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
in expediting the Arminian Controversies as you shall perceive after Some parts of Scripture do in severall respects belong to both these Wills such are some promises and threatnings conditionall which as they are predictions of what shall come to passe do belong to the will Purpose but as they are purposely delivered and annexed to the commands and prohibitions for incitement to Duty and restraint from Sin which was indeed the great end of God in them so they belong to the Will of Precept For the promise of Reward and the threatning of Punishment are reall parts of the Law or Covenant so of History All this is only a preparative to the opening more fully the nature of the Legislative Will and what falls under it For the Will of Purpose and what is under it I have no intention any further to handle THESIS III. First The Will of God concerning duty is expressed wholly in his written Laws Secondly Which Laws are promulgate and established by way of Covenant wherein the Lord engageth himselfe to reward those that performe its conditions and threateneth the penalty to the violaters thereof EXPLICATION 1. NOt but that much of Gods Will is also contained in the Law of Nature or may by the meere use of Reason be learned from Creatures and Providences But yet this is nothing against the Scriptures sufficiency and perfection For besides all the superadded Positives the Scripture also containes all that which we call the Law of Nature and it is there to be found more legible and discernable than in the best of our obscure deceitfull corrupted hearts 2. All perfect compulsive Laws have their penalty annexed or else they are but meerly directive but not usually any reward propounded to the obeyers It is sufficient that the Subject know his Soveraignes pleasure which he is bound to observe without any reward Meere Laws are enacted by Soveraignty Meere Covenants are entred by equalls or persons dis-engaged to each other in respect of the contents of the Covenants and therefore they require mutuall consent These therefore made by God are of a mixt nature neither meere Laws nor meere Covenants but both He hath enacted his Laws as our Soveraigne Lord whithout waiting for the Creatures consent and will punish the breakers whether they consent or no But as it is a Covenant there must be a restipulation from the Creature and God will not performe his conditions there expressed without the Covenanters consent engagement and performance of theirs Yet is it called frequently in Scripture a Covenant as it is offered by God before it be accepted and entered into by the Creature because the condescention is only on Gods part and in reason there should be no question of the Creatures consent it being so wholly and only to his advantage Gen. 9. 12 17. Exod. 34. 28. Deut. 29. 1. 2 Kings 23. 3 c. There are some generall obscure Threatnings annexed to the prohibitions in the Law of Nature that is Nature may discerne that God will punish the breakers of his Law but how or with what degree of punishment it cannot discern Also it may collect that God will be favourable and gratious to the Obedient but it neither knows truly the conditions nor the nature or greatnesse of the Reward nor Gods engagement thereto Therefore as it is in Nature it is a meer Law and not properly a Covenant Yea to Adam in his perfection the forme of the Covenant was known by superadded Revelation and not written naturally in his heart Whether the threatning and punishment do belong to it only as it is a Law or also as it is a Covenant is of no great moment seeing it is really mixt of both It is called in Scripture also the curse of the Covenant Deut. 29. 20. 21. THESIS IIII. THe first Covenant made with Adam did promise life upon condition of perfect obedience and threaten death upon the least disobedience EXPLICATION THe promise of life is not expressed but plainly implyed in the threatning of death That this life promised was onely the continuance of that state that Adam was then in in Paradice is the judgement of most Divines But what death it was that is there threatned is a Question of very great difficulty and some moment The same damnation that followeth the breach of the New Covenant it could not be no more then the life then enjoyed is the same with that which the New Covenant promiseth And I cannot yet assent to their judgement who think it was onely that death which consisteth in a meer separation of soule and body or also in the annihilation of both Adams separated soule must have enjoyed happinesse or endured misery For that our soules when separated are in one of these conditions and not annihilated or insensible I have proved by twenty Arguments from Scripture in another booke As Adams life in Paradise was no doubt incomparably beyond ours in happinesse so the death threatned in that Covenant was a more terrible death then our temporall death For though his losse by a temporall death would have bin greater then ours now yet hee would not have bin a Subject capable of privation if annihilated nor however capable of the sense of his losse A great losse troubleth a dead man no more then the smallest Therefore as the joy of Paradise would have bin a perpetuall joy so the sorrow and pain it is like would have bin perpetuall and wee perpetuated capable Subjects See Barlow exercit