of the Covenant but separable adjuncts of Faith tending to the Well-being of it but neither tending to nor necessary proofs of the Being of it which a Believer should have but may possibly want I shall give you some reason of severall of these Assertions when I have first made way by the Definition of Faith So then as when you invite a man to your House it is not necessary that you bid him come in at the doore or bring his head or his legs or armes or his clothes with him though these are necessary because all these are necessarily implyed even so when we are said to be justified by Faith onely or when it is promised that he that beleeveth shall be saved all those forementioned duties are implyed or included THESIS LXIII AS it is Gods excellent method in giving the Morall Law first to require the acknowledgment of his soveraign authority and to bring men to take him only for their God which is therefore called the first and great Commandment and then to prescribe the particular subsequent duties so is it the excellent method of Christ in the Gospell first to establish with men his Office and Authority and require an acknowledgment of them and consent and subjection to them and then to prescribe to them their particular duties in subordination THESIS LXIV FAith therefore is the summary and chief of the conditions of the Gospell and not formally and strictly the whole But as Love is the fulfilling of the Law so Faith is the fulfilling of the new Law or as taking the Lord for our only God is the sum of the Decalogue implying or inferring all the rest and so is the great Commandment so taking Christ for our only Redeemer and Lord is the sum of the conditions of the new Covenant including implying or inferring all other parts of its conditions and so is the great Command of the Gospell EXPLICATION THe Observation in the 63 Position is commended to you by Mr white of Dorchester in his Directions for reading Scripture p. 307. The full subjection to the Authority commanding doth imply and infer subjection to the particular Commands therefore God doth still make this the sum of the conditions of the Law that they take him only for their God or that they have no other Gods but him And when he contracteth his Covenant into an Epitome it runs thus I will be thy God and thou shalt be my people Exod. 20. 3. 23. 13. Deut. 7. 4. 8. 19. 13. 2 3 c. Ios. 24. 2 16. c. Iudg. 2. 12 17 19. 10. 13. 1 Sam. 8. 8. 2 Kings 5. 17. 17. 7. Ier. 22. 9. 7. 23. 11. 4. 30. 22. Ezek. 36. 28. Deut. 26. 16 17 c. And as Gods promise of taking us for his people doth imply his bestowing upon us all the priviledges and blessings of his people and so is the sum of all the conditions of the Covenant on his part Even so our taking the Lord for our God and Christ for our Redeemer and Lord doth imply our sincere obedience to him and is the summe of the Conditions on our part And
bring it into subjection lest when he had preached to others himself should be a cast-away 1 Cor. 9. 27. what can be plainer Did not Abraham obey because he looked for a Citie which had foundations Heb. 11. 10. And Moses because he had respect to the recompence of Reward 26. And all that cloud of witnesses obey and suffer that they might attain a better Resurrection 35. and did they not seek a better Countrey that is an heavenlie and therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God for he hath prepared for them a City ver 16. Do not all that confesse themselves strangers on earth plainlie declare that they seek another Countrie ver 13 14. Whosoever therefore shall hereafter tell you that you must not do good to attain salvation or escape damnation as being too mercenarie and slavish for a Sonne of God abhorre his Doctrine though he were an Angel from heaven And if this satisfie you not look to Jesus the Authour and Finisher of your Faith who for the joy that was set before him endured the Crosse despising the shame and is set down at the right hand of God Heb. 12. 12. Rom. 14 9. And as Adam fell to be liker the Devil when he needs would be as God so take heed whither you are falling when you will be better then Jesus Christ. And do I after all this need to answer the Common objections that it is mercenarie and slavish to labour for salvation Must I be put to prove that the Apostles and Christ himself were not mercenarie slaves or that Gods Word hath not prescribed us a slavish task Indeed if we did all for a reward distant from God and for that alone without any conjunction of Filiall love and expected this Reward for the worth of our work then it might be well called Mercenary and slavish But who among us plead for such a working FRom all this you may gather part of the Answer to your next Question why I except against the book called The Marrow of Modern Divinity Because it is guiltie of this hainous Doctrine Yet further let me tell you that I much value the greatest part of that Book and commend the industrie of the Authour and judge him a man of godlinesse and Moderation by his writing And had I thought as meanlie of it as I do of Colyer Sprigs Hobsons and manie such abominable Pamphlets that now fly abroad I should not have thought it worthy the taking so much notice of But because it is otherwise usefull I thought meet to give you warning that you drink not in the evill with the good And especially because the names that so applaud it may be a probable snare to entangle you herein And I conjecture the Authours ingenuity to be such that he will be glad to know his own mistakes and to correct them Otherwise I am unfeignedly tender of depraving or carping at any mans labours Some of these mistaking passages I will shew you briefly As page 174. Quest. Would you not have believers to escâ—ew evill and do good for fear of Hell or for hope of Heaven Ans. No indeed I would not have any beleiver doe the one or the other for so farre as they do so their obedience is but slavish c. To which end he alledgeth Luke 1. 