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
proportion betwixt it and the reward 2 But in a larger fence as Promise is an Obligation and the thing promised is called Debt so the performers of the Condition are called Worthy and their performance Merit Though properly it is all of Grace and not of Debt 1 Rom. 4. 4 10. 5. 15 16 17. Hose 14. 4. Mat. 10. 8. Rom. 3. 24. 8 32. 1 Cor. 2. 12. Rev. 21. 6. 22. 18. Rom. 11. 6. Gal. 5. 4. Eph. 2. 5 7 8. Gen. 32. 10. 2 Mat. 10. 11 12 13 37. 22 8. Luk. 20. 35. 21. 36. 2 Thes. 1. 5. 11. Rev. 3. 4 c. EXPLICATION IN the strictest sence he is said to Merit who performeth somewhat of that worth in it self to another which bindeth that other in strict justice to requite him This work must not be due and so the performer not under the absolute soveraignty of another for else he is not in a capacity of thus Meriting It is naturall Justice which here bindeth to Reward All that we can merit at the hands of Gods naturall Justice is but these two things 1. The escape of punishment in that respect or consideration wherein our actions are not sinfull or the not punishing of us in a greater degree then sin deserves Though indeed it is questionable whether we are capable of suffering more 2. Our actions thus deserve the honour of acknowledgment of that good which is in them yea though the evil be more then the good As a merciful Thief that gives a poor man half his mony again when he hath robbed him as he deserveth a less degree of punishment so that good which was in his action deserveth an answerable acknowledgment and praise though he dye for the fact But this is a poor kinde of meriting and little to the honour or benefit of the party And is more properly called a less desert of punishment then a desert of reward 2. The second kind of Merit is that whereby a Governor for the promoting of the ends of Government is obliged to reward the Obedience of the Governed That when Disobedience is grown common the Obedience may be encouraged and a difference made Among men even Justice bindeth to such reward at least to afford the obedience the benefit of protection and freedom though he do no more then his duty But that is because no man hath an absolute soveraignty de jure over his subjects as God hath but is indebted to his subjects as well as they are to him If our obedience were perfect in respect of the Law of Works yet all the Obligation that would lie upon God to reward us any further then the foresaid forbearing to punish us and acknowledging our obedience would be but his own wisdom as he discerneth such a Reward would tend to the well-governing of the World working morally with voluntary agents agreeable to their natures And when we had done all we must say we are unprofitable servants we have done nothing but what was our duty Therefore this Obligation to reward from the wisdom of God as it is in his own brest known to himself alone so is it drawn from himself and not properly from the worth of our Works and therefore this is improperly called Merit 3. The third kinde of Meriting is sufficiently explained in the Position where the Obligation to reward is Gods ordinate Justice and the truth of his Promise and the worthiness lieth in our performance of the Conditions on our part This is improperly called Merit This kinde of Meriting is no diminution to the greatness or freeness of the gift or reward because it was a free and gracious Act of God to make our performance capable of that title and to engage himself in the foresaid promise to us and not for any gain that he expected by us or that our performance can bring him THESIS XXVII 1 AS it was possible for Adam to have fulfilled the Law of Works by that power which he received by nature 2 So is it possible for us to perform the Conditions of the new Covenant by the 3 Power which we receive from the Grace of Christ. EXPLICATION 1 THat it may be possible which is not future A thing is termed possible when there is nothing in the nature of the thing it self which may so hinder its production as to necessitate its non-futurity Though from extrinsecall Reasons the same non-futurity may be certain and in some respect necessary And all things considered the futurity of it may be termed impossible yet the thing it self be possible So it was possible for Adam to have stood And so if you should take the word possible absolutely and abstracted from the consideration of the strength of the Actor even the Commands of the Law are yet possible to be fulfilled But such a use of the word is here improper it being ordinarily spoken with relation to the strength of the Agent 2 But in the relative sence the Conditions of the new Covenant are possible to them that have the assistance of grace I intend not here to enter upon an Explication of the nature of that Grace which is necessary to this performance my purpose being chiefly to open those things wherein the relative change of our estates doth consist rather then the reall Whether then this Grace be Physicall or Morall Whether there be a Morall Suasion of the Spirit distinct from the Suasion of the Word and other outward means Whether that which is commonly called the Work of Conscience be also from such an internall suasory work of the Spirit How far this Grace is resistible Or whether all have sufficient Grace to beleeve either given or internally offered with multitudes of such questions I shall here pass by Referring you to those many Volumes that have already handled them All that I shall say of this shall be when I come to open the Nature of Faith See Parkers Theses before mentioned THESIS XXVIII THe Precepts of the Covenants as meer Precepts must be distinguished from the same Precepts considered as Conditions upon performance whereof we must live or dye for non performance THESIS XXIX AS all Precepts are delivered upon Covenant-terms or as belonging to one of the Covenants and not independently So have the same Precepts various ends and uses according to the tenor and ends of the distinct Covenants to which they do belong EXPLICATION THerefore it is one thing to ask whether the Covenant of Works be abolished and another thing whether the Morall Law be abolished Yet that no one Precept of either Morall or Ceremoniall Law was delivered without reference to one of the Covenants is very evident For if the breach of that Command be a sin and to be punished then either according to the rigorous threatening of the old Covenant or according to the way and justice of the new For the Law as it was delivered by Moses may be reduced in several respects to each of these Covenants and
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
case now the non-payment of the pepper corn is a breach of both Leases Of the old because though he had forfeited his title to the benefits of it yet he could not disanull the duty of it which was obedience during his life especially when the penalty was not fully executed on him but he was permitted still to enjoy some of the benefits So that as it is an act of disobedience in generall his non-payment is a further forfeiture of his old Lease But as it is the non-payment of a pepper-corn required of him in stead of his former Rent so it is a breach of his new Lease only Even so is Unbelief a violation of both Covenants THESIS XXXI THe Gospell doth establish and not repeall the Morall Law and so is perfect obedience commanded and every sin forbidden now as exactly as under the Covenant of Works But this is but an adjunct of the new Covenant and not a proper part of it Neither is it on the same terms or to the same ends as in the first Covenant EXPLICATION THat the Morall Law is yet in force I will not stand to prove because so many have written of it already See Mr. Anthony Burgesses Lectures But to what ends and in what sence the Gospell continueth that Law and commandeth perfect obedience thereto is a Question not very easie 1. Whether Christ did first repeall that Law and then re-establish it to other ends So some think 2. Or whether he hath at all made the Morall Law to be the preceptive part of the new Covenant And so whether the new Covenant do at all command us perfect obedience or only sincere 3. Or whether the Morall Law be continued only as the precepts of the old Covenant and so used by the new Covenant meerly for a directive Rule To the first I answer 1. That it is not repealed at all I have proved already even concerning the Covenant of Works it self and others enough have proved at large of the Morall Law 2. Yet that Christ useth it to other ends for the advantage of his Kingdom I grant To the other second Question I answer 1. That the Morall Law as it is the perceptive part of the Covenant of works is but delivered over into the hands of Christ and so continued in the sence before expressed seems plain to me 2. That the same Morall Law doth therefore so continue to command even believers and that the perfect obeying of it is therefore their duty and the not obeying their sin deserving the death threatened in that Covenant 3. That Jesus Christ hath further made use of the same Morall Law for a direction to his Subjects whereby they may know his Will That whereas your sincere subjection and obedience to Christ is part of the condition of the new Covenant that we may know what his Will is which we must endeavour to obey and what Rule our actions must be sincerely fitted to and guided by he hath therefore left us this Morall Law as part of this direction having added a more particular enumeration of some duties in his Gospel That as when the old Covenant said Thou shalt obey perfectly the Morall Law did Partly tell them wherein they should obey So when the new Covenant saith Thou shalt obey sincerely the Morall Law doth tell us wherein or what we must endeavour to do 4. But that the Morall Law without respect to either Covenant should command us perfect obedience or that Christ as the Mediator of the new Covenant should command us not only sincere but also perfect obedience to the Morall Law and so hath made it a proper part of his Gospel not only as a Directory and Instruction but also as a Command I am not yet convinced though I will not contend with any that think otherwise my Reason is because I know not to what end Christ should command us that obedience which he never doth enable any man in this life to perform If it were to convince us of our disability and sin that is the work of the Law and the continuing of it upon the old terms as is before explained is sufficient to that But I judge this Question to be of greater difficult then moment THESIS XXXII IF there be any particular sins against the new Covenant which are not also against the old or if any sins be considerable in any of their respects as against the Gospel only then Christs death was not to satisfie for any such sins so considered For where no death is threatened there none is explicitely due nor should be executed and where it is not so due to the sinner nor should have been executed on him there it could not be required of Christ nor executed on him But the Gospel threateneth not death to any sin but final unbelief and rebellion and for that Christ never dyed as I shall shew anon therefore Christ died not for any sin as against the Gospell nor suffered that which is no where threatened EXPLICATION A Sin may be said to be against the Gospel 1. As Christ and his Gospel are the object of it 2. Or as it breaketh the conditions of the Gospel In the latter sence only I here take it To prove the point in hand there needs no more then the Argument mentioned For to all that unbelief and other sins of the godly which are forgiven the Gospel doth no where threaten death and therefore Christ could not bear it as to satisfie the Gospel-threatening Though I confess I have been long in this point of another judgment while I considered not the Tenor of the Covenants distinctly some further proof you shall have in the next conclusion Read Heb. 9. 15. THESIS XXXIII AS the Active Obedience of Christ was not the Righteousness of the second Covenant or the performing of it Conditions but of the first properly called a Legall Righteousness so also his Passive Obedience and Merit was only to satisfie for the violation of the Covenant of Works but not at all for the violation of the Covenâ—nt of Grace for that there is no satisfaction made and there remaineth no sacrifice EXPLICATION THat Christ did not fulfill the conditions of the new Covenant for us I have proved already That he hath not satisfied for its violation I think to the considerate will need no proof If you think otherwise consider 1. Christ is said to be made under the Law to have born the curse of the Law to have freed us from the curse of it but no where is this affirmed of him in respect of the Gospel 2. There be terms by him propounded upon which men must partake of the benefits of his Satisfaction but these terms are onely conditions of the new Covenant therefore he never satisfied for the non-performance of those conditions 3. If he did upon what conditions is that satisfaction enjoyed by us 4. But the Question is out of doubt because that every man that performeth not the