utrum melius sit miserum esse quam non esse I do not thinke that all the deliverance that Christs Death procured was onely from a temporall death or annihilarion or that the death which hee suffered was aequivalent to no more THESIS V. THis Covenant being soon by man violated the threatning must bee fulfulled and so the penalty suffered EXPLICATION WHether there were any flat necessity of mans suffering after the fall is doubted by many and denyed by Socinus Whether this necessity ariseth from Gods naturall Justice or his Ordinate viz. his Decree and the verity of the threatning is also with many of our own Divines a great dispute whether God might have pardoned sinne if he had not said the sinner shall die may be doubted of though I believe the affirmative yet I judge it a frivolous presumptuous question But the word of his threatning being once past methinks it should bee past question that hee cannot absolutely pardon without the apparent violation of his Truth or Wisdome Some think that it proceedeth from his Wisdome rather then his Justice that man must suffer see Mr. Io. Goodwin of justif part 2. pag. 34. but why should we separate what God hath conjoyned However whether Wisdome or justice or Truth or rather all these were the ground of it yet certaine it is that a necessity there was that the penalty should be inflicted or else the Son of God should not have made satisfaction nor sinners bear so much themselves THESIS VI
none in this life For even when we do perform the Condition yet still the Discharge remains conditional till we have quite finished our performance For it is not one instantaneous Act of beleeving which shall quite discharge us but a continued Faith No longer are we discharged then we are Beleevers And where the condition is not performed the Law is still in force and shall be executed upon the offender himself I speak nothing in all this of the directive use of the Moral Law to Beleevers But how far the Law is yet in force even as it is a Covenant of Works because an utter Repeal of it in this sence is so commonly but inconsiderately asserted That it is no further overthrown no not to Beleevers then is here explained I now come to prove THESIS XIII IF this were not so but that Christ had abrogated the first Covenant then it would follow 1. That no sin but that of Adam and final Vnbelief is so much as threatned with death or that death is explicitely that is by any Law due to it or deserved by it For what the Law in force doth not threaten that is not explicitely deserved or due by Law 2. It would follow That Christ dyed not to prevent or remove the wrath and curse so deserved or due to us for any but Adams sin nor to pardon our sins at all but only to prevent our desert of wrath and curse and consequently to prevent our need of pardon 3. It would follow That against eternal wrath at the day of Iudgment we must not plead the pardon of any sin but the first but our own non-desert of that wrath because of the repeal of that Law before the sin was committed All which consequences seem to me unsufferable which cannot be avoyded if the Law be repealed EXPLICATION WHen God the absolute Soveraign of the World shall but command though he expresly threaten no punishment to the disobedient yet implicitely it may be said to be due that is the offence in it self considered deserveth some punishment in the generall for the Law of Nature containeth some generall Threatenings as well as Precepts as I shewed before Whether this Dueness of punishment which I call implicite do arise from the nature of the offence only or also because of this generall threat in the Law of Nature I will not dispute But God dealeth with his Creature by way of legall government and keepeth not their deserved punishment from their knowledge no more then their duty it being almost as necessary to be known for our incitement as the Precept for our direction Gods laws are perfect laws fitted to the attainment of all their ends And by these laws doth he rule the world and according to them doth he dispose of his rewards and punishments So that we need not fear that which is not threatened And in this sence it is that I say That what no law in force doth threaten that sin doth not explicitely deserve Not so deserve as that we need to fear the suffering of it And upon this ground the three fore-mentioned consequences must needs follow For the new Covenant threateneth not Death to any sin but final unbelief or at least to no sin without final unbelief And therefore if the old Covenant be abrogated then no law threateneth it And consequently 1 Our Sin doth not deserve it in the sence expressed Nor Christ prevent the wrath deserved but only the desert of wrath 3. And therefore not properly doth he pardon any such sin as you will see after when I come to open the nature of pardon 4 We may plead our non deserving of death for our discharge at judgment 5. And further then Christ in satisfying did not bear the punishment due to any sin but Adams first For that which is not threatened to us was not executed on him This is a clear but an intolerable consequence 6. Scripture plainly teacheth That all men even the Elect are under the Law till they beleeve enter into the Covenant of the Gospel Therefore it is said Ioh. 3. 18. He that beleeveth not is condemned already And the wrath of God abideth on him ver 26. And we are said to beleeve for Remission of sins Acts 2. 