74. 75. But that speaks of Freedome from fear of our Enemies such as Christ forbids in Luke 12. 5. where yet he commandeth the fearing of God And consequently even that fear of enemies is forbidden as they stand in opposition to God and not as his instrnments in subordination Or if it be even a fear of God that is there meant yet it cannot be all fear of him or his displeasure so far as we are in danger of sin or suffering we must fear it and so farre as our assurance is still imperfect a jealousie of our own hearts and a dreadfull reverence of God also are necessary But not the Legall terrours of our former bondage such as arise from the apprehension of sin unpardoned and of God as being our Enemy In the 180 Page he denieth the plain sence of the Text. Mat. 10. 28. In the 155 page he makes this the difference between the two Covenants One saith Do this and Live the other saith Live and do this The one saith Do this for life The other saith Do this from life But I have proved fully that the Gospel also saith Do this for life So in his second part page 190. His great note to know the voice of the Law by is this that when in Scripture there is any morall work commanded to be done either for the eschuing of punishment or upon promise of any reward temporall or eternall or else when any promise is made with the condition of any work to be done which is commanded in the Law there is to be understood the voice of the Law A notorious and dangerous mistake which would make almost all the New Testament and the very Sermons of Christ himself to be nothing but the Law of works I have fully proved before that morall duties as part of our sincere obedience to Christ are part of the condition of our Salvation and for it to be performed And even Faith is a morall duty It is pitty that any Christian should no better know the Law from the Gospel especially one that pretendeth to discover it to others So in the next page 191 he intolerably abuseth the Scripture in affirming that of 2 Thes. 2. 12. 10. to be the voice of the Law and so making Paul a Legall Preacher And as shamefully doth he abuse 1 Cor. 6. 9 10. As if the Apostle when he biddeth them not to be decived were deceiving them himself in telling them that no unrighteous person fornicators adulterers c. shall inherit the Kingdom of God Is this Law Then let me be a Preacher of the Law If Paul be a Legalist I will be one too But these men know not that the Apostle speaketh of those that die such and that these sinnes exclude men the Kingdom as they are Rebellion against Christ their Lord and so a violation of the New Covenant So in part first page 189. He mentioneth a Preacher that said he durst not exhort nor perswade sinners to believe their sinnes were pardoned before he saw their lives reformed for fear they should take more liberty to sin And he censureth that Preacher to be ignorant in the Mystery of faith I confesse I am such an ignorant Preacher my self and therefore shall desire this knowing man to resolve me in a few doubts 1. Where he learned or how he can prove that Justifying Faith is a believing that our sinnes are pardoned when Scripture so often telleth us that we are justified by Faith and sure the Object must go before the Act and therefore that which followeth the Act is not the Object If we must believe that we are pardoned that so we may be pardoned then we must
distinction of the Will of God into his Will of Purpose and his Will of Precept is very commonly used by Divines and explained by some especially Doctor Twisse frequently and Doctor Edward Reignolds in his Sermons on the Humiliation dayes on Hos. 14. Yet is not the exceeding necessity and usefulnesse of it discerned by many nor is it improved accordingly by any that I have read It is near of kin to the common distinction of Voluntas signi Beneplaciti but not the same The Tearm signi being more comprehensive yet in my judgement lesse proper and convenient then this Legislative Will or voluntas Praecepti As the old verse shews Praecipit ac prohibit permittit consulit implet Two of these Acts to wit Permission and Operation fall under the Will of Purpose as they are the effects and revelation of it but not under the Legislative Will And indeed the Schoolmen by their Voluntas signi do intend not other Will but the same which they call Beneplaciti whose Object is event as it is uncertainly represented to us by those five signes And because they are such uncertain signes the contrary to what they seem to import being frequenly certain therefore they tell us that this is but metaphorically called the Will of God viz. by a speech borrowed from the manner of men who signifie their Will by such kinde of Actions see Aquin. sum 1a. 1ae Quest. 