of Pardon Justification doth then absolutely pardon and justifie us when we perform the Condition Hence is the phrase in Scripture of being Iustified by the Law which doth not only signifie by the Law as the Rule to which men did fit their actions but also by the Law as not condemning but justifying the person whose actions are so fitted In which sence the Law did justifie Christ or else the Law should not justifie as a Law or Covenant but only as a Direction which properly is not Justifying but only a means to discover that we are Justifiable As the Word of Christ shall judge men at the last day Ioh. 12. 28. So doth it virtually now And if it judge then doth it condemn and justifie So Rom. 2. 12. Iam. 2 12. We shall be judged by the Law of Liberty Gal. 5. 3. 4 23. In the same sence as the Law is said to convince and curse Iam. 2. 9. Gal. 3. 13. it may be said that the Gospell or new Law doth acquit justifie and bless Rom. 8. 12. The Law of the Spirit of Life in Christ Iesus hath made me from the Law of Sin and Death As the Law worketh Wrath and where is no Law there is no Transgression Rom. 4. 15. And as sin is not imputed where there is no Law Rom. 5. 13. and the strength of sin is the law 1 Cor. 15. 56 So the new law is the strength of Righteousness and worketh Deliverance from Wrath and were there no such new Covenant there would be no Righteousness inherent or imputed Ioh. 7. 51. So that I conclude That this transient Act of God pardoning and justifying constitutive is his Grant in the new Covenant by which as a Morall Instrument our Justification and Pardon are in time produced even when we beleeve the Obligation of the Law being then by it made void to us And this is the present apprehension I have of the nature of Remission and Justification Si quid novisti rectius c. yet I shall have occasion afterwards to tell you That all this is but Remission and Justification in Law and Title which must be distinguished from that which is in Judgment or Sentence the former being vertual in respect of the Actuality of the latter 2. The second kinde of Gods Acts which may be called Justifying is indeed Immanent viz. his knowing the sinner to be pardoned and just in Law his Willing and Approving hereof as True and Good These are Acts in Heaven yea in God himself but the former sort are on earth also I would not have those Acts of God separated which he doth conjoyn as he ever doth these last with the former But I verily think that it is especially the former transient legall Acts which the Scripture usually means when it speaks of Pardoning and constitutive Justifying and not these Immanent Acts though these must be looked on as concurrent with the former Yet most Divines that I meet with seem to look at Pardon and Justification as being done in heaven only and consisting only in these later Immanent Acts And yet they deny Justification to be an Immanent Act too But how they will ever manifest that these celestiall Acts of God viz. his Willing the sinners Pardon and so forgiving him in his own brest or his accepting him as just are Transient Acts I am yet unable to understand And if they be Immanent Acts most will grant that they are from Eternity and then fair fall the Antinomians Indeed if God have a Bar in Heaven before his Angels where these things are for the present transacted as some think and that we are said to be justified only at the bar now then I confess that is a transient Act indeed But of that more hereafter 7. I add in the definition That all this is done in consideration of the Satisfaction 1 made by Christ 2. Accepted 3. and pleaded with God The satisfaction made is the proper meritorious and impulsive cause 2. So the Satisfaction as pleaded by Christ the intercessor is also an impulsive cause 3. The Satisfactious Acceptance by the Sinner that is Faith and the pleading of it with God by the sinner that is praying for pardon are but the Conditions or Causae sine quo But all these will be fuller opened afterwards THESIS XXXVII IVstification is either 1. in Title and the Sence of the Law 2. Or in Sentence of Iudgment The first may be called Constitutive The second Declarative The first Virtuall the second Actuall EXPLICATION I Will not stand to mention all those other Distinctions of Justification which are common in others not so necessary or pertinent to my purposed scope You may finde them in Mr Bradshaw Mr Iohn Goodwin and Alstedius Distinctions and Definitions c. The difference between Justification in Title of Law and in Sentence of Judgment is apparent at the first view Therefore I need not explain it It is common when a man hath a good cause and the Law on his side to say The Law justifieth him or he is just in Law or he is acquit by the Law and yet he is more fully and compleatly acquit by the sentence of the Judge afterward In the former sence we are now justified by faith as soon as ever we beleeve In the latter sence we are justified at the last Judgment The title of Declarative is too narrow for this last For the sentence of judiciall absolution doth more then barely to declare us justified I call the former virtuall not as it is in it felf considered but as it standeth in relation to the latter All those Scriptures which speak of Justification as done in this life I understand of Justification in Title opf Law So Rom. 5. 1. Being justified by faith we have peace with God Rom. 4. 2. Rom. 5. 9. Being now justified by his blood c. Iames 2. 21 25. c. But Justification in Judgment as it is the compleating Act so is it most fitly called Justification and I think the word in Scripture hath most commonly reference to the Judgment day and that Justification in Title is called Justification most especially because of its relation to the Justification at Judgment because as men are now in point of Law so shall they most certainly be sentenced in Judgment Therefore is it spoken of many times as a future thing and not yet done Rom. 3. 30 Mat. 12. 37. Rom. 2. 13. But these may be called Justification by Faith for by Faith we are justified both in Law Title and at Judgment THESIS XXXVIII IVstification in Title of Law is a gracious Act of God by the Promise or Grant of the new Covevant acquitting the Offender from the Accusasation and Condemnation of the old Covenant upon consideration of the Satisfaction made by Christ and accepted by the sinner EXPLICATION HEre you may see 1. That pardon of sin and this Iustification in Law are not punctually and precisely alone 2. And yet the difference
it in its Promise And as where there is no Law there is no Transgression nor Condemnation because sin is formally a transgression of the Law and Condemnation is but the execution of its Threatning so where there is no fulfilling the new Law there is no Righteousnesse nor Iustification because Righteousnesse is formally a conformity to the Law of Righteousnesse and Iustification is but the performing of part of its Promise 5. That Faith 's receiving Christ and his righteousnesse is the remote of secondary and not the formall Reason why it doth Iustifie appeareth thus 1. I would ask any dissenter this Question Suppose that Christ had done all that he did for sinners and they had believed in him thereupon without any Covenant promising Iustification to this faith Would this faith have justified them By what Law Or whence will they plead their Iustification at the barr of God Well but suppose that Christ having done what he did for us that he should in framing the New Covenant have put in any other Condition and said whosoever loveth God shall by vertue of my satisfaction be Iustified Would not this love have Iustified No doubt of it I conclude then thus The receiving of Christ is as the silver of this coin the Gospell-promise is as the Kings stamp which maketh it currant for justifying If God had seen meet to have stamped any thing else it would have passed currantly Yet take this Faith is even to our own apprehension the most apt and suitable condition that God could have chosen for as far as we can reach to know There cannot be a more Rationall apt condition of delivering a redeemed Malefactor from Torment then that he thankfully accept the pardon and favour of redemption and hereafter take his Redeemer for his Lord. So that if you ask me what is the formall Reason why Faith Iustifieth I answer Because Christ hath made it the condition of the New Covenant and promised Iustification upon that Condition But 2. If you ask me further Why did Christ chuse this rather then any thing else for the Condition I. Answer 1. To ask a Reason of Christs choice and commands is not alway wise or safe 2. But here the reason is so apparent that a posteriore we may safely adventure to say That this is the most self-denying and Christ advancing work Nothing could be more proportionable to our poverty who have nothing to buy with then thus freely to receive Nothing could be more reasonable then to acknowledge him who hath redeemed us and to take him for our Redeemer and Lord many more such Reasons might be given In a word then Faith Justifieth primarily and properly as it is the Condition of the New Covenant that is the formall reason And secondarily remotely as it is the receiving of Christ and his righteousnesse that is the aptitude of it to this use to which it hath pleased Cod to destinate it I stand the more on this because it is the foundation of that which followeth THESIS LVIII THe ground of this is because Christs Righteousness doth not Iustifie us properly and formerly because we Beleeve or receive it but because it is ours in Law by Divine Donation or Imputation THis is plain in it self and in that which is said before THESIS LIX IVstification is not a momentaneous Act begun and ended immediately upon our Believing bnt a continued Act which though it be in its kind compleat from the first yet is it still in doing till the finall Iustification at the Iudgement day EXPLICATION THis is evident from the nature of the Act it being as I shewed before an Act of God by his Gospell Now 1. God still continueth that Gospell-Covenant in force 2. That Covenant still continueth Justifying Believers 3. God himself doth continue to esteem them accordingly and to Will their Absolution 1. This sheweth you therefore with what limitation to receive the Assersion of our Divines that Remission and Justification are simul semel performed 2. And that the Justified pardoned may pray for the continuance of their pardon and Justification 3. That of Christs satisfaction and our Faith are of continuall use and not to be laid by when we are once Justified as if the work were done See Dr. Downame of Iustific of this point THESIS LX. THe bare Act of beleeving is not the onely Condition of the New Covenant but severall other duties also are part of that Condition EXPLICATION I Desire no more of those that deny this but that Scripture may be Iudge and that they will put by no one Text to that end produced till they can give some other commodious and not forced Interpretation 1. Then that pardon of sin and salvation are promised upon condition of Repenting as well as beleeving is undeniably asserted from these Scriptures Prov. 1. 23. 28. 13. Mar. 1. 15. 6. 12. Luk. 13. 3 5. Act. 2. 38. 3. 19. 8. 22. 17. 30. 26. 20. 5. 31. 11. 18. Luk. 24. 47. Heb. 6. 1. 2 Pet. 3. 9. Ezek. 18. 27 28. 33. 12. Hose 14. 2. Ioel 2. 14 15. Deut. 4. 30. 30. 10. 2 That praying for Pardon and forgiving others are Conditions of Pardon is plain 1 King 8. 30 39. Mat. 6. 12 14 15. 18. 35. Mar. 11. 25 26. Luke 6. 37. 11. 4. 1 Ioh. 1. 9. Iam. 5. 15. Io. 14. 13 14. 1 Ioh. 5. 15. Act. 8. 22. 3. That Love and sincere Obedience and Works of Love are also parts of the Condition appeareth in these Scriptures Luk. 7. 47. though I know in Mr Pinks Interpretation of that Ma. 5. 44. Lu. 6. 27. 35. 10. 11. 12. 17. 1 Cor. 2. 9. Rom. 8. 28. Ephes. 6. 24. 1 Cor. 16 22. Iam. 1. 12. 2. 5. Ioh. 14. 21. Pro. 8. 17 21. Ioh. 16. 27. Ma. 10. 37. Luk. 13. 24. Phil. 2. 12. Rom. 2. 7. 10. 1 Corinth 24. 9. 2 Tim. 2. 5. 12. 1 Tim. 6. 18. 19. Rev. 22. 14. Luk. 11. 28. Mat. 25. 41 42. Iam. 2. 2 22 23 24 26. THESIS LXI THerefore though the non-performance of any one of these be threatned with certain death yet there must be a Concurrence of them all to make up the Conditions which have the promise of life EXPLICATION THerefore we oftner read death threatned to those that repent not then Life promised to them that Repent And when you do read of Life promised of any one of these you must understand it caeteris partibus or in sensu composito as it stands conjunct with the rest and not as it is divided Though I think that in regard of their existence they never are divided For where God giveth one he giveth all yet in case they were separated the Gospell would not so own them as its intire Conditions THESIS LXII YEt Faith may be called the onely Condition of the new Covenant 1. Because it is the principall Condition and the other but the less principall And so as
Many Divines say that God did not take away his Image but man thrust it away So Capell of Temptations pag. 8. c. Though most judge otherwise because the same power must annihilate that must create I conclude then that in regard of the proper penalty Christ did suffer a paine and misery of the same sort and of equall weight with that threatned but yet because it was not in all respects the same it was rather satisfaction then the payment of the proper debt being such a payment as God might have chosen to accept The 2. Question was Whether the threatning was executed or relaxed and dispensed with Answ. The Answer to this is plaine in the answer to the former In regard of the meer weight of punishment considered as abstracted from person duration it was executed not relaxed yet taking the threatning intirely as it was given out and we must say it was dispensed with for mankinde doth not suffer all that is there threatned Yet some who think that the death threatned did consist in out present miseries and temporal death onely do also think that the threatning is fully executed upon the sinners and that Christ hath onely delivered us from the accidentall duration of it but not prevented the execution If I could think that the threatning intended no punishment to the soule further after it is separated from the body then I should think as they The 3. Question is How it can stand with the Truth and Justice of God to dispense with his Threats Concerning his Justice the question is not difficult I shall say nothing to that all the question is how to reconcile this dispensation with Gods truth Here you must distinguish 1. Betwixt the letter of the Law and the sense 2. Between the Law and the end of the Law 3. Between a Threat with exception either expressed or reserved and that which hath no exception 4. Between a threatning which onely expresseth the desert of the sinne and what punishment is due and so falleth only under the will of precept and that which also intendeth the certaine prediction of event and so falleth under the will of purpose also And now I answer 1. The end of the Law is the Law and that end being the manifestation of Gods Justice and hatred of sinne c. was fulfilled and therefore the Law was fulfilled 2. Most think that the Threatning had this reserved exception Thou shalt dye i. e. by thy selfe or thy surety And though it be sinfull in man to speak with mentall reservations when he pretends to reveale his mind yet not in God because as he is subject to no Law so he is not bound to reveale to us all his minde nor doth he indeed pretend any such thing 3. So that the sense of the Law is fulfilled 4. But the speciall answer that I give is this When Threatnings are meerly parts of the Law and not also predictions of event and discoveries of Gods purpose thereabouts then they may be dispensed with without any breach of Truth For as when God saith Thou shalt not eate of the Tree c. the meaning is onely It is thy duty not to eate and not that eventually he should not eate So when he saith Thou shalt die the death The meaning is Death shall be the due reward of thy sinne and so may be inflicted for it at my pleasure and not that he should certainly suffer it in the event And I judge that except there be some note added whereby it is apparent that God intended also the prediction of event no meer Threatning is to be understood otherwise but as it is a part of the Law and so speaks of the duenesse of punishment onely as the Precept speaks of the duenesse of obeying If this be Grotius his meaning I assent that Omnes minae quibus non adest irrevocabilitatis signum intelligendae sunt ex suâpte naturâ dejure comminantis ad relaxandum nihil imminuere viz. so farre as they are no predictions of event otherwise Gods bare prediction is a note of irrevocability And his two notes viz. An Oath and a Promise are not the onely signes of irrevocability Gods Word is as sure as his Oath and a Threatning as true as a Promise and when it falls under Voluntas propositi will as surely be fulfilled See Grotius de satisfactione Christi cap. 3. Vossium ejus defenforem The 4. Question is whether sinners may not hence be encouraged to conceive some hope of a relaxation of the Threatnings in the New Covenant To this I answer 1. No For God hath fully discovered that it is his purpose and resolution to execute those Threats and not to relax or reverse them that he will come in flaming fire to render vengeance on them that know not God and obey not the Gospel of our Lord Iesus Christ c. 2. Thes. 1. 7 8. That there is no more sacrifice for sin Heb. 10. 26 27. And hath revealed the manner how they shall be condemned Mat. 25. 2. If there were any hope of this yet were it unexpressable madnesse to venter ones everlasting state on that when we see that God did not remit the penalty of the first Covenant wholly but would have his justice satisfied though by the suffering of his Sonne Christ And yet that it also cost the offendors so deare themselves The 5. Question is May we not feare lest God may dispense with his Promises as well as his Threats I answer 1. He did not dispense with his Threatning but upon a valuable consideration 2. No for though the Promise as well as the Threat doe belong to the Law and so discover what is due rather then what shall come to passe yet the thing promised being once our due cannot be taken from us without our consent and so as Grotius saith Ex promisione jus aliquod acquiritur ei cui facta est promtssio justice bindeth to give all to another that is his due but not alwayes and absolutely to inflict upon an offender as much punishment as he deserveth 3. Beside God hath revealed it to be the will of his purpose also to confer the things promised in the Gospel upon all Beleevers The 6 and last Question was If the Law be relaxable whether God might not have freely remitted the offence and have spared his Son his satisfactory sufferings I answer 1. It yet remaines under dispute whether the Threat speak not de eventu as to the sinne though but de jure as to the sinner And then the Truth of God would forbid a dispensation as to the sinne 2. Though the Threatning doe not flatly determine of the execution de eventu yet it intimates a strong probability of it seemes to tell the world that ordinarily the Law-giver will proceed according thereto and gives the sinner strong grounds to expect as much Therefore if God should relax his Law much more if he should wholly dispence with it by
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
promise for it 3. Their sufferings if they will be ruled shall turn to their advantage To the sixth Question The last enemy to be overcome is death 1 Cor. 15 26. This enemy will be overcome perfectly at the Resurrection then also shall we be perfectly acquit from the charge of the Law and accusation of Satan Therefore not till the day of Resurrection and Judgment will all the Effects of Sin and Law and Wrath be perfectly removed 1 Cor. 15. 24. THESIS X. 1 MAn having not only broken this first Covenant but disabled himself to perform its Conditions for the future and so being out of all hope of attaining Righteousness and Life thereby 2 It pleased the Father aud the Mediator to prescribe unto him a new Law 3 and tender him a new Covenant 4 the Conditions whereof should be more easie to the Sinner and yet more abasing 5 and should more cleerly manifest and more highly honour the unconceiveable Love of the Father and Redeemer EXPLICATION 1 WHether Man were only the meritorious Cause of this his disability or also the Efficient is a great dispute but of no great moment as long as we are agreed that Man is the only faulty cause Whether he cast away Gods image or whether God took it from him for sin whether God only could annihilate it Or whether Man may annihilate a Quality though not a Substance I will not meddle with But too sure it is that we are naturally deprived of it and so disabled to fulfill the Law If Christ therefore should have pardoned all that was past and renewed the first violated Covenant again and set Man in the same estate that he fell from in poynt of guilt yet would he have fallen as desperately the next temptation yea though he had restored to him his primitive strength and holinesse yet experience hath shewed on how slippery and uncertain a ground his happiness would have stood and how soon he was likely to play the Prodigal again with his stock 2 God the Father and Christ the Mediator who have one will did therefore resolve upon a more suitable way of happines 3 This way as the former is by both a Law and Covenant As it is a Law it is by Christ prescribed and flatly enjoyned and either obedience or the penalty shall be exacted As it is a Covenant it is only tendered and not enforced It is called a Covenant as it is in Scripture written and offered as is said before improperly because it containeth the matter of the Covenant though yet it want the form Even as a Bond or Obligation before the sealing or agreement is called a Bond Or as a form of prayer as it is written in a book is called a prayer because it containeth the matter that we should pray for though to speak strictly it is no prayer till it be sent up to God from a desiring Soul 4 Though without Grace we can no more beleeve then perfectly obey as a dead man can no more remove a straw then a mountain yet the conditions of the Gospel considered in themselves or in reference to the strength which God will bestow are far more facile then the old conditions Mat. 11. 29 30. 1 Ioh. 5. 3. And more abasing they are to the sinner in that he hath far lesse to doe in the work of his salvation And also in that they contain the acknowledgement of his lost estate through his own former self destroying folly 5 Such incomprehensible amazing Love of God the Father and of Christ is manifested in this New Covenant that the glorifying thereof doth seem to be the main end in this design Oh sweet and blessed End should not then the searching into it be our main study and the contemplating of it and admiring it be our main employment Rom. 5. 8. Tit. 3. 4. 1 Ioh. 4. 9. Eph. 3. 18. 19. Ioh. 15. 13. No wonder therefore that God did not prevent the fall of man though he foresaw it when he could make it an occasionall preparative to such happy ends THESIS XI NOt that Christ doth absolutely null or repeal the old Covenant hereby but he super-addeth this as the only possible way of Life The former still continueth to command prohibite promise threaten So that the sins even of the justified are still breaches of that Law and are threatned and cursed thereby EXPLICATION I Acknowledge that this Assertion is disputable and dificult and many places of Scripture are usually produced which seem to contradict it I know also that it the judgement of learned and godly men that the Law as it a Covenant of works is quite null and repealed in regard of the Sins of beleevers yea many do beleeve that the Covenant of works is repealed to all the world and only the Covenant of grace in force Against both these I maintain this Assertion by the Arguments which you finde under the following Position 13. And I hope not withstanding that I extoll free Grace as much and preach the Law as little in a forbidden sence as though I held the contraty opinion THESIS XII THerefore we must not plead the repeal of the Law for our Iustification but must refer it to our Surety who by the value and efficacy of his once offering and merits doth continually satisfie EXPLICATION I Shall here explain to you in what sence and how far the Law is in force and how far not and then prove it in and under the next head You must here distinguish betwixt 1. The repealing of the Law and the relaxing of it 2. Between a dispensation absolute and respective 3. Between the alteration of the Law and the alteration of the Subjects relation to it 4. Between a Discharge conditional with a suspension of execution and a Discharge absolute And so I resolve the question thus 1. The Law of Works is not abrogated or repealed but dispensed with or relaxed A Dispensation is as Grotius defineth it an act of a Superior whereby the obligation of a Law in force is taken away as to certain persons and things 2. This Dispensation therefore is not total or absolute but respective For 1. though it dispence with the rigorous execution yet not with every degree of execution 2. Though the Law be dispenced with as it containeth the proper subjects of the penalty viz. the parties offending and also the circumstances of duration c. Yet in regard of the meer punishment abstracted from person and circumstances it is not dispenced with for to Christ it was not dispenced with His satisfaction was by paying the full value 3. Though by this Dispensation our Freedom may be as full as upon a Repeal yet the Alteration is not made in the Law but in our estate and relation to the Law 4. So far is the Law dispenced with to all as to suspend the rigorous execution for a time and a Liberation or Discharge conditional procured and granted them But an absolute Discharge is granted to
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
Gospel-conditions doth bear the punishment himself in eternall fire and therefore Christ did not bear it So that as it was not so grievous a death which was threatened in the first Covenant as that is which is threatened in the second so it was not so grievous a kind of death which Christ did bear as that is which finall unbelievers shall bear except as â—he accumulation of sins of so many might increase it Therefore when we say That Christ suffered in his Soul the pains of hell or that which is equall we must not mean the pains which is threatned in the Gospell and the damned unbelievers must endure but only of that death which the Law of Works did threaten Wo therefore to the rebellious unbelieving world that must bear this second death themselves For of how much soever punishment shall they be thought worthy who tread under foot the blood of the Covenant Heb. 10. 29. THESIS XXXIV THe Covenant of Grace is not properly said to be violated or its conditions broken except they be finally broken For the violation consisteth in non performance of the conditions and if they are performed at last they are truly performed if performed then the Covenant is not so violated as that the offendor should fall under the threatening thereof EXPLICATION I Deny not but the new Covenant may be said to be neglected and sinned against and the Command of Christ broken by our long standing out in unbelief though we come home at last But the Covenant conditions are not broken when ever the precept of the Gospel is transgressed or the Covenant neglected except it be finall The Condition is Who ever believeth shall be saved not limitting it to a particular season Though both the precept of Christ common Reason requireth that we be speedy in the performance because we have no promise that the day of Grace shall continue and because our neglect will increase our disability and our frequent resisting Will grieve the Spirit So that the new Covenant doth not threaten death to every particular act of disobedience or unbelief nor to any but what is finall though the precept require that we believe immediately and every degree of unbelief be forbidden THESIS XXXV YEt the sins of Beleevers against the Gospel Precepts have need of pardon and are properly said to be pardoned in reference to their deserved punishment 1. Both because the punishment which naturally and implicitely is due to them is not so much as threatened in this gentle Covenant and so becomes not explicitely due or in point of Law 2. But specially because the old Covenant condemning all sin is yet unrepealed which would be executed on us even for our sins against GRACE did not the efficacy of CHRISTS Satisfaction dayly interpose which makes us therefore have continuall need of that Satisfaction EXPLICATION THis is layd down to prevent the Objection which might arise from the fore-going Doctrine For many are ready to ask If Christ dyed not for sin as it is against the Gospell-Covenant then how are such sins pardoned to Beleevers I answer in the fore-expressed way For certainly the Gospel cannot be said to remit the punishment which it never threatened further then as it is only implicitely due And that which it doth threaten it doth never remit THESIS XXXVI THe pardoning of sin is a gracious act of God discharging the Offender by the Gospell-Promise or grant from the Obligation to punishment upon consideration of the satisfaction made by Christ accepted by the sinner and pleaded with God EXPLICATION THe true definition of Pardon and of Justification doth much conduce to the understanding of this whole mysterious Doctrine The former I have here laid down as neer as I can I shall briefly explain the whole Definition 1. I call it an Act of God for so the Scripture ordinarily doth Mat. 6. 12. 14 15. Mar. 11. 24. 26. Luk. 23. 34. Ephes. 3. 32. Some may object If all things be delivered into the hands of Christ the Redeemer and all Judgement committed to the Son as is shewed before then the Son should forgive rather then the Father I answer 1. So the Son is said to forgive also Mar. 2. 7 10. Luk. 5. 24. 2. I shewed you before That the Father giveth not away any power from himself by giving it to the Son but onely doth manage it in another way upon other terms 3. As the Mediator is a middle person interposing between God and the world for their reconciliation so the Acceptance Pardon and Kingdom of the Mediator is as it were a Mean or step towards the Pardon Acceptance and Kingdom of God First Christ doth cleanse men by his Spirit and Blood and then offereth them blameless and undefiled without spot or wrinkle to God who so accepts them at his hands and even the Kingdom also will he deliver up to the Father Ephes. 5. 27. Col. 1. 22 28. Iude 24. 1 Cor. 15. 24. Therefore the Sons pardoning and accepting being first in order of Nature and so but a mean to Gods pardoning and accepting where the whole work is compleatly perfected when the sinner is fully brought home by Christ to God from whom he first fell the act of pardoning is therefore most usually and fitly ascribed to the Father that being the ultimate perfecting pardon and we are said to ask it of him through Christ. 2. I call this Pardon a gracious Act For if it were not in some sort gratuitous or free it were no Pardon Let those think of this who say We have perfectly obeyed the Law in Christ and are therefore righteous If the proper debt either of obedience or suffering be payd either by our selves or by another then there is no place left for Pardon For when the Debt is payd we owe nothing except obedience de novo and therefore can have nothing forgiven us For the Creditor cannot refuse the proper Debt nor deny an Acquittance upon receit thereof But Christ having payd the Tantundem and not the Idem the Value and not the strict Debt this satisfaction the Father might have chosen to accept or to have discharged us upon Christs sufferings which yet because he freely doth therefore is his gracious Act properly called Pardon The ignorant Antinomians think it cannot be a Free Act of Grace if there be any Condition on our part for enjoying it As if in the fore-mentioned comparison pag. 153. the Tenants redemption were the less free because his new Lease requires the Rent of a pepper corn in token of homage As if when a pardon is procured for a condemned Malefactor upon condition that he shall not reject it when it is offered him but shall take him that procured it for his Lord that this were therefore no free pardon Indeed if we payd but a mite in part of the debt it self so far our pardon were the less free But I will not further trouble the Reader with these senceless conceits the confutation whereof
is very small The chief difference lyeth in this That the Terminus a quo of Remission is the obligation to punishment but the Terminus of Iustification or the evil that it formally and directly doth free us from is the Laws Accusation and Condemnation Now though the difference between these two be very narrow and rather respective then reall yet a plain difference there is For though it be one and the same Commination of the Law by which men are both obliged to punishment accused as guilty and condemned for that guilt yet these are not all one though it is also true that they all stand or fall together That pardon is most properly the removing of the Obligation and that Iustification is the removing of Accusation and Condemnation in the Law will be evident to those that have read what Divines have written at large concerning the signification of the words especially such that have skill in Law which is a great advantage in this doctrine of Iustification Therefore as Mr. Wotten and Mr. Goodwin do a little mistake in making pardon of sin to be the formall cause of Iustification though they are far neerer the mark then their opposers So Mr. Bradshaw doth a little too much straiten the form of it making it to lye only in Apology or Plea It consisteth in both the Acts 1. Apology in oppositioÌ„ to AccusatioÌ„ thus Christ our Advocate doth principally justifie us 2. In Sentence virtuall or actuall so it is opposed both to Accusation and Condemnation so Christ the Mediator as Iudge and the Father as one with him and as the supream Iudge doth justifie But this latter is the chief Act. The rest of the Definition is sufficiently opened under the foregoing Definition of Pardon and will be more after THESIS XXXIX IVstification in Sentence of Iudgement is a gracious Act of God by Christ according to the Gospel by Sentence at his publique Bar acquitting the sinner from the Accusation and Condemnation of the Law pleaded against him by Satan upon the consideration of the Satisfaction made by Christ accepted by the sinner and pleaded for him EXPLICATION THere is also a two-fold Pardon as well as a two-fold Iustification One in Law the other in Sentence of Iudgement So. Acts 3. 19. Repent that your sins may be blotted out when the time of refreshing comes c. But pardon of sin is usually mentioned in respect to this life present as being bestowed here because a man may more fitly be said to be fully quit from the Obligation of the punishment commonly called the guilt in this life then from the Accusation of that guilt which will be managed against him by Satan hereafter or from the Condemnation which he must then most especially be delivered from The difference betwixt this Iustification and the former may easily be discerned by the Definition without any further Explication THESIS XL. WHen Scripture speaketh of Iustification by Faith it is to be understood primarily and directly of Iustification in Law title and at the bar of Gods publique Iudgment and but secondarily and consequentially of Iustification at the bar of Gods secret judgment or at the bar of Conscience or of the World EXPLICATION 1. THat Justification by Faith is in foro-Dei and not in foro conscientiae primarily see Dr. Downam's Appendix to Covenant of Grace against Mr Pemble Conscience is but an inferiour petty improper Judge The work must be transacted chiefly at a higher Tribunall View all the Scriptures that mention Justification by Faith and you shall finde by the Text and Context that they relate to the bar of God but not one directly to the bar of Conscience It is one thing to be justified and another thing to have it manifested to our Consciences that we are so 2. That it is not directly at the bar of the World all will acknowledge 3. That it is not directly at the bar of Gods secret Judgment in his own brest may appear thus 1. That is not a bar at which God dealeth with sinners for Justification or Condemnation in any known or visible way No Scripture intimateth it 2. We could not then judge of our Justification 3. They are immanent Acts but Justification is a transient Act Therefore Dr Downame in the place before mentioned hath proved against Mr Pemble that Justification is not from Eternity And as I judge by his following Tract of Justification Mr Pemble himself came afterwards to a sounder Judgment in the nature of Justification 4. God dealeth with man in an open way of Law and upon Covenant terms and so will try him at a publique Judgment according to the Tenor of his Covenants There secrets of his brest are too high for us By the word will he judge us That must justifie or condemn us Therefore when you hear talk of the Bar of God you must not understand it of the immanent Acts of Gods Knewledg or Will but of his Bar of publique Judgment and in the sence of the Word Some think that Justification by Faith is properly and directly none of all these yet but that it is a publique Act of God in heaven before his Angels I think this opinion better then any of the three former which would have it at the Bar of Gods secret Judgment or of Conscience or of the World and I know no very ill consequence that followeth it But that God doth condemn or justifie at any such Bar. I find no Scripture fully to satisfie or perswade me Those places Rom. 2. 13. Heb. 9. 24. Luke 12 8 9. 15. 10. which are alledged to that purpose seem not to conclude any â—â—ch thing as that to be the Bar where Faith doth most properly justifie Yet I acknowledge that in a more remote sence we may be said to be justified by Faith at all the four other Bars viz. Gods Immanent Judgment and before the Angels and before Conscience and the World For God and Angels do judge according to Truth and take those to be just who are so in Law and in deed and so do our Consciences and Men when they judge rightly and when they do not we cannot well be said to be justified at their Bar. Therefore I think they mistake who would have Works rather then Faith to justifie us at the Bar of the World as I shall shew afterward when I come to open the conditions of Justification THESIS XLI THat saying of our Divines That Iustification is perfected at first and admits of no degrees must be understood thus That each of those Acts which we call Iustification are in their own kind perfect at once and that our Righteousness is perfect and admits not of degrees But yet as the former Acts called Iustification do not fully and in all respects procure our freedom so they may be said to be imperfect and but degrees toward our full and perfect Iustification at the last Iudgment THESIS XLII THere are many such steps toward our finall and
full Iustification As 1. Gods eternall Love and Decree of justifying us 2. Christs undertaking for satisfying and justifying 3. His actuall satisfying by paying the price 4. His own Iustification as the publique Person at his Resurrection 5. That change which is made in our Relation upon our Regeneration or receiving the vitall seed of Grace where among others that is contained which is called the habit of Faith these infants are capable of 6. The change of our Relation upon our actuall Faith 7. The pacyfying our own hearts is by the evidence of Faith and assurance there-upon and witness of Conscience and Testimony and Seale of the Spirit 8. The Angels judging us righteous and rejoycing therein 9. Our Iustification before Men. 10. And our finall Iustification at the great Iudgment But it is only the sixth and tenth of these which is directly and properly the Iustification by Faith as is before exprest THESIS XLIII THe Iustification which we have in Christs own Iustification is but conditionall as to the particular offenders and none can lay claim to it till he have performed the conditions nor shall any be personally justified tâ—ll then Even the elect remain personally unjust and unjustified for all their conditionall Iustification in Christ till they do beleeve THis needs not explication and for Confirmation there is enough said under the 15 18 19 20 Positions before THESIS XLIV MEn that are but thus conditionally pardoned and justified may be unpardoned and unjustified again for their non-performance of the conditions and all the debt so forgiven be required at their hands and all this without any change in God or in his Laws See Ball of the Covenant pag. 240. THis is all plain only for so much of it as seems to intimate an universall conditionall Justification and consequently universall Redemption I intreat the Reader to suspend his Judgment till I come to the point of Universall Redemption where I shall fully and purposely explain my meaning And for that which intimates in the following Position the falling away of the justified understand that I speak only upon supposition and of a possibility in the thing and of the Tenor of the Gospell But in regard of Gods Will of Purpose which determineth eventually whether they shall fall quite away or not I do beleeve that the justified by Faith never do or shall fall away THESIS XLV YEa in case the justified by Faith should cease beleeving the Scripture would pronounce them unjust again and yet without any change in God or Scripture but only in themselves Because their Iustification doth continue conditionall as long as they live here the Scripture doth justifie no man by name but all beleevers as such therefore if they should cease to be beleevers they would cease to be justified THESIS XLVI IVstification implyeth Accusation either Virtuall or Actuall EXPLICATION AS there is a Justification in Law or in Sentence so is there the Accusation of the Law as it stands in force which may be called a virtuall Accusation in reference to that at Judgment which will be Actuall from Satans pleading the violated Law against us Mr Bradshaw doth fully shew you the reason of this Position THESIS XLVII THe new Covenant accuseth no man as deserving its penalty but only those that perform not its conditions that is the finally unbelieving and impenitent rebels against Christ and their rightfull Lord. EXPLICATION THat the Gospell doth not condemn men or threaten them with damnation for any sins but unbelief I dare not speak or think But that the Gospell threateneth no man with damnation but unbeleevers is out of all question And consequently the proper sin threatened in the new Covenant as such is unbelief the rest are but left and setled on the sinner by this THESIS XLVIII WHere the Gospell-Covenant doth thus accuse or where any one is truly thus charged there is no Iustification for that person EXPLICATION I Mean not where any man is accused of a temporary neglect or delay of performing the conditions For the Gospell threateneth not death to such if at last they do perform them But where there is a finall nonperformance which is the proper violation there is no hope of Justification See for this the 32 33 34 35 Positions THESIS XLIX IT being the Laws Accusation and Condemnation only not the Gospels which we are justified against therefore the Righteousness which must be pleaded for our Iustificaâ—â—â—â— directly must be a legall Righteousness which is only Christs Satisfaction THESIS L. OVr Faith therefore cannot be the least part of that Righteousness so to be pleaded it being not the Righteousness of that Covenant which doth accuse us so that though we are justified by Faith yet is it not any of the Righteousness to be pleaded against the accuser THESIS LI. YEt if Satan or any other should falsly accuse us of not performing the conditions of the new Covenant and so having no part in Christs Satisfaction here we must be justified only by our Faith or personall Gospell-Righteousness and not by any thing that Christ hath done or suffered For in all false accusations we must defend our innocency and plead not guilty EXPLICATION BUt because there is no danger to us from false accusation before the all-knowing God therefore Scripture saith nothing of any such Justification Yet at the bar of men it is frequently usefull where false accusations may be heard therefore David Iob c. do plead their Innocency against their accusers Also at the bar of our own erroneous Consciences this kind of Justification is frequently full for there Satan hath more hope that his false accusations may take place then at the Bar of God Wherefore he more usually accuseth Christians to themselves of being graceless and unbeleevers and impenitent and of having no part in Christ then of breaking the Law by their sins And in such cases when the accusation is false we have no way to answer it but by pleading not guilty casting back the accusation as a lying slander and producing our Faith and Gospel-Obedience or what ever grace we are accused to want And so it is that our own graces and duties may be properly our comfort It will be but a senceless shift in such an accusation to shew Christs Legall Righteousness in stead of our own Evangelicall Righteousness To tell Satan that Christ hath fulfilled the Law for us when he is accusing us of not fulfilling the Gospell silly women are made beleeve by Antinomian Teachers that this is a solid way of comforting But Satan is a better Logitian then to take quid pro quo and to be baffled with such arguing And as silly and more false a shift it will be to tell him that Christ hath beleeved repented and fulfilled the Gospell-Conditions for us as I have shewed before The best is these Teachers do but spoyle the comforts of beleevers and not their safety for in the case in hand we suppose the accusation
to be false But yet by such grounds they may very easily overthrow the safety also of unbeleevers while they teach them how to comfort themselves without Faith or to look at all out of themselves in Christ and so to silence the accusation of both Covenants by producing only the Righteousness of one THESIS LII WE must not plead for our Iustification that Christ hath made us free from the very fact nor 2 from the sinfulness of the fact nor 3 from its desert of punishment If Christ had done any of this for us he must verifie Contradictories But we must plead that the penalty is not due to our persons notwithstanding the fact and its sinfulness and demerit because Christ hath satisfied for all this EXPLICATION SO Mr Anthony Burgess in his book of Justif. pag 19. affirmeth as much though some take it for hainous doctrine 1. That the fact should be done and not done is a contradiction 2. So is it That the fact should be sinful and not sinful 3. Or that it should deserve death and not deserve it Or that it should be a sin against that threatening Law and yet not deserve the penalty threatened Besides if any of these three could have been taken off what need Christ have dyed But that which Remission and Justification freeth us from is the dueness of punishment to our persons notwithstanding the dueness of it to the sin because what is due to the sin is inflicted on the person of another already even Christ. So that you see in what sence Christ taketh away sin and guilt which you must observe lest you run into the Antinomian conceit That God seeth not sin in his justified ones When we say therefore that God looketh on our sins as if they had never been committed the meaning is that in regard to punishment they shall have no more power to condemn us then if they had never been committed THESIS LIII THe offending of God and the desert and procuring of punishment are not two distinct effects of sin as some make them nor is the removal of the curse and punishment and the obtaining of Gods favour two distinct parts of our Iustification EXPLICATION THis is plain because Gods displeasure against our persons for his dislike of the sin is never taken off is a chief part of our punishment and therefore not to be distinguished from it but as the Species from its Genus And so when all the punishment is removed then Gods displeasure or the loss of his favour must needs be removed Therefore that Justification in this differs from Remission of sin I cannot yet think as that godly and learned Servant of Christ whom I honour and reverence Mr Burgess of Iustificat pag. 259. doth That Justification besides the pardon of sin doth connote a state that the subject is put into viz. a state of favour being reconciled with God Because even Remission it self doth connote that state of favour For if the loss of Gods favour be part of the punishment and all the punishment be remitted then the favour which we lost must needs be thereby restored Indeed there is a two-fold Favour of God 1. That which we lost in the fall 2. More super-added by Christ besides the former restored Of these in the following Position THESIS LIV. REmission Iustification and Reconciliation do but restore the offender into the same state of freedom and favour that he fell from But Adoption and Marriage-Vnion with Christ do advance him far higher EXPLICATION THe three former are all concomitant consequents of one and the same Act of God by his Gospell The freedom from obligation to punishment is called Remission the freedom from Accusation and Condemnation is called Justification and the freedom from enmity and displeasure is called Reconciliation which are all at once do all denote but our Restauration to our former state Adoption and Marriage-Union do add the rest Some may blame me for putting Union among the relative Graces and not rather among those that make a real physicall change upon us as Sanctificition and Glorification But I do herein according to my judgment whereof to give the full reasons here would be too large a digression I know that Caspar Streso and divers others do place it in an unconceivable unexpressable medium between these two which yet must be called a Reall Union more then a Relative though not Physicall I will not now stand on â—his 〈◊〉 knowledg a Reall Foundation of a Relative Union and a Reall Communion following thereupon But am very fearfull of coming so near as to make Christ and sinners one reall Person as the late elevated Sect among us do lest blasphemously I should deifie man and debase Christ to be actually a sinner And if we are not one reall Person with Christ then one what It sufficeth me to know as abovesaid and that we are one with Christ in as strist a bond of relation as the wife with the husband and far stricter and that we are his body mysticall but not naturall That we shall be one with him as he is one with the Father is true But that as doth not extend the similitude to all respects but to a truth in some THESIS LV. BEfore it be committed it is no sin and where there is no sin the penalty is not due and where it is not due it cannot properly be forgiven therefore sin is not forgiven before it be committed though the grounds of certain Remission be laid before EXPLICATION FOr proof of this I refer you to Master Burgess of Iustificati Lect. 28. THESIS LVI BY what hath been said it is apparent That Iustification in Title may be ascribed to sever all Causes 1. The principall efficient Cause is God 2. The Instrumentall is the Promise or Grant off the new Covenant 3. The Procatarctick Cause â—o far as God may be said to be moved by any thing out of himself speaking after the manner of men is fourfold 1. And chiefly the Satisfaction of Christ. 2. The Intercession of Christ and supplication of the sinner 3. The necessity of the sinner 4. The opportunity and advantage for the glorifying his Iustice and Mercy The first of these is the Meritorious Cause the second the morall perswading Cause the third is the Objective and the fourth is the Occasion 2. Materiall Cause properly it hath none If you will improperly call Christs Satisfaction the remote matter I contend not 3. The formall Cause is the acquitting of the sinner from Accusation and Condemnation of the Law or the disabling the Law to accuse or condemn him 4. The finall Cause is the Glory of God and of the Mediator and the deliverance of the sinner 5. The Causa sine quâ non is both Christs Satisfaction and the Faith of the justified EXPLICATION HEre it will be expected that I answer to these Questions 1. Why I call the Gospell the Instrumentall Cause 2. Why I call Christs Satisfaction the meritorious Cause
production of the Effect under the chief Cause And so you may call Faith an Instrument Quest. But though Faith be not the Instrument of Justification may it not be called the Instrument of receiving Christ who Justifieth us Answ. I do not so much stick at this speech as at the former yet is it no proper or fit expression neither For 1. The Act of Faith which is it that justifieth is our Actuall receiving of Christ and therefore cannot be the Instrument of Receiving To say our Receiving is the Instrument of our Receiving is a hard saying 2. And the seed or habite of Faith cannot fitly be called an Instrument For 1. The sanctified faculty it self cannot be the souls Instrument it being the soul it self and not any thing really distinct from the soul nor really distinct from each other as Scotus D'Orbellis Scaliger c. D. Iackson Mr. Pemble think and Mr. Ball questions 2. The holinesse of the Faculties is not their Instrument For 1. It is nothing but themselves rectified and not a Being so distinct as may be called their Instrument 2. Who ever called Habits or Dispositions the souls Instruments The aptitude of a Cause to produce its effect cannot be called the Instrument of it you may as well call a mans Life his Instrument of Acting or the sharpnesse of a knife the knives Instrument as to call our holiness or habituall faith the Instrument of receiving Christ. To the sixth and last Question I Answ. Faith is plainly and undeniably the condition of our Justification The whole Tenour of the Gospell shews that And a condition is but a Causa sine quâ non or a medium or a necessary Antecedent Here by the way take notice that the same men that blame the advancing of Faith so high as to be our true Gospell Righteousnesse Posit 17. 20. and to be inputed in proper sence Posit 23. do yet when it comes to the triall ascribe far more to Faith then those they blame making it Gods Instrument in justifying 1. And so to have part of the honour of Gods own Act 2. And that from a reason intrinsecall to faith it self 3. And from a Reason that will make other Graces to be Instruments as well as Faith For Love doth truly receive Christ also 4. And worst of all from a Reason that will make man to be the Causa proxima of his own Justification For man is the Causa proxima of believing and receiving Christ and therefore not God but man is said to beleeve And yet these very men do send a Hue and Crie after the Tò credere for robbing Christ of the glory of Iustification when we make it but a poor improper Causa sine qua non And yet I say as before that in Morality yea and in Naturality some Causae sine qua non do deserve much of the honour but that Faith doth not so I have shewed in the 23. Position Some think that Faith may be some small low Impulsive Cause but I will not give it so much though if it be made a Procatarctick Objective Cause I shall not contend THESIS LVII IT is the Act of Faith which justifieth men at age and not the habit yet not as it is a good work or as it hath in it's self any excellency in it above other Graces But 1. In the neerest sence directly and properly as it is The fulfilling of the Condition of the New Convenant 2. In the remote and more improper sence as it is The receiving of Christ and his satisfactory Righteousnesse EXPLICATION 1. THat the habit of Faith doth not directly and properly justifie appeares from the tenour of the Covenant which is not He that disposed to beleeve shall be saved But he that believeth 2. That Faith doth not properly justifie through any excellency that it hath above other Graces or any more usefull property may appear thus 1. Then the praise would be due to Faith 2. Then love would contend for a share if not a priority 3. Then Faith would justifie though it had not been made the Condition of the Covenant Let those therefore take heed that make Faith to justifie meerely because it apprehendeth Christ which is its naturall effentiall property 3. That it is Faith in a proper sence that is said to justifie and not Christs Righteousnesse onely which it receiveth may appear thus 1. From the necessity of two-fold righteousness which I have before proved in reference to the two-fold Covenant 2. From the plain and constant Phrase of Scripture which saith He that beleeveth shall be justified and that we are justified by Faith and that faith is imputed for righteousnesse It had been as easie for the Holy Ghost to have said that Christ onely is imputed or his righteousnesse onely or Christ onely justifieth c. If he had so meant He is the most excusable in an error that is lead into it by the constant expresse phrase of Scripture 3. From the nature of the thing For the effect is ascribed to the severall Causes though not alike and in some sort to the Conditions Especially me-thinks they that would have Faith to be the Instrument of Iustification should not deny that we are properly justified by Faith as by an Instrument For it is as proper a speech to say our hand and our teeth feed us as to say our meet feedeth us 4. That Faith doth most directly and properly justifie as its the fulfilling of the Condition of the New Covenant appeareth thus 1 The new Covenant onely doth put the stamp of Gods Authority upon it in making it the Condition A two-fold stamp is necessary to make it a current medium of our Justification 1. Command 2. Promise Because God hath neither Commanded any other meanes 2. Nor promised Justification to any other therefore it is that this is the onely condition and so only thus Justifieth When I read this to be the tenour of the New Covenant Whosoever believeth shall be justified doth it not tell me plainly why Faith Justifieth even because it pleaseth the Law-giver and Covenant-maker to put Faith into the Covenant as its condition 2. What have we else to shew at Gods barr for our Justification but the New Covenant The Authority and Legality of it must bear us out It is upon point of Law that we are condemned and it must be by Law that we must be Justified Therefore we were condemned because the Law which we break did threaten death to our sin If we had committed the same Act and not under a Law that had threatned it with death we might not have dyed So therefore are we Justified because the New Law doth promise Iustification to our faith If we had performed the same Act under the first Covenant it would not have Iustified As the formall Reason why sin condemneth is because the Law hath concluded it in its threatning so the formall Reason why Faith justifieth is because the New Law of Covenant hath concluded
or melancholly maketh you not know your own minde or else you do but dissemble in pretending trouble and sad complaints If you be indeed unwilling I have no comfort for you till you are willing but must turn to perswasions to make you willing I should answer The Condition of the Covenant is not the Perfection but the sincerity of Faith or Consent which way goes the prevailing bent or choyce of your will If Christ were before you would you accept him or reject him If you would heartily accept him for your only Lord and Saviour I dare say you are a true Beleever Thus you see the comfortable use of right understanding what justifying faith is and the great danger and inconvenience that followeth the common mistakes in this point THESIS LXX FAith in the largest sence as it comprehendeth all the Condition of the new Covenant may be thus defined It is when a sinner by the Word and Spirit of Christ being throughly convinced of the Righteousness of the Law the truth of its threatening the evill of his own sin and the greatness of his misery hereupon and with all of the Nature and Offices Sufficiency and Excellency of Iesus Christ the Satisfaction he hath made his willingness to save and his free offer to all that will accept him for their Lord and Saviour doth hereupon believe the truth of this Gospell and accept of Christ as his only Lord and Saviour to bring them to God their chiefest good and to present them pardoned and just before him and to bestow upon them a more glorious inheritance and do accordingly rest on him as their Saviour and sincerely though imperfectly obey him as their Lord forgiving others loving his people bearing what sufferings are imposed diligently using his means and Ordinances and confessing and bewailing their sins against him and praying for pardon and all this sincerely and to the end EXPLICATION THis is the Condition of the new Covevenant at large That all this is sometime called Faith as taking its name from the primary principall vitall part is plain hence 1. In that Faith is oft called the Obeying of the Gospell but the Gospell commandeth all this Rom. 10. 16. 1 Pet. 1. 22. 4. 17. 2 Thes. 1. 8. Gal. 3. 1. 5 7. Heb. 5. 9. 2. The fulfilling of the Conditions of the new Covenant is oft called by the name of Faith so opposed to the fulfilling the Conditions of the old Covenant called works But these forementioned are parts of the Condition of the new Covenant and therefore implyed or included in Faith Gal. 3. 12 23 25. Not that Faith is properly taken for its fruits or confounded with them but as I told you before it is named in the stead of the whole Condition all the rest being implyed as reducible to it in some of the respects mentioned under the 62 Position It may be here demanded 1. Why I do make affiance or recombency an immediate product of Faith when it is commonly taken to be the very justifying Act I answer 1. I have proved already that Consent or acceptance is the principall Act and Affiance doth necessarily follow that 2. For the most of my Reasons that Affiance is a following Act and not the principall they are the same with those of Dr Downame against Mr Pemble and in his Treatise of Justification whither therefore I refer you for Satisfaction 2. Quest. Why do I make sincerity and perseverance to be so near kin to Faith as to be in some sence the same and not rather distinct Graces Answ. It is apparent that they are not reall distinct things but the Modi of Faith 1. Sincerity is the verity of it which is convertible with its Being as it is Metaphysicall Verity and with its Vertuous or Gracious Being as it is Morall or Theologicall Sincerity 2. Perseverance or duration of a Being is nothing really distinct from the Being it self Suarez thinks not so much as a Modus THESIS LXXI 1 THe sincere Performance of the summary great Command of the Law To have the Lord only for our God and so to love obey believe and trust him above all is still naturally implyed in the Conditions of the Gospell as of absolute indispensible necessity 2 and in order of nature and of excellency before Faith it self 3 But it is not commanded in the sence and upon the terms as under the first Covenant EXPLICATION 1 THis Command need not be expressed in the Gospell Conditions it is so naturally necessary implied in all As the ultimate End need not be expressed in directions precepts so as â—he meanes because it is still supposed consultatio est tantum de mediis 2 Love to God and taking him for our God and chiefe Good is both in excellency and order of nature before Faith in Christ the Mediator 1. Because the End is thus before the meanes in excellency and intention But God is the ultimate End and Christ as Mediator is but the meanes Ioh. 14. 6. Christ is the way by which men must come to the Father 2. The Son as God-man or Mediator is lesse then the Father and therefore the duties that respect him as their Object must needs be the lesse excellent duties Ioh 14. 13. The glory of the Son is but a means for the glory of the Father Ioh. 14. 28. My Father is greater then I therefore the Love of the Father is greater then the Love to the Son c. So also in point of necessity it hath the naturall precedency as the End hath before the means for the denying of the End doth immediately cashiere and evacuate all means as such He that maketh not God his chief Good can never desire or Accept of Christ as the way and meanes to recover that chief Good The Apostle therefore knew more reason then meerely for its perpetuity why the chiefest Grace is Love 1. Cor. 13. 13. Though yet the work of Justification is laid chiefely upon faith 3 That this Love of God is not commanded in the sence and on the termes as under the Law is evident For 1. The old Covenant would have condemned us for the very imperfection of the due degree of Love But the Gospell accepteth of Sincerity which lyeth in loving God above all or as the chiefe Good 2. The old Covenant would have destroyed us for one omission of a due Act of Love But the Covenant of Grace accepteth of it if a man that never knew God all his life time doe come in at last Yet the sincere performance of it is as necessary now as then THESIS LXXII AS the accepting of Christ for Lord which is the hearts subjection is as Essentiall a part of Iustifying Faith as the Accepting of him for our Saviour So consequently sincere obedience which is the effect of the former hath as much to doe in justifying us before God as Affiance which is the fruit of the later EXPLICATION I Know this will hardly down with
Obedience also as is before explained Therefore we are justified that we may be saved It would be as derogatory to Christs Righteousness if we be saved by works as if we be justified by them Neither is there any way to the former but by the latter That which a man is justified by he is saved by Though Glorification be an adding of a greater happinesse then we lost so justification is not enough thereto Yet on our part they have the same Conditions Yet here I say still Our full Iustification because as I have shewed our first possession of it is upon our meer Faith or Contract with Christ. But I think our Glorification will be acknowledged to have the same Conditions with our finall Iustification at the barre of Christ. And why not to our entire continued justification on earth You may Object Perseverance is a condition of our Glorification but not of our Iustification here I Answer 1. Perseverance is nothing but the same Conditions persevering 2. As the sincerity of Faith is requisite to our first possession of justification so the perseverance of Faith is the Condition of persevering Iustification See Hebr. 3. 14. 2. That Obedience is a Condition of our Salvation is undoubted Hebr. 5. 6. Christ is the Author of eternall Salvation to all them that obey him so fully Rom. 2. 7. 8. 9. 10. Revel 22. 14. Blessed are they that do his commandements that they may have Right to the tree of Life and may enter by the Gates into the City And hath that no hand in their Iustification which giveth them right to the tree of Life Iam. 1. 22. 23. 24. 25. Mat. 5. from the 1. to the 13. especially the 19. 20. Mat. 7. 13. 21. 23. 24. with the multitude the like Besides all those under Posit 22. which prove a personall Righteousness so called from the conformity to the Gospell See Rom. 8. 4. 13. THESIS LXXIX THis Doctrine is no whit derogatory to Christ and his Righteousnesse For he that ascribeth to Faith or Obedience no part of that work which belongeth to Christs satisfactory Righteousnesse doth not derogate in that from that Righteousnesse But he that maketh Faith and Obedience to Christ to be only the fulfilling of the Conditions of the New Covenant and so to be oneâ—y Conditions of justification by him doth give them no part of the work of his Righteousnesse Seeing he came not to fulfill the Gospell but the Law EXPLICATION I Have proved this before Posit 20. I shall here onely Answer some objections Object 1. Christ was baptized because he must fulfill all Righteousness But that was no part of the Legall Righteousness Answ. The Priests were to be washed when they entred upon their office There were many Ceremonious washings then in force Either Christs Baptisme was Legall or else by fulfilling Righteousnesse must needs be meant The fulfilling all the works of his own office whereof one was the instituting of Church Ordinances and he thought meet to institute this by Example as well as Doctrine He that will affirm that Christ hath fulfilled Evangelicall Righteousnesse for us as well as Legall shall overthrow the office of Christ and the nature of Christianity Object 2. Mr. Bradshaw and most others say That he received the Sacrament of his Supper Ans. Wholly without book I beleeve not that ever he did it for the Scripture no where speaks it And many absurd consequences would hardly be avoided All the probability for it is in those words I will drink no more of the fruit of c. Answ. 1. That may be a Reason why he would not drink now and doth not necessarily imply that he did 2. But clearly Luke who speaketh distinctly of the two Cups which the other do not doth apply and subjoyn these words to the first Cup which was before the Sacramentall 2. If it were granted that Christ did receive the Sacrament yet he never did as an obedientiall Act to his own Gospell precepts Did he obey a Law not yet made or his own Law and so obey himself Much lesse did he perform it as a part of the New Covenant Condition on our part But as a Law-giver and not an Obeyer thereof It was a Law-making Action if any such had been Object If sincere obedience be a part of the Condition then what perplexities will it cast us into to finde out when our obedience is sincere Answ. 1. This difficulty ariseth also if we make it but the Condition of our Salvation yet few but Antinomians will deny that 2. Why is it not as hard to discern the sincerity of faith as of Obedience 3. Obedience is then sincere when Christ is cordially taken for our onely Lord and when his Word is our Law and the main desire and endeavor is to please him and though through prevavalency of the flesh we slip into sin yet the prevailing part of our will is against it and we would not change our Lord for all the world Mr. Saltmarsh thinketh that because we have so much sin with our Obedience all Beleevers have cause to suspect it and so cannot conclude Justification from it As if sincerity might not stand with infirmity Or could not be discerned where there is any remaining imperfection Might not Paul conclude of the sincerity of his Willingness to obey Christ because he did the evill which he would not And might he not conclude his Justification from that Willingness to obey Read Ball of the Covenant chap. 11. THESIS LXXX TO conclude It is most clear in the Scripture and beyond all dispute that our Actuall most proper compleat Iustification at the great Iudgement will be according to our Works and to what we have done in flesh whether Good or Evill which can be no otherwise then as it was the Condition of that Iustification And so Christ at that great Assize will not give his bare Will of Purpose as the Reason of his proceedings but as he governed by a Law so he will judg by a Law and will then give the Reason of his Publique Sentence from mens keeping or breaking the Conditions of his Covenant that so the mouths of all may be stopped and the equity of his Iudgment may be manifest to all and that he may there shew forth his hatred to the sins and not onely to the persons of the Condemned and his Love to the Obedience and not onely to the persons of the Iustified EXPLICATION HEre I have these things to prove 1. That the Justifying Sentence shall pass according to Works as well as Faith 2. That the Reason is because they are parts of the Condition For the first see Mat. 25. 21 23. Well done good and faithfull servant Thou hast been faithfull over a few things I will make thee ruler over many things Enter thou into the joy of thy Lord. And most plain is that from the mouth of the Judg himself describing the order of the process at that day Mat. 25. 34 35. Come ye
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
thought word or deed they break the Covenant which they made in Baptism Did ever any sober man make such a Covenant with Christ as to promise him never to sin against him Or doth Christ call us to such a Covenant Doth his Law threaten or did we in our Covenant consent that we should be condemned if ever we committed a gross sin I conclude therefore that those sins which do consist with true faith can be no breaches of the Covenant of Grace For else Faith being the condition we should both keep it and break it at the same time 2. But all the doubt is about the sins which are inconsistent with Faith Those are either 1. Disobedience to the Law of Works but that cannot violate the Covenant of Grace as such 2. Or else Refusall of Christ by Rebellion and Unbelief privative for of negative unbelief I will not speak And that Refusall is either 1. Temporary of that I have spoken already Or 2. Finall and that I acknowledg is the violation of the Covenant Perhaps you will object That the sin against the Holy Ghost also is a damning sin and so a breach of the Covenant To which I answer Finall Unbelief is the Genus and hath under it these three sorts 1. Ordinary finall Unbelief viz. against Ordinary means 2. The sin against the Holy Ghost 3. Totall Apostacy All these are unpardonable sins I have in another Treatise adventured to tell you my judgment concerning the sin against the Holy Ghost viz. That it is when a man will not beleeve in Christ notwithstanding all the testimoniall miracles of the Holy Ghost which he is convinced de facto were wrought but yet denyeth the validity of their Testimony This is the unpardonable unbelief because uncureable for it is the last or greatest Testimony which Christ will afford to convince the unbeleeving world and therefore he that deliberately refuseth this and will not be convinced by it is left by God as a hopeless wretch So that the sin against the Holy Ghost is but a sort of finall unbelief Lay by your prejudice against the singularity of this interpretation and exactly consider what the occasion of Christs mentioning this sin was and what was the sin which those Pharisees did commit and then judge Lastly For the sin of total Apostacy I confess it is the most proper violation of the Covenant not only as it is a Law and Covenant offered but also as it is a Covenant entred and accepted But it is unbelief which Apostates do fall to for it is only an explicite or implicite renouncing of Christ either as Lord or Saviour or both which is the unpardonable sin of Apostacy which is called falling away that is from Christ and the Covenant and crucifying the Son of God afresh and putting him to open shame Heb. 6. 6. And which is called Heb. 10. 26 29. sinning wilfully that is considerate resolved rejecting Christ or refusing his Government and so called treading under foot the Son of God and counting the blood of the Covenant vvherevvith they vvere sanctified an unholy thing and doing despight to the Spirit of Grace As the nature of this Apostacy lyeth in returning to infidelity so being Totall it is alwayes also Finall God having in his just Judgement resolved to withold from all such the grace that should recover them and so this is a sort of finall unbelief A second distinction which I must here mind you of is betwixt 1. the main Covenant of Grace and 2. Particular subordinate inferiour Covenants which may be made between God and a believer The former is not violated but as I have shewed before The latter is ordinarily broken by us If any man make a vow like Saul's or Ieptha's he may break it possibly and not be damned but recover by repentance If in your sickness or other affliction or at Sacrament or on dayes of Humiliation or Thanksgiving you should Covenant with God to forsake such a sin or to perform such a duty to mend your lives to be more holy and heavenly c. this Covenant you may perhaps break and yet recover And of such Covenants it is that I mean when in confession I do bewail my Covenant-breaking with Christ and not of the main Covenant of Grace for then I should confess my self a totall irrecoverable Apostate The Covenant which ought to be made with Christ in Baptism and which Baptism is the professing sign and seal of is the main Covenant of Grace Therefore is there no use for re-baptizing because such Apostacy is an unrecoverable sin So you see what Covenant it is that the godly break and what breach it is that they use to confess To the fourth Objection YOur fourth Objection that from this doctrine it will follow that the Covenant is never broken is easily answered 1. I think it is true that the regenerate do never break the Covenant But yet the breach in it self and in respect of our strength is more then possible and the controversie de eventu will hold much dispute Austin seemeth to me to be of this opinion That there are some effectually called that yet may fall away but the elect cannot so that he distinguisheth of calling according to purpose or election and that he thinketh cannot be lost and calling not following election which he thinketh may be lost so that he placeth not the difference in the calling but in the decree I do not recite this as assenting to it nor yet can I assent to them who make the very nature of Grace to be immortall and from thence do argue the certainty of perseverance I think to be naturally Immortall is Gods Prerogative and properly imcommunicable to any creature Even Angels and souls of men are Immortall only from the will and continued sustentation of God and if God did withdraw his hand and not continually uphold it the whole Creation would fall to nothing much more the quality of holiness in the soul To subsist of himself without continuall influx from another is proper to God the first naturall necessary absolute Independent Being Yet I acknowledge that when God will perpetuate any Being he fitteth the nature of it accordingly and maketh it more simple pure spirituall and less subject to corruption But yet to say that therefore it is a Nature Immortall or that cannot dye I think improper But I know Philosophers and Divines do think otherwise and therefore I do dissent qâ—asi coactus petitâ veniâ 2. But whether the Regenerate may break the Covenant or not certain I am the unregenerate may and do And whereas you object That they were never in Covenant and therefore cannot be said to break it I must desire you besides the former distinctions to remember these two more 1. Betwixt the Covenant as promulgate and only offered on Gods part 2. And the Covenant as accepted and entered by the sinner The former is most properly called The Law of Christ or new Law as
containing the conditions of our salvation or damnation yet it is properly also and frequently in Scripture called a Covenant though not in so full a sense as the latter because it containeth the substance or matter of the Covenant and expresseth Gods consent so we deny not ours and also because the great prevailing part in it is Mercy and promise and the Duty so small and light in comparison of the said Mercy that in Reason there should be no Question of our performance And so Mercy obscuring or prevailing against Judgment it is more frequenly called a Covenant and Gospell then a Law yet a Law also most properly it is and oft so called Now then that the Covenant in this sense may be broken is no question God hath said He that believeth shall be saved and he that believeth not shall be damned Doth not he that never believeth break this Law or Covenant and incur the penalty So that men that never accept the Covenant do thus break it by their refusall and so perish 2. You must distinguish betwixt 1. The Covenant accepted heartily and sincerely 2. Or nor heartily and sincerely And so I answer you Though unregenerate men did never sincerely covenant with Christ and so are not in Covenant with him as the Saints are yet they do usually Covenant with him both with their mouths by solemn profession acknowledging and owning him as their Lord and Saviour and also by their externall submitting to his Worship and Ordinances and taking the seals of the Covenant and also in some kind they do it from their hearts though not in sincerity Either they do it 1. Rashly and not Deliberately Or 2. They do it out of fear as a man that is in the hands of a conquering enemy that must yield to his will to prevent a worse inconvenience though he accounteth it an evil which he is forced to and had rather be free if he might and doth covenant but with a forced will partly willing to avoid greater misery and partly unwilling 3. Or else they keep secret reservations in their hearts intending as a man that as aforesaid covenanteth with the conquerour to break away as soon as they can or at least to go no further in their obedience then will stand with their wordly happiness or hopes though these reservations be not expressed by them in their Covenant 4. Or else they mistake Christ and the nature of his Covenant thinking he is a Master that will let them please the flesh and enjoy the world and sin and understand not what that Faith and Holiness is which his Covenant doth require and so they are baptized into they know not what and subscribe to they know not what and give up their names to they know not who and then when at last they find their mistake they repent of the bargain and break the Covenat or else never discerning their mistake they break the Covenant while they think that they keep it or if they keep their own they break Christs All these wayes men may enter Covenant with Christ but not sincerely for sincere covenanting must be 1. Upon knowledge of the nature ends and conditions of the Covenant though they may possibly be ignorant of severall Accidentals about the Covenant yet not of these Essentials if they do it sincerely 2. They must Covenant deliberately and not in a fit of passion or rashly 3. They must do it seriously and not dissemblingly or slightly 4. They must do it freely and heartily and not through meer constraint and fear 5. They must do it intirely and with resolution to perform the Covenant which they make and not with Reservations giving themselves to Christ by the halves or reserving a purpose to maintain their fleshly interests 6. And they must especially take Christ alone and not joyn others in office with him but renounce all happiness save what is by him and all Government and Salvation from any which is not in direct subordination to him Thus you see that there is a great difference betwixt covenanting sincerely and covenanting in hypocrisie and formality and so betwixt Faith and Faith Which I have opened to you the more largely because I forgot to do it when I explained the Definition of Faith in that Aphorism whereto you may annex it I conclude then that multitudes of unregenerate men are yet in Covenant with Christ though not as the Saints in sincere Covenanting which I further prove to you thus Those that are in Christ are also in Covenant with Christ But the unregenerate are in Christ therefore c. That they are in Christ is plain in Ioh. 15. 2 6. There are branches in Christ not bearing fruit which are cut off and cast away So Heb. 10. 29 30. They are sanctified by the blood of the Covenant and therefore they were in covenant in some sort I suppose it would be but lost labour to recite all those Scriptures which expresly mention wicked mens entering into Covenant with God and God with them and their Covenant-breaking charged on them you cannot be ignorant of these Wherefore you see that it is a common sin to violate the Gospell-Covenant To the fifth Objection YOur fifth is a mere demand of my proof That Christ is not the only person with whom God the Father entereth Covenant Which Question I confess I am ashamed to answer Nor can I tell what to say to you but Read the Scripture Doth not the whole scope of it mention Gods Covenants with man Turn over your whole Bible see whether it speak more of covenanting with Christ or with us Nor can I imagine what should make you question this except it be because Mr Saltmarsh or some such other doth deny it How could Christ be the Mediator of the Covenant if it were to himself and not to us that the Covenant were made I know Dr Preston and other orthodox Divines do affirm That the Covenant is made primarily with Christ then with us But I confess I scarce relish that form of speech For it seemeth to speak of one the same Covenant then I cannot understand how it can be true For is this Covenant made with Christ Beleeve in the Lord Iesus and thou shalt be saved and if thou beleeve not thou shalt be damned This is the Covenant that is made with us and who dare say that this is made with Christ Or is this Covenant made to Christ I will take the hard hearts our of their bodies and give them he arts of flesh c. I will be mercifull to their transgressions their sins and iniquities will I remember no more Had Christ think you a hard heart to cure I know some think the latter clause belongeth to him first and so to us viz. as he was a sinner by imputation and so had our transgressions upon him but very ignorantly For was God mercifull to him concerning the debt Did he not deall with him in rigorous Justice upon
and the thing signified do say Let him that is athirst come and whoever will let him take the water of life freely Rev. 22. 17. Why may not I say so of the sign and seal to those that seriously professe their thirst Sure I shall speak but as Christ hath taught me and that according to the very scope of the Gospel and the nature of the Covenant of free grace And I wonder that those men who cry up the nature of free grace so much should yet so oppose this free offer of it and the sealing the free Covenant to them that lay claim to it upon Christs invitation To the tenth and eleventh Objections YOur 10. and 11. objections you raise upon my exceptions against the book called The Marrow of Modern Divinity And first you mention the Doctrine and then the Book 1. You think that Do this and live is the voice of the Law of works only and not of the Law or Covenant of Grace and that we may not make the obtaining of life salvation the end of duty but must obey in meer love and from thankfulnesse for the life we have received To all which I answer 1. By way of explication and 2. of probation of my assertions 1. Do this and live in severall senses is the language of both Law and Gospel 1. When the Law speaketh it the sense is this If thou perfectly keep the Laws that I have given thee or shall give thee so long thou shalt continue this life in the earthly Paradise which I have given thee But if once thou sinne thou shalt dye 2. When the Gospel speaketh it the sense is thus Though thou hast incurred the penalty of the Law by thy sinne yet Christ hath made satisfaction Do but accept him for Lord and Saviour and renouncing all other deliver up thy self unreservedly to him and love him above all and obey him sincerely both in doing and suffering and overcome persevere herein to the end and thou shalt be justified from all that the Law can accuse of and restored to the favour and blessings which thou hast lost and to a farre greater Thus the Gospel saith Do this and live That the Gospel commandeth all this I know you will not question and that this is doing you must needs acknowledge But all the question is whether we may do it that we may live I have fully explained to you in this Treatise already in what sense our doing is required and to what ends viz. not to be any part of a legall Righteousnesse nor any part of satisfaction for our unrighteousnesse but to be our Gospel righteousnesse or the condition of our participation in Christ who is our legall Righteousnesse and so of all the benefits that come with him In these severall respects and senses following the Gospel commandeth us to act for life 1. A wicked man or unbeliever may and must hear the Word pray enquire of others c. that so he may obtain the first life of grace and faith This I now prove Isa. 55. 3. 6 7. Ionas 3. 8 9. 10. Pro. 1. 23 24. 25. Amos 5. 4. Act. 2. 37. Isa. 1. 16. Mat. 11. 15. 13. 43. Luk. 16. 29. 31. Ioh. 5. 25. Act. 10. 1 2. 22. 23. Rom. 10. 13. 14 1 Tim. 4. 16. Heb. 3 7. Rev. 3 20. Yet do not I affirm that God never preventeth mens endeavours he is sometime found of them that sought him not Nor do I say that God hath promised the life of Grace to the endeavours of nature But their duty is to seek life and half promises and many encouragements God hath given them such as that in Joel 2. 12 13 14. who knoweth but God will c So Zeph. 2. 3. Exod. 32. 30. And that in Act. 8. 7. 2. Pray therefore if perhaps the thoughts of thy heart may be forgiven thee 2. That a man may act for the increase of this spirituall life when he hath it methinks you should not doubt if you do see 1 Pet. 2. 1 2. 1. 22. 2 Pet. 1. 5 6 7 8. 3. 18. And the Parable of the Talents Mat. 25 26 27. 28. 30. 3. That we may and must act for the life of Reconciliation and Iustification and Adoption is beyond dispute How oft doth Scripture call on men to Repent to Believe to Pray to forgive others and to reform that their sinnes may be forgiven them I have quoted the Scriptures before when I opened the conditions of justification Isa. 1. 16 17 18. Isa. 55. 6 7. Act. 8. 22. Iam. 5. 15. And we are still said to be justified by faith which is an act of ours 4. That we may act for to obtain assurance both of our justification and sanctification is undeniable 2 Pet. 1. 10. 2 Cor. 13. 5. c 5. That we may act for eternall life and salvation methinks he that beareth the face of a Christian should not deny and that both for 1. Title to it 2. Assurance of our enjoying it 3. for possession it self I shall but quote the Scriptures for brevity sake desiring you to read them and save me the labour of transcribing them Rev. 22 14. Iohn 5. 39 40. Mat. 11. 12. and 7. 13. Luke 13. 24. Phil. 2. 17. Rom. 2. 7 10. 1 Cor. 9. 24. 2 Tim. 2. 5 12. 1 Tim. 6. 12 18 19. Phil. 3. 14 Mat. 25. 1 Cor. 15. last 2 Cor. 4. 17. and 5. 10 11. 2 Pet. 1. 10 11. Luke 11. 28. Heb. 4. 1. Luke 12. 5. 1 Cor. 9. 17. These last places shew that the escaping hell and damnation is a necessary end of our actings and duties as well as the obtaining of heaven If when you have read and weighed these Scriptures you be not convinced that we may act or do for life and salvation and so that Do this and live is in some sense the language of the Gospell I shall question whether you make the Scripture the Rule of your faith or be not rather one of them that can force upon themselves a faith of one or others making Object But it is not the most excellent and Gospel-like frame of spirit to do all out of meer love to God and from Thankfulnesse for life obtained by Christ and given us Answ. 1. If it come not from love to God it is not sincere 2. Yet doth not the Gospell any where set our love to God and to our own souls in opposition nor teach us to love God and not our selves but contrarily joineth them both together and commandeth us both The love of our selves and desire of our preservation would never have been planted so deeply in our natures by the God of nature if it had been unlawfull I conclude therefore that to love God and not our selves and so to do all without respect to our own good is no Gospell frame of spirit 2. Thankfulnesse for what we have received either in possession title or promise must be a singular spur to put us on
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