THis penalty the offender himselfe could not bear without his everlasting undoing EXPLICATION THat is not the full penalty for part of it hee did beare and the Earth for his sake and as I think all mankind doth beare part of it to this day But the full penalty would have bin a greater and everlasting suffering THESIS VII 1 Iesus Christ at the Will of his Father 2 and upon his own Will 3 being perfectly furnished for this Worke 4 with a Divine power 5 and personall Righteousnesse 6 first undertooke 7 and afterward discharged this debt 8 by suffering what the Law did threaten and the offender himselfe was unable to beare EXPLICATION 1 THe Love of God to the World was the first womb where the worke of Redemption was conceived Ioh. 3. 16. as it is taken conjunct with his own glory The Eternal Wisdome and Love found out and resolved on this way of recovery when it never entered into the thoughts of man to contrive or desire it 2 The Will of the Father and the Son are one The Son was a voluntary undertaker of this task it was not imposed upon him by constraint when he is said to come to do his Fathers Will Heb. 10. 7. 9. it doth also include his own Will And where he is said to do it in obedience to the Father as it is spoken of a voluntary obedience so is it spoken of the execution of our Redemption and in regard to the humane nature especially and not of the undertaking by the divine Nature alone Not only the consent of Christ did make it lawfull that he should be punished being innocent but also that speciall power which as he was God he had over his own life more then any creature hath Ioh. 10. 18. I have power 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith Christ to lay down my Life 3. No meere creature was qualifyed for this worke even the Angels that are righteous do but their duty and therefore cannot supererrogate or merit for us Neither were they able to beare and overcome the penalty 4. It must therefore be God that must satisfy God both for the perfection of the Obedience for dignifying of the duty and suffering for to be capable of meriting for the bearing of the curse and for the overcomming of it and doing the rest of the workes of the Mediatorship which were to be done after the Resurrection Yet meere God it must not be but man also or else it would have been forgivenesse without satisfaction seeing God cannot be said to make satisfaction to himselfe Many other reasons are frequently given by Divines to prove the necessity of Christs Incarnation Act. 20 28. Heb. 1. 1 2 3. 5. Had not Christ been perfectly righteous himselfe he had not been capable of satisfying for others Yet is it not necessary that he must be in all respects a fulfiller of Righteousnesse before he begin the work of satisfaction or that his righteousnesse and satisfaction be so distinct as that the same may not be both righteousnesse and satisfactory Though many great Divines do so distinguish between Iustitiam personae Iustitiam meriti as that the former is only a preparatory to the latter yet I cannot see any reason but the same obedience of Christ to the whole Law may be both personall and meritorious of the righteousnesse of the Divine nature or the habituall righteousnesse of the humane nature I do not now dispute Therefore I do not mean that all Christs personall righteousnesse was only preparatory to his satisfaction and merit when I speak of his being furnished with a personall Righteousnesse though I confesse I was long of that judgement See more after at pag. 45. 6. The undertaking of the Son of God to satisfie was effectuall before his actuall satisfying As a man that makes a purchase may take possession and enjoy the thing purchased upon the meere bargaine made or earnes paid before he have fully paid the sum To this purpose most understand that in Rev. 13. 8. whose names were not written in the book of life of the lambe slaine from the foundation of the World But I doubt not but Weemse his interpretation is the plaine truth that the words from the foundation of the World have reference to the writing of their names in the book of Life and not to the slaying of the Lambe as being thus to be read whose names were not written in the book of life of the slain Lambe from the foundation of the World It hath the same sence with Rev. 17. 8. which doth expound this in leaving out the mention of the slaying of the Lambe 7. I know mans guilt and â—â—â—igation to suffer is but Metaphorically called his debt Therefore when we would search into the nature of these things exactly wee must rather conceive of God as the Lawgiver and Governour of the World then as a creditor lest the Metaphor should mislead us Yet because it is a common a Scripture phrase and conveniently expresseth our Obligation to beare the penalty of the violated Law I use it in that sense But here we are cast upon many and weighty and very difficult Questions Whether Christ did discharge this debt by way of solution or by way of satisfaction 2. whether in his suffering and our escape the threatning of the Law was executed or dispensed with 3. And if dispensed with how it can stand with the truth and justice of God 4. And whether sinners may thence be encouraged to conceive some hope of a relaxation of the threatnings in the Gospell 5. And whether the faithfull may not feare lest God may relaxe a promise as well as a threatning 6. And lastly whether if the Law be relaxable God might not have released his Son from the suffering rather then have put him to so great torment and so have freely pardoned the offendours I shall briefly answer to all these 1. Quest. Meere and proper solution or payment is when the very same thing is paid which wâ—â— in the obligation or suffered which was threatned This payment the creditor cannot refuse nor the Ruler refuse this suffering nor to acquit the person that hath so payed or suffered Satisfaction is the paying of somewhat that was not directly in the Obligation but is given to satisfye the creditor in stead of the debt which payment the Creditor may chuse to accept and if hee do not consent to accept it though it were paid yet the debtour should not be acquit So also in regard of suffering Here we take payment and satisfaction in the strict legall sence and not in the large sence wherein they are confounded And now the Question is whether Christs suffering were the payment of the very debt or of somewhat else in its stead The resolving of this depends upon the resolving of two other quaestions both great and difficult 1. What it was which the Law did threaten 2. What it was that Christ did suffer 1. Various are the judgements
