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 That it is not repealed at all I have proved already even concerning the Covenant of Works it self and others enough have proved at large of the Morall Law 2.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
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
cannot constitute a third Covenant wholy distinct from both these and therefore Camero doth more fitly call it a subservient Covenant then a third Covenant For either God intended in that Covenant to proceed with sinners in strict rigor of Justice for every sin and then it is reducible to the first Covenant Or else to pardon sin upon certain conditions and to dispence with the rigor of that first Covenant And then it must imply satisfaction for those sins and so be reducible to the second Covenant For I cannot yet digest the Doctrine of Grotius and Vossius concerning satisfaction by sacrifice for temporall punishment without subordination to the satisfaction by Christ Or if it seem in severall phrases to savour of the language of the severall Covenants as indeed it doth that is because they are yet both in force and in severall respects it is reducible to both So that when we demand whether the Morall Law do yet binde the question is ambiguous from the ambiguity of the term Binde For it is one thing to ask whether it binde upon the old Covenant terms another whether upon new Covenant terms and a third whether as a meer Precept Here a question or two must be answered 1 Quest. How could the Precepts delivered by Moses when the old Covenant was violated and the new established belong to that old Covenant 2 Quest. In what sence doth the Decalogue belong to the new Covenant 3 Quest. Whether the Precepts of the Gospel do belong to the Decalogue 4 Quest. Whether the Precepts of the Gospel belong also to the old Covenant But all these will be cleared under the following Positions where they shall be distinctly answered THESIS XXX THere is no sin prohibited in the Gospel which is not a breach of some Precept in the Decalogue and which is not threatned by the Covenant of Works as offending against and so falling under the Iustice thereof For the threatening of that Covenant extendeth to all sin that then was or after should be forbidden God still reserved the prerogative of adding to his Laws without altering the Covenant terms else every new Precept would imply a new Covenant And so there should be a multitude of Covenants EXPLICATION 1. THough the Decalogue doth not mention each particular duty in the Gospel yet doth it command obedience to all that are or shall be specified and expresseth the genus of every particular duty And though it were not a duty from the generall precept till it was specified in the Gospel yet when it once is a duty the neglect of it is a sin against the Decalogue For instance The Law saith Thou shalt take the Lord for thy God and consequently beleeve all that he saith to be true and obey him in all that he shall particularly command you The Gospel revealeth what it is that is to be beleeved and saith This is the work of God that ye beleeve in him whom the Father hath sent Ioh. 6. 28 29. The affirmative part of the second Commandment is Thou shalt worship God according to his own institution The Gospell specifieth some of this instituted Worship viz. Sacraments c. So that the neglect of Sacraments is a breach of the second Commandment And Unbelief is a breach of the first This may help you to answer that question Whether the Law without the Gospell be a sufficient Rule of Life Answ. As the Lords Prayer is a sufficient Rule of Prayer It is sufficient in its own kinde or to its own purposes It is a sufficient generall Rule for duty but it doth not enumerate all the particular instituted species Yet here the Gospell revealing these institutions is not only the new Covenant it self but the doctrine of Christ which is an adjunct of that Covenant also 2. That every sin against the precepts of the Gospell and decalogue are also sins against the Covenant of Works and condemned by it will appear thus 1. The threatening of that Covenant is against all sin as well as one though none but eating the forbidden fruit be named But these are sins and therefore threatned by that Covenant The major appears by the recitall afterwards Cursed is he that doth not al things written 2. I have proved before that the old Covenant is not repealed but onely relaxed to Beleevers upon Christs satisfaction And then it must needs be in force against every sin 3. The penalty in that Covenant is still executed against such sins So that every sin against the Gospel is a breach of the Conditions of the Law of Works But every sin against that Law is not a breach of the Conditions of the Gospel And it hinders not this That the Morall Law by Moses and the Gospel by Christ were delivered since the Covenant with Adam For though that Covenant did not specifie each duty and sin yet it doth condemn the sin when it is so specified But the great Objection is this How can Unbelief be a breach of the Covenant of Works when the very duty of beleeving for pardon is inconsistent with the Tenor of that Covenant which knoweth no pardon Ans. 1. Pardon of sin is not so contradictory to the truth of that Covenant but that they may consist upon satisfaction made Though it is true that the Covenant it self doth give no hopes of it yet it doth not make it impossible 2. Unbelief in respect of pardon and recovery is a Sin against the Covenant of Works not formaliter but eminenter 3. Not also as it is the neglect of a duty with such and such ends and uses but as it is the neglect of duty in the generall considered and so as it is a sin in generall and not as it is a sin consisting in such or such an act or omission The form of the sin lieth in its pravity or deviation from the Rule So far Unbelief is condemned by the Law The substrate act is but the matter improperly so called The review of the comparison before lay'd down will explain this to you A Prince bestoweth a Lordship upon a Slave and maketh him a Lease of it the tenor where of is That he shall perform exact obedience to all that is commanded him and when he fails of this he shall forfeit his Lease The Tenant disobeyeth and maketh the forfeiture The Son of this Prince interposeth and buyeth the Lordship and satisfieth for all the damage that came by the Tenants disobedience Whereupon the Land and Tenant and Lease are all delivered up to him and he becomes Landlord He findeth the Tenant upon his forfeiture dispossessed of the choycest rooms of the house and chief benefits of the Land and confined to a ruinous corner and was to have been deprived of all had not he thus interposed Whereupon he maketh him a new Leaâ—e in this Tenor That if in acknowledgment of the favour of his Redemption he will but pay a pepper corn he shall be restored to his former possession and much more In this
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
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