38. Mark 1. 4. Luk. 24. 47. Act. 10. 43. 3. 19. Which shew that sin is not before remitted and consequently the Law not repealed but suspended and left to the dispose of the Redeemer Else how could the Redeemed be by nature the children of wrath Ehp. 2. 3. The circumcised are debters to the whole Law Gal. 5. 3 4. and Christ is become of none effect to them But they that are led by the Spirit are not under the law and against such there is no law Gal. 5. 18 23. The Scripture hath concluded all under Sin and so far under the Law no doubt that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to them that beleeve Gal. 3. 22. We are under the Law when Christ doth redeem us Gal. 4. 5. See also Iam. 2. 9 10. 1 Tim. 18. 1 Cor. 15. 56. Gal. 3. 19 20 21. Therefore our deliverance is conditionally from the curse of the Law viz. if we will obey the Gospel And this deliverance together with the abrogation of the Ceremonial Law is it which is so oft mentioned as a priviledge of beleevers and an effect of the blood of Christ which deliverance from the curse is yet more full when we perform form the Conditions of our freedom And then we are said to be dead to the Law Rom. 7. 4. And the Obligation to punishment dead as to us ver 6. But not the Law void or dead in it self 7 Lastly All the Scriptures and Arguments pag. 60. 61. which prove That afflictions are punishments do prove also that the Law is not repealed For no man can suffer for breaking a repealed Law nor by the threats of a repealed Law yet I know that this Covenant of Works continueth not to the same ends and uses as before nor is it so to be preached or used We must neither take that Covenant as a way to life as if now we must get salvation by our fulfilling its condition nor must we look on its curse as lying on us remedilesly THESIS XIV 1 THe Tenor of the new Covenant is this That Christ having made sufficient satisfaction to the Law Whosoever will repent and believe in him to the end shall be justified through that Satisfaction from all that the Law did charge upon them and be moreover advanced to far greater Priviledges and Glory then they fell from But whosoever fulfilleth not these conditions shall 2 have no more benefit from the blood of Christ then what they here received and abused but must answer the charge of the Law themselves and for their neglect of Christ must also suffer a far greater condemnation Or briefly Whosoever believeth in Christ shall not perish but have everlasting life but he that
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
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
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
they shall be like wooll So Ezek. 33. 14. 15 16. 18. 21. 22. Neither let any object that this is the Law of works For certainly that hath no promises of forgivenesse And though the discoveries of the way of Justification be delivered in the old Testament in a more dark and Legall language then in the New yet not in termes contradictory to the truth in the New Testament Thus you may see in what sence it is that Christ will judge men according to their Works will say Come ye blessed of my Father inherit the kingdome c. For I was hungry ye fed me c. Well done good faithfull Servant thou hast been faithfull in few things I will make thee Ruler over many things Enter thou into the joy of thy Lord Matth. 25. For being made perfect he became the Author of Eternall salvation to all them that obey him Hebr. 5. 9. Of whom it shall be said when they are glorified with him These are they that come out of great tribulation and have washed their robes in the blood of the Lambe and made them white Therefore are they before the throne of God and serve him day and night in his temple and he that siâ—teth on the throne shall dwell among them Revel 7. 14. 15. To whom be Glory for ever Amen REader because an exact Index would contain a great part of the Book I shall omit it and instead of it I here lay thee down some of the chief Distinctions upon which this Discourse dependeth desiring thee to understand them and keep them in memory You must distinguish 1. BEtwixt Gods Decretive or Purposing Will And his Legislative or Preceptive Will The 1. is his Determining of Events The 2. of Duty and Reward 2. Betwixt 1. the Covenant or Law of Works which saith Obey perfectly and Live or sin and Dye 2. And the Covenant or Law of Grace which saith Beleeve and be saved c. 3. Betwixt the two parts of each Covenant viz. 1. The Primary discovering the duty in Precepts and prohibiting the Sin 2. The secondary discovering the Rewards and Penalties in Promises and Threatnings 4. Betwixt a two-fold Righteousness of one and the same Covenant 1. Of perfect Obedience or performance of the Condition 2. Of suffering or satisfaction for disobedience or non-performance which maketh the Law to have nothing against us though we disobeyed See Pemble of Iustification pag. 2. Our Legall Righteousness is of this last sort not of the first Both these sorts of Righteousnesse are not possible to be found in any one person except Christ who had the former Righteousness as his own incommunicable to us in that form The second he had for us as he was by imputation a sinner And so we have it in or by him Mark this 5. Betwixt two kinds of Righteousness suitable to the two Covenants and their Conditions 1. Legall Righteousness which is our Conformity or satisfaction to the Law 2. And Evangelicall Righteousness which is our Conformity to the new Covenant Note that 1. Every Christian must have both these 2. That our Legall righteousness is onely that of Satisfaction but our Evangelicall is only that of obedience or performance of the Condition 3. That our Legall Righteousnesse is all without us in Christ the other in our selves 6. Betwixt Evangelicall Righteousness improll perly so called viz. because the Gospell doth reveain and offer it This is our Legall righteousness o Christ. 2. And Evangelicall righteousness prnt perly so called viz. Because the new Covenar is the Rule to which it is conformed This is ou performance of the new Covenants Conditions 7. Betwixt the Life or Reward in the first Covenant viz. Adams paradise happiness 2. And the Life of the second Covenant which is Eternall glory in heaven 8. Betwixt the death or curse of the old Covenant which is opposite to its reward This onely was laid on Christ and is due to Infants by nature 2. And the death of the second Covenant opposite to its life called the second death and far sorer punishment This finall unbeleevers suffer 9. Betwixt sins against the first Covenant For these Christ died 2. And sins against the second Covenant For these he dyed not 10. Betwixt sinning against Christ and the Gospell as the object of our sin only So Christ died for them 2. And sinning against the new Covenant as such or as a threatning Law So Christ dyed not for them 11. Betwixt delaying to perform the conditions of the new Covenant This is not threatned with death 2. And finall non-performance This is proper violation of the Covenant and a sin that leaveth no hope of recovery 12. Betwixt paying the proper debt of obedience as Christ did himself or of suffering as the damned do 2. And satisfying for non-payment as Christ did for us 13 Betwixt repealing the Law or Covenant which is not done 2. And relaxing it or dispensing with it which is done 14. Betwixt relaxation or dispensation in the proper subject and circumstances of the Penalty This is done in removing it from us to Christ. 2. And dispencing with the Penalty it self This is not done for Christ did bear it 15. Betwixt the change of the Law 2. And of the sinners relation to the Law 16. Betwixt the Lawes forbidding and condemning the sin so it doth still 2. And its condemning the sinner So it doth not to the justified because Christ hath born the curse 17. Betwixt the Precepts as abstracted from the Covenant termes which really they are not at all 2. And as belonging to the severall Covenants 18. Betwixt perfection of Holinesse which is a quality This is not in this life 2. And Perfection of Righteousness which is a Relation This is perfect or none at all 19. Betwixt recalling the Fact or the evil of the Fact or its desert of punishment These are never done nor are possible 2. And removing the duenesse of punishment from the Offendor This is done 20. Betwixt Pardon and Iustification Condiditionall which is an immediate effect of Christs Death and Resurrection or rather of the making of the new Covenant 2. And Pardon Iustification Absolute when we have performed all the Conditions 21. Betwixt Conditionall Pardon and Iustification which is only Potentiall Such is that which immediately followeth the enacting of the new Covenant to men before Faith or before they have sinned 2. And Conditionall Iustification which is actual of which the person hath true possession such is our Iustification after Faith till the last Iudgement which is ours actually but yet upon condition of perseverance in Faith and sincere Obedience 22. Betwixt Pardon and Iustification as they are Immanent Acts in God improperly and without Scripture called Pardon or Iustification 2. And Pardon and Iustification as they are Transient Acts performed by the Gospell-Promise as Gods Instrument This is the true Scripture Iustification 23. Betwixt Iustification in Title and Sence of Law which is
168. that while wee are busie in examining our forefathers inventions and posterity imployed in trying our examinations neither we nor they have much time to adde any thing for the increase of Learned Knowledge Whence you may guesse at one cause why many Sciences for some thousands of yeares have kept one pitch and not growne above that dwarfish stature that they had in their infant invention and also what the reason is that many that read most prove not the deepest Schollers for no greater impediment to exact Learning then to make use of other mens understandings and neglect our owne I speak not this as if I had overcome these impediments any more then others but because I have perhaps more beene hindred by them and so take my selfe bound to warne thee of the pit that I have falne in And with all to let thee know that if godly men themselves while they lye in these snares shall oppose any truth in this Tract it is no wonder but a thing to be expected To give thee the History of the conception and nativity of these Aphorismes the reason why I trouble the world with more Bookes which I blame in others understand that this is but an Appendix to another Treatise going to the Presse on a more excellent Subject Also that having occasion therein to touch upon Matth. 25. 35. I was desired to explaine in what sence it is that Christ giveth the reason of his sentence in judgement from mens works In answer hereto and to cleare some other incident doubts of the like nature I wrote these Positions or Aphorismes which when some had got they complained of obscure brevity and desired some fuller explication which when I had done that which before was but two or three leaves annexed as an Appendix to the fore-mentioned Treatise did swell to this bignesse that I was faine to let it goe alone Could I have got Copies enow for my owne friends whom I am bound to instruct other men had not beene like to have been troubled with it If thou please thou mayest let it passe without thine observation If otherwise it is so small that it will take up but little of thy time to read it nor adde much to the common burden Some few passages here are which I am not so cleare and confident in my selfe As the nature of the Death threatned in the first Covenant The necessity of the punctuall performance or execution of all threatnings The interest of Christs Active Obedience to those Laws which did binde men in innocency in the work of satisfaction as conjoyned with his Passive Obedience to make up the same price But as these are but few so I am not utterly at a losse concerning them but seeme to discerne a strong probability of what I have written therein For you my Friends whom Christ hath committed to my Teaching and Oversight as to an unworthy Vsher under him in his Schoole and Steward in his House and of his Mysteries I publish this for your sakes and use 1. Because I have still thought that points controverted are better written than preached and read than heard especially where the greatest part of the Auditory is uncapable of understanding them 2. Yet is this Doctrine of so great concernment and so neer the Foundation that of all the controversies agitated in the Church there 's few that doe better deserve your study and few that I am so loath you should be ignorant of It is my exceeding joy that God hath kept you in his distracted age from doting about questions that engender strife and hath given you to cleave to the most fundamentall undoubted and practicall Truths and to spend your time in practice and peace and promoting the salvation of the ignorant about you when others are taken up in censuring their brethren renting the Church opposing the truth or wrangling about lesser things which are quite above their understandings Hold on this way and if you have not in it more Communion with Christ more growth in Grace and on your Death-beds a more comfortable review of your lives and at last a better reckoning made thereof then the other then say I have deceived you Yet as I would have you neglect no truth so especially what time â—ou can spare for controversie let it chiefely be spent upon these that are so weighty Be ashamed that men shâ—uld heare you disputing about Circumstantiâ—lls of Discipline Baptisme Supper c. before you know how to bee justified before GOD or understand the Doctrine of the Covenants Redemption Faith Obedience c 3. The Bookes that are written of justification are many and some great which I knew you had not time to read and if you did perhaps would lose much of your labour as I have done Therefore I desired to set the most necessary part before you in a narrower compasse I never intended the full handling of the Doctrine of justification these Apherismes being but for the Answering of a particular Question Especially what is in Master Bradshaw I omit because I expect that you will read and study him the Book being so small and of such singular worth containing as much as the greatest Volumes In some places I have omitted the proofe of my Assertions partly because they seemed plaine or to be the evident consectaries of former Positions partly for brevâ—ty and partly because it is for your use to whom I am yet at hand to cleare what you doubt of and who I hope doe understand that to take upon trust from your Teachers what you cannot yet reach to see in its owne evidence is lesse absurd and more necessary than many doe imagine Moreover knowing that I must shortly put off this Tabernacle and be taken from you I thought good to use this endeavour that you may bee able after my departure to have these things in your understandings and remembrance 2 Pet. 1. 14. 15. And while I am in this flesh I shall not cease to admonish you and pray on your behalfe that you may beware lest yee also being led away with the errour of the wicked fall from your owne stedfastnesse but may grow in Grace and in the Knowledge of our LORD and SAVIOVR JESUS CHRIST Nor shall I desire any greater Honour or Advancement on this Earth than with Abilitie Sinceritie and Successe to be A Servant of Christ in the work of your Salvation RI. BAXTER Kederminster Novemb. 17. 1648. APHORISMES OF JUSTIFICATION With their Explication Annexed Wherein also is opened the Nature of the Covenants Satisfaction Righteousnesse Faith Works c. THESIS I. GOd hath first a Will of purpose whereby he determineth of Events what shall be and what shall not be de facto Secondly And a Legislative or Preceptive Will for the government of the Rationall Creature whereby he determineth what shall be and what shall not be de jure or in point of duty and in order thereto concludeth of Rewards and Punishments EXPLICATION 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