19. Art 11. 12. And Schibler Metaph. of this But that which I call the Legislative or Preceptive will hath another object viz. not event but duty and is Metonymically rather then Metaphorically called Gods Will it being the effect and revelation of his reall unfeigned will For God doth not seeme to Will that this or that shall be our duty and so speake after the manner of men according to the sense of their Voluntas signi but hee willeth it unfeignedly Neither is this Distinction the same with that which differenceth Gods revealed Will from his secret For his revealed Will containeth also part of the Will of his purpose and all the will of precept The meere prophesies and also the promises and threatnings so far as they point out future event are the Revealed part of the Will of Gods purpose Tilenus himselfe in his conference with Camero seemes to approve of this Distinction where he distinguisheth of Gods Will according to its Object viz. vel quod ipse vult facere vel quod a nobis vult fieri If in this last branch he speake not de officio of this preceptive will rather then de eventu and of the will of purpose then he can meane it onely of a conditionall will of purpose As we use to distinguish betwixt the legall will of the King publickly manifesting our duty in the Laws and his personall private will so must we do here The necessity of this distinction is so exceeding great that but little of the doctrinall part of Scripture can be well understood without it The verity of it is also unquestionable for none but the grosely ignorant will deny that Event and Duty Purpose and Law are truly distinct or that both these last are called in Scripture and common custome of speech The Will of God And therefore it is a sencelesse Objection that wee hereby make two wills in God and those contradictory For first we only make them two distinct Acts of one the same will whereof that of purpose is lesse revealed and doth lesse concern us yet is most properly called his will as being such as in man we call the Elicite Act of it but that of precept is all revealed and doth more concerne us yet as it is in his Law it is onely Metonymically called his Will as being only the discovery of his Will properly so called And 2ly Contradiction there is none for they are not de eodem they have to do with severall Objects To Will that it shall be Abrahams duty pro hoc tempore to sacrifice his son and yet that de eventu it shall not be executed are far from contradictory To Will that it shall be the Iewes duty not to kill Christ and yet that eventually they shall kill him is no contradiction To will that it shall be Pharaohs duty to let Israel go and yet that in poynt of event hee shall not let them go is no contradiction Indeed if God had willed that he shall let them go and he shall not eventually or that it shall be his duty and it shall not either of these had been a contradiction undoubted But I have largely explained and more fully improved this Distinction under the Dispute about Universall Redemption and therefore shall say no more of it now THESIS II. First Praedestination Election Reprobation or Preterition Secondly the Covenant betwixt the Father and the Son Thirdly the absolute Promises of Regeneration and perseverance Fourthly the fulfilling of those Promises by differencing Grace are all in the series under the Will of Gods purpose EXPLICATION IT is of very great use to understand which of these Wills every one of Gods particular words or works do fall under 1. That Predestination Election and Reprobation are under this Will of Purpose only is undoubted 2 Divines use to mention a Covenanting between the Father and the Son about the work of Redemption It is called a Covenant but improperly speaking after the manner of men Properly it is but the Decree of God concerning Christs Incarnation his work and his sufferings and the successe of these and what God will further do thereupon This therefore falls under this Genius and so doth the Fathers giving the Elect to Christ which is but part of this 3. Those promises of taking the hard heart out of us and giving hearts of flesh one heart a new heart and of putting his fear in us that wee shall not depart from him c. are generally taken to be Absolute promises for here is no Condition expressed or intimated made to all the Elect and onely them as not yet regenerate and so not to any either named or qualified persons These are not therefore fulfilled upon condition of our Faith or made ours by beleeving as other promises are For Faith is part of the thing promised and the persons are unregenerate and consequently unbeleevers when these promises are fulfilled to them Therefore these Absolute promises are but meere gratious predictions what God will do for his Elect the comfort whereof can be received by no man till the benefit be received and they be to him fulfilled Therefore as all meer predictions so also these promises do fall under the Will of Purpose and not of Precept 4. So also doth the fulfilling of these to particular persons the actuall chusing or calling of some while others are past by The bestowing of that faith which is the condition of the Covenant The giving of perseverance And all the passages of speciall effectuall differencing Grace The knowledge of this is of great use
remission the Law would seem to lose much of its authority and the Law-giver be esteemed mutable 3. Besides as no good Lawes are lightly to be reversed so much lesse such as are so agreeable to order and the nature of God and so solemnly enacted as this was 4. Though GOD did dispense with his Law as to our impunity because else mankind would have utterly perished and because he is abundant in mercy and compassion Exo. 34. 7. Psal. 103. 8. III. 4 5. 145. 8. Isa. 55. 7. Ier. 31. 20. Luk 6. 36. Rom. 2. 4. yet he is also holy and just and a hater of sinne and how would those his Attributes have been manifested or glorified if he had let so many and great sinnes goe wholly unpunished Prov. 11. 20. Psal. 5. 5. 45. 8. Heb. 11. 2. Rom. 1. 18. 5. It would have encouraged men to sin and contemne the Law if the very first breach and all other should be meerly remitted but when men see that God hath punished his Son when he was our surety they may easily gather that he will not spare them if they continue rebells 6. The very end of the Law else would have been frustrated which now is fulfilled by Christs satisfaction For Proxima sunt idem tantundem 7. Besides the exceeding love of God that is manifested in this suffering of his Son and the great engagemens that are laid upon the sinner They that will avoid all the supposed inconveniencies of this Doctrine of Gods dispencing with his Threatnings must needs affirme that the offenders do suffer as much and the same which was threatned 8. Whether we are justified onely by Christs Passive Righteousnesse or also by his Active is a very great dispute among Divines By his Passive Righteousnesse is meant not onely his death but the whole course of his humiliation from the Assumption of the humane nature to his Resurrection Yea even his Obedientiall Actions so far as there was any suffering in them and as they are considered under the notion of Suffering and not of Duty or Obedience By his Active Righteousnesse is meant the Righteousnesse of his Actions as they were a perfect obedience to the Law The chiefe point of difference and difficulty lyeth higher How the Righteousnesse of Christ is made ours Most of our ordinary Divines say that Christ did as properly obey in our roome and stead as he did suffer in our stead and that in Gods esteem and in point of Law wee were in Christ obeying and suffering and so in him wee did both perfectly fulfill the Commands of the Law by Obedience and the threatnings of it by bearing the penalty and thus say they is Christs Righteousnesse imputed to us viz. his Passive Righteousnesse for the pardon of our sins and delivering us from the penalty his Active Righteousnesse for the making of us righteous and giving us title to the kingdom And some say the habituall Righteousnes of his humane nature instead of our own habituall Righteousnesse yea some adde the righteousnes of the divine nature also This opinion in my judgement containeth a great many of mistakes 1. It supposeth us to have been in Christ at least in legall title before we did beleeve or were born and that not onely in a generall and conditionall sense as all men but in a speciall as the justified indeed we are elected in Christ before the foundation of the world but that is a terme of diminution and therefore doth not prove that we were then in him Neither Gods Decree or foreknowledge gives us any legall title 2. It teacheth imputation of Christ Righteousnesse in so strict a sense as will neither stand with reason nor the Doctrine of Scripture much lesse with the phrase of Scripture which mentioneth no imputation of Christ or his Righteousnesse to us at all and hath given great advantage to the Papists against us in this Doctrine of Justification 3. It seemeth to ascribe to God a mistaking judgement as to esteem us to have been in Christ when wee were not and to have done and suffered in him what we did not 4. It maketh Christ to have paid the Idem and not the Tantundem the same that was due and not the value and so to justifie us by payment of the proper debt and not by strict satisfaction And indeed this is the very core of the mistake to think that we have by delegation paid the proper debt of Obedience to the whole Law or that in Christ we have perfectly obeyed whereas 1. It can neither be said that we did it 2. And that which Christ did was to satisfie for our non-payment and disobedience 5. So it maketh Christ to have fulfilled the preceptive part of the Law in our stead and roome in as strict a sense as he did in our room beare the punishment which will not hold good though for our sakes he did both 6. It supposeth the Law to require both obedience and suffering in respect of the same time and actions which it doth not And whereas they say that the Law requireth suffering for what is past and Obedience for the future this is to deny that Christ hath satisfied for future sinnes The time is neere when those future sins will be past also what doth the Law require then If we doe not obey for the future then we sin if we sin the Law requires nothing but suffering for expiation 7. This opinion maketh Christs sufferings by consequence to be in vain both to have been suffered needlesly by him and to be needless also now to us For if we did perfectly obey the Law in Christ or Christ for us according to that strict imputation then therere is no use for suffering for disobedience 8. It fondly supposeth a medium betwixt one that is just and one that is guilty and a difference betwixt one that is just and one that is no sinner one that hath his sin or guiâ—t taken away and one that hath his unrighteousness taken away It is true in bruits and insensibles that are not subjects capable of justice there is a medium betwixt just and unjust and innocency and justice are not the same There is a negative injustice which deneminateth the subject non-justum but not injustuÌ„ where Righteousness is not due But where there is the debitum habendi where Righteousness ought to be is not there is no negative unrighteousness but primative As there is no middle betwixt strait and crooked so neither between Conformity to the Law which is Righteousness and Deviation from it which is unrighteousness 9. It maketh our Righteousness to consist of two parts viz. The putting away of our guilt and the Imputation of Righteousness i. e. 1. Removing the crookedness 2. Making them streight 10. It ascribeth these two supposed parts to two distinct supposed causes the one to Christs fulfilling the Precept by his actual Righteousness the latter to his fulfilling the threatning by his passive Righteousness As
believeth not shall not see life but the wrath of God abideth on him Mark 16. 16. Iohn 3. 15 16 17 18 36. 5. 24. 6. 35 40 47. 7. 38. 11. 25 26. 12. 46. Acts 10. 43. Rom. 3. 26. 4. 5. 5. 1. 10. 4. 10. 1 Iohn 5. 10. Mark 1. 15. 6. 12. Luke 13. 3. 5. 24. 47. Acts 5. 31. 11. 18. 20. 21. 2. 38. 3. 19. 8. 22. 26. 20. Rev. 2. 5 16. Heb 6. 1. 2 Pet. 3. 9. EXPLICATION 1 CHrists Satisfaction to the Law goes before the new Covenant though not in regard of its payment which was in the fulness of time yet in regard of the undertaking acceptance and efficacy There could be no treating on new terms till the old obligation were satisfied and suspended I account them not worth the confuting who tell us That Christ is the only party conditioned with and that the new Covenant as to us hath no conditions so Salt marsh c. The place they alledg for this assertion in that Ier. 31. 31 32 33. cited in Heb. 8. 8 9 10. which place containeth not the full Tenor of the whole new Covenant But either it is called the new Covenant because it expresseth the nature of the benefits of the new Covenant as they are offered on Gods part without mentioning mans conditions that being not pertinent to the business the prophet had in hand or else it speaketh only of what God will do for his elect in giving them the first Grace and enabling them to perform the conditions of the new Covenant and in that sence may be called a new Covenant also as I have shewed before pag. 7. 8. Though properly it be a prediction and belong only to Gods Will of Purpose and not to his legislative Will But those men erroneously think that nothing is a condition but what is to be performed by our own strength But if they will believe Scripture the places before alledged will prove that the new Covenant hath conditions on our part as well as the old 2 Some benefit from Christ the condemned did here receive as the delay of their condemnation and many more mercies though they turn them all into greater judgments But of this more when we treat of generall Redemption THESIS XV. THough Christ hath sufficiently satisfied the Law yet is it not his Will or the Will of the Father that any man should be justified or saved thereby who hath not some ground in himself of personall and particular right and claim thereto nor that any should be justified by the blood only as shed or offered except it be also received and applyed so that no man by the meer Satisfaction made is freed from the Law or curse of the first violated Covenant absolutely but conditionally only EXPLICATION I Have shewed before p. 57. 58. c. That Christ intended not to remove all our misery as soon as he dyed nor as soon as we believed I am now to shew That he doth not justifie by the shedding of his blood immediately without somewhat of man intervening to give him a legall title thereto All the Scriptures alledged pag. 79. prove this We are therefore said to be justified by faith Let all the Antinomians shew but one Scripture which speaks of Justification from eternity I know God hath decreed to justifie his people from eternity and so he hath to sanctifie them too but both of them are done in time Justification being no more an imminent act in God then Sanctification as I shall shew afterward The Blood of Christ then is sufficient in fuo genere but not in omni genere sufficient for its own work but not for every work There are severall other necessaries to justifie and save quibus positis which being supposed the Blood of Christ will be effectuall Not that it receives its efficacy from these nor that these do add any thing at all to its worth or value no more then the Cabinet to the Jewel or the applying hand to the medicine or the offenders-acceptation to the pardon of his Prince yet without this acceptation and application this blood will not be effectuall to justifie us For as Grotius