in expediting the Arminian Controversies as you shall perceive after Some parts of Scripture do in severall respects belong to both these Wills such are some promises and threatnings conditionall which as they are predictions of what shall come to passe do belong to the will Purpose but as they are purposely delivered and annexed to the commands and prohibitions for incitement to Duty and restraint from Sin which was indeed the great end of God in them so they belong to the Will of Precept For the promise of Reward and the threatning of Punishment are reall parts of the Law or Covenant so of History All this is only a preparative to the opening more fully the nature of the Legislative Will and what falls under it For the Will of Purpose and what is under it I have no intention any further to handle THESIS III. First The Will of God concerning duty is expressed wholly in his written Laws Secondly Which Laws are promulgate and established by way of Covenant wherein the Lord engageth himselfe to reward those that performe its conditions and threateneth the penalty to the violaters thereof EXPLICATION 1. NOt but that much of Gods Will is also contained in the Law of Nature or may by the meere use of Reason be learned from Creatures and Providences But yet this is nothing against the Scriptures sufficiency and perfection For besides all the superadded Positives the Scripture also containes all that which we call the Law of Nature and it is there to be found more legible and discernable than in the best of our obscure deceitfull corrupted hearts 2. All perfect compulsive Laws have their penalty annexed or else they are but meerly directive but not usually any reward propounded to the obeyers It is sufficient that the Subject know his Soveraignes pleasure which he is bound to observe without any reward Meere Laws are enacted by Soveraignty Meere Covenants are entred by equalls or persons dis-engaged to each other in respect of the contents of the Covenants and therefore they require mutuall consent These therefore made by God are of a mixt nature neither meere Laws nor meere Covenants but both He hath enacted his Laws as our Soveraigne Lord whithout waiting for the Creatures consent and will punish the breakers whether they consent or no But as it is a Covenant there must be a restipulation from the Creature and God will not performe his conditions there expressed without the Covenanters consent engagement and performance of theirs Yet is it called frequently in Scripture a Covenant as it is offered by God before it be accepted and entered into by the Creature because the condescention is only on Gods part and in reason there should be no question of the Creatures consent it being so wholly and only to his advantage Gen. 9. 12 17. Exod. 34. 28. Deut. 29. 1. 2 Kings 23. 3 c. There are some generall obscure Threatnings annexed to the prohibitions in the Law of Nature that is Nature may discerne that God will punish the breakers of his Law but how or with what degree of punishment it cannot discern Also it may collect that God will be favourable and gratious to the Obedient but it neither knows truly the conditions nor the nature or greatnesse of the Reward nor Gods engagement thereto Therefore as it is in Nature it is a meer Law and not properly a Covenant Yea to Adam in his perfection the forme of the Covenant was known by superadded Revelation and not written naturally in his heart Whether the threatning and punishment do belong to it only as it is a Law or also as it is a Covenant is of no great moment seeing it is really mixt of both It is called in Scripture also the curse of the Covenant Deut. 29. 20. 21. THESIS IIII. THe first Covenant made with Adam did promise life upon condition of perfect obedience and threaten death upon the least disobedience EXPLICATION THe promise of life is not expressed but plainly implyed in the threatning of death That this life promised was onely the continuance of that state that Adam was then in in Paradice is the judgement of most Divines But what death it was that is there threatned is a Question of very great difficulty and some moment The same damnation that followeth the breach of the New Covenant it could not be no more then the life then enjoyed is the same with that which the New Covenant promiseth And I cannot yet assent to their judgement who think it was onely that death which consisteth in a meer separation of soule and body or also in the annihilation of both Adams separated soule must have enjoyed happinesse or endured misery For that our soules when separated are in one of these conditions and not annihilated or insensible I have proved by twenty Arguments from Scripture in another booke As Adams life in Paradise was no doubt incomparably beyond ours in happinesse so the death threatned in that Covenant was a more terrible death then our temporall death For though his losse by a temporall death would have bin greater then ours now yet hee would not have bin a Subject capable of privation if annihilated nor however capable of the sense of his losse A great losse troubleth a dead man no more then the smallest Therefore as the joy of Paradise would have bin a perpetuall joy so the sorrow and pain it is like would have bin perpetuall and wee perpetuated capable Subjects See Barlow exercit utrum melius sit miserum esse quam non esse I do not thinke that all the deliverance that Christs Death procured was onely from a temporall death or annihilarion or that the death which hee suffered was aequivalent to no more THESIS V. THis Covenant being soon by man violated the threatning must bee fulfulled and so the penalty suffered EXPLICATION WHether there were any flat necessity of mans suffering after the