Cum unusquisque actui ex suâ voluntate pendenti legem possit imponere sicut id quod pure debetur novari potest sub conditione ita etiam possunt is qui solvit pro alio is qui rei alterius pro alterâ solutionem admittit pacisci ut aut statim sequatur remissio aut in diem item aut pure aut sub conditione Fuit autem Christi satisfacientis dei satisfactione in admittentis hic animus ac voluntas hoc denique pactam foedus non ut deus statim ipso perpessionis Christi tempore paenas remitteret sed ut tum demum id fieret cum homo vera in Christum fide ad deum conversus supplex veniam precaretur accedente etiam Christi apud deum advocatione sive intercessione Non obstat hic ergo satisfactio quo minus sequi possit remissio satisfactio enim nonjam sustulerat debitum sed hoc egerat ut propter ipsam debitum aliquando tolleretur Grot. de satis cap. 6. So that as Austin he that made us without us will not save us without us He never maketh a relative change where he doth not also make a reall Gods Decree gives no man a legall title to the benefit decreed him seeing purpose and promise are so different A legall title we must have before we can be justified and there must be somewhat in our selves to prove that title or else all men should have equall right THESIS XVI THe obeying of a Law and persorming the conditions of a Covenant or satisfying for disobedience or non-performance is our Righteousness in reference to that Law and Covenant EXPLICATION IF we understand not what Righteousnes is we may dispute long enough about Justification to little purpose you must know therefore that Righteousness is no proper reall Being but a Modus Entis the Modification of a Being The subject of it is 1. An Action 2. Or a Person An Action is the primary subject and so the Disposition and the Person secondary as being therefore righteous because his disposition and actions are so Righteousness is the conformity of Dispositions and Actions and consequently the person to the Rule prescribed It is not a being distinct therefore from the Dispositions and Actions but their just and well being This finition is onely of the Creatures Righteousness God is the Primum Iustum and so the Rule of Righteousness to the Creature and hath no Rule but himself for the measuring of his Actions Yet his Essence is too far above us remote and unknown to be this Rule to the Creature therefore hath he given us his Laws which flow from his perfection and they are the immediate Rule of our Dispositions and Actions and so of our
Righteousness Here carefully observe That this Law hath two parts 1. The Precept and Prohibition prescribing and requiring Duty 2. The Promise and Commination determining of the reward of Obedience and penalty of Disobedience As the Precept is the principall part and the Penalty annexed but for the Precepts sake so the primary intent of the Law-giver is the obeying of his Precepts and our suffering of the Penalty is but a secondary for the attaining of the former So is there accordingly a two-fold Righteousness or fulfilling of this Law which is the thing I would have observed the primary most excellent and most proper Righteousness lyeth in the conformity of our actions to the precept The secondary less excellent Righteousness yet fitly enough so called see Pemble of Iustificat pag. â— is when though we have broke the precepts yet we have satisfied for our breach either by our own suffering or some other way The first hath reference to the Commands when none can accuse us to have broak the Law The second hath reference to the Penalty when though we have broke the law yet it hath nothing against us for so doing because it is satisfyed These two kinds of Righteousnesse cannot stand together in the same person in regard of the same Law and Actions he that hath one hath not the other he that hath the First need not the Second There must be a fault or no satisfaction this fault must be confessed and so the first kind of Righteousnesse disclaimed before Satisfaction can be pleaded and Satisfaction must be pleaded before a Dilinquent can be justified This well understood would give a clearer insight into the nature of our Righteousness and Justification then many have yet attained The great Question is of which sort is our Righteousness whereby we are justified I answer of the second sort which yet is no derogation from it for though it be not a Righteousness so honouring our selves yet is it as excellent in Christ and honourable to him And this first kinde of Righteousness as it is in Christ cannot retaining its own form be made ours And to that the Papists arguments will hold good The Law commanded our own personall obedience and not another for us We did not so personally obey we did not really obey in Christ and God doth not judge us to do what we did not If we had yet it would not have made us just for one sin will make us unjust though we were never so obedient before and after Therefore if we had obeyed in Christ and yet sinned in our selves we are breakers of the Law still And so our Righteousness cannot be of the first sort This Breach therefore must be satisfied for and consequently our Righteousness must be of the second sort seeing both cannot stand in one person as beforesaid Christ indeed had both these kinds of righteousness viz. the righteousness of perfect Obedience and the righteousness of Satisfaction for Disobedience But the former only was his own personall Righteousnes not communicable to another under that notion and in that form of a Righteousness by obeying The latter was his righteousness as he stood in our room and was by imputation a sinner and so is also our Righteousness in and through him Yet the former as I have proved before c. is ours too and our Righteousness too though many Divines think otherwise but how Not as retaining its form in the former sence but as it is also in a further consideration a part of the Righteousness by Satisfaction seeing that Christs very personall obedientiall righteousness was also in a further respect satisfactory I intreat thee Reader do not pass over this distinct representation of Righteousness as curious or needless for thou canst not tell how thou art righteous or justified without it Nor do thou through prejudice reject it as unsound till thou have first well studied the Nature of Righteousness in generall and of Christian Righteousness in speciall THESIS XVII THerefore as there are two Covenants with their distinct Conditions so is there a twofold Righteousness and both of them absolutely necessary to Salvation EXPLICATION AS Sin is defined to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Trangression of the Law 1. Ioh. 3. 4. So Righteousness is a Conformity to the Law Therefore as there is a twofold Law or Covenant so must there be accordingly a two-fold Righteousness whether both these be to us necessary is all the doubt If the first Covenant be totally repealed then indeed we need not care for the righteousness of that Covenant in respect of any of our personall actions but only in respect of Adams first and ours in him But I have proved before that it is not repealed otherwise the righteousness of Christ imputed to us would not be of a very narrow extent if it were a covering only to our first transgression I take it for granted therefore that he must have a two-fold Righteousness answerable to the two Covenants that expecteth to be justifyed And the usuall confounding of these two distinct Righteousnesses doth much darken the controversies about Justification THESIS XVIII OVr Legal Righteousness or righteousness of the first Covenant is not personall or consisteth not in any qualifications of our own persons or actions performed by us For we never fulfilled nor personally satisfied the Law but it is wholly without us in Christ. And in this sence it is that the Apostle and every Christian disclaimeth his own Righteousness or his own Works as being no true legall Righteousness Phil. 3. 7 8. EXPLICATION Object 1 DOth not the Apostle say that as touching the Righteousness which is in the Law he was blameless Phil. 3. 6. Ans. That is He â—o exactly observed the Ceremoniall Law and the externall part of the Morall Law that no man could blame him for the breach of them But this is nothing to such a keeping of the whole Covenant as might render him blameless in the sight of God otherwise he would not have esteemed it so lightly Object 2. There are degrees of Sin He that is not yet a sinner in the highest degree is he not so far Righteous by a personall Righteousness Christ satisfied only for our sin so far as our actions are not sinfull so far they need no pardon nor satisfaction And consequently Christs righteousness and our own works do concur to the composing of our perfect Righteousness Ans. Though this objection doth puzle some as if there were no escaping this Popish self-exalting Consequence yet by the help of the fore-going grounds the vanity of it may be easily discovered And that thus 1. An Action is not righteous which is not conformable to the Law if in some respects it be conformable and in some not it cannot be called a conformable or righteous Action So that we having no actions perfectly conformed to the Law have therefore no one righteous action 2. If we had Yet many righteous Actions if but one were unrighteous will
onely in the Definition because as is said before I take the preferring of Christ before all others and taking him for our Onely Lord and Saviour to be the essentiall difference of true Faith There is a two-fold Verity or Sincerity in our duties requisite 1. The verity of their naturall Being which is called their Metaphysicall Truth 2. The verity or sincerity of them as Duties or Graces which is their Morall sincerity This last consisteth in the true suiting of the Act to its Object For example one man pretendeth to love his wife and doth not There is neither Naturall nor Morall Truth Another doth love her but not half so well as other women There is the Metaphysicall Truth but not the Morall A third loveth her as a wife above others There is both Metaphysicall Truth and Morall So it is in our Love to God To Love him as the chief Good is to love him as he is And he that loveth him never so much and yet loveth any thing else as much or more though his Love have a Metaphysicall Truth of Being yet it hath no Morall sincerity at all So that the Preferring God before all or taking him for our Onely God is the very point of sincerity of Love Why just so it is about our Faith The taking him unfeignedly for our onely Lord and Saviour is the very point of the sincerity of our Faith in Christ. As Adultery is the most proper violation of the Marriage Covenant except actuall renouncing and deserting So the taking of any other Lord or Saviour besides Christ or conjunct with him is the most apparent violation of the bond of our Covenant and most contradictory to the nature and Essence of Justifying Faith except onely the Actuall renouncing Christ and the Covenant it self by full Apostacy which is an unpardonable sin Hebr. 6. 4 5 6. 10. 26. Yet in subordination to Christ we may have other Lords and Saviours but not in competition and co-ordination Some of his Government he exerciseth by Ministers and some by Magistrates under him for I cannot consent to them that say the Magistrate is onely the Officer of God as Creator and not of Christ the Mediator because all things are delivered into his hands and he is made head over all Some also of his saving works he performeth by instruments and means And what they so perform under him may be acknowledged without any derogation from him at all But perhaps some may think that the Scripture Phrase seemeth rather to intimate that Faith is an Assent and not such an Acceptance and Consent as is before mentioned because it oft times requireth but this To believe that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God he that should come into the world c. To which I answer 1. This proveth onely that this Knowledg or Assent is part of Faith but not that it is the whole 2. It is the use of Scripture to drive at that duty which is most unknown neglected or resisted and to speak little of others where there was then lesse need to speak though perhaps the duty be in it self more weighty Therefore Christ and the Apostles did spend most of their pains to perswade the Jewes to this Assent That the Messias should come be their deliverer they all knew Even the poor woman of Samaria could tell that Ioh. 4. 25. And so ready were they to Receive him if they had known him that it was the generall expectation and desire of the people Mal. 3. 1. But to perswade them that Jesus was the Christ here lay the difficulty Therefore as Dr. Ames Medull cap. 3. § 20. though sometime Assent to the Truth concerning God and Christ Ioh. 1. 50. be taken for true Faith yet the speciall Election or Apprehension for that the meanes by Fiducia § 13. is still included and those words do but determine and apply that Fiducia to Christ which is presupposed to be already toward the Messiah And let me conclude this with one more practically usefull observation From this definition of faith now men may see what to enquire after in their searching of their estates As faith being the Gospell-condition is the main thing to be looked for So here you see what that faith is The ignorance of this deceiveth and troubleth multitudes Some think it lieth in Assurance Some in a quieting their hearts in confidence on Christ Some think as M. Saltmarsh That it is nothing else but a perswasion more or less of Gods love And then when poor troubled souls do feel neither assurance confidence nor perswasion of that love they conclude that they have no Faith And how will these mistaken Teachers help them to comfort Why as Mr. Saltmarsh doth sometime to tell them Christ hath beleeved for them and sometime to tell them plainly that he can but commend them to the Lord who is the Author and finisher of Faith and sometime to tell them that they should not question their faith any more then Christ himself Thus their first way of comfort is to tell them they do ill to question their faith If that would serve all the world might have comfort and there needs no more If that will not do then Christ hath beleeved for them Yet if that will serve there is as much comfort for one as another But what if they say still I cannot beleeve that is as you expound Belief why then he confesseth plainly he is at a loss he can drive on the work of comforting no further he can do no more but pray for them pag. 31. Is it not a wonder that this lamentable Comforter should be so valued by the troubled spirits I was many years my self under perplexing doubts If I had heard such comforting words as these they would sooner have driven me to dispair then to comfort He that hath not so much wit as to discern so gross fallacies may assoon be comforted by a false and impertinent argument as by a sound one Quest. But how would you comfort such a one that faith he cannot beleeve Ans. Why I would first make him know that the very essentiall form of faith lieth in the Will◠acceptance of an offered Christ Then would I know of him whether he be willing thus to have Christ both for Lord and Saviour or not If he say He is willing I shall answer That then he doth beleeve and then he is Justified for his Willingness is his very Consent or Acceptance and that Consent is true Faith Christ expecteth no more to make up the match If the match break it must be either because Christ is unwilling or because he is unwilling not Christ for he is the Suitor and Intreater and Offerer Not himself for he confesseth that he is willing If he say I am not willing I should ask Why then do you look after it or regard it Do men enquire after that and lament the want of it which they are not willing to have either temptation