fall is doubted by many and denyed by Socinus Whether this necessity ariseth from Gods naturall Justice or his Ordinate viz. his Decree and the verity of the threatning is also with many of our own Divines a great dispute whether God might have pardoned sinne if he had not said the sinner shall die may be doubted of though I believe the affirmative yet I judge it a frivolous presumptuous question But the word of his threatning being once past methinks it should bee past question that hee cannot absolutely pardon without the apparent violation of his Truth or Wisdome Some think that it proceedeth from his Wisdome rather then his Justice that man must suffer see Mr. Io. Goodwin of justif part 2. pag. 34. but why should we separate what God hath conjoyned However whether Wisdome or justice or Truth or rather all these were the ground of it yet certaine it is that a necessity there was that the penalty should be inflicted or else the Son of God should not have made satisfaction nor sinners bear so much themselves THESIS VI
a whole Country hath of its name from the chief City so may the Conditions of this Covenant from Faith 2. Because all the rest are reducible to it either being presupposed as necessary Antecedents or means or contained in it as its parts properties or modifications or else implied as its immediate product or necessary subservient means or consequents EXPLICATION SUbservient Actions are in common speech silently implyed in the principall If the besieged be bound by Articles to surrender a Town to the besiegers at such a time it need not be expressed in the Articles that they shall withdraw their Guards and cease resistance and open the gates and yeeld up this house or that street c. All this is implyed clearly in the Article of surrender If a redeemed gally-slave be freed upon condition that he take him for his Redeemer and Master that did deliver him it need not be expressed that he shall leave the gallies and his company and employment there and go with him that bought him and do what he bids him do All this is plainly implyed in the foresaid words of his Conditions So here the great condition of Beleeving doth include or imply all the rest I confess it is a work of some worth and difficulty to shew how each other part of the Condition is reducible to Beleeving and in what respect they stand towards it I dare not determine too peremptorily here but I think they stand thus 1. Hearing the Word consideration conviction godly sorrow repentance from dead works are implyed as necessary means antecedents 2. Knowledge of Christ and Assent to the Truth of the Gospell are at least integrall parts of flat necessity if not essentiall parts of Faith 3. Subjection Acceptance Consent cordiall covenanting self-resigning are the very proper essentiall formall Acts of Faith 4. Esteeming Christ above all in Judgement preferring him before all in the Will loving him above all I say this preferring of Christ above all in Judgement Will and Affection is in my Judgement the very Differentia fidei maxime propria quae de ea essentialiter praedicatur sic pars ejus essentialis the very essentiall property of true Faith differencing it from all false Faith and so an essentiall part of it I know this is like to seeme strange but I shall give my reasons of it anon 5. Sincerity and perseverance are the necessary Modifications of Faith and not any thing really distinct from its Being 6. Assiance and sincere obedience and works of Love are the necessary immediate inseparable products of Faith as heat and light are of fire or rather as Reasoning is the product of Reason or yet rather as actions most properly conjugall are the effects of Conjugall contract And as Faith is in some sort more excellent then Affiance Obedience as the cause is better then the effect so in some sort they may be more excellent then Faith as the effect may be preferred before its Cause the Act before the habit as being that which is the end of the habit for whose sake it is and to which it tendeth as to its perfection 7. The praying for forgivenesse the forgiving of others the pleading of Christs satisfaction are both parts of this obedience and necessary consequents of Faith and Acts subseruient to it for the attaining of its Ends. 8. The denying and humbling of the flesh the serious painfull constant use of Gods Ordinances Hearing Praying Meditating c. are both parts of the foresaid obedience and also the necessary means of continuing and exercising our Faith 9. Strength of Grace Assurance of Pardon and Salvation Perswasion of Gods favour setled peace of Conscience Ioy in this Assurance and Peace the understanding of Truths not fundamentall or necessary in practice All these are no properties of the Condition of the Covenant but separable adjuncts of Faith tending to the Well-being of it but neither tending to nor necessary proofs of the Being of it which a Believer should have but may possibly want I shall give you some reason of severall of these Assertions when I have first made way by the Definition of Faith So then as when you invite a man to your House it is not necessary that you bid him come in at the doore or bring his head or his legs or armes or his clothes with him though these are necessary because all these are necessarily implyed even so when we are said to be justified by Faith onely or when it is promised that he that beleeveth shall be saved all those forementioned duties are implyed or included THESIS LXIII AS it is Gods excellent method in giving the Morall Law first to require the acknowledgment of his soveraign authority and to bring men to take him only for their God which is therefore called the first and great Commandment and then to prescribe the particular subsequent duties so is it the excellent method of Christ in the Gospell first to establish with men his Office and Authority and require an acknowledgment of them and consent and subjection to them and then to prescribe to them their particular duties in subordination THESIS LXIV FAith therefore is the summary and chief of the conditions of the Gospell and not formally and strictly the whole But as Love is the fulfilling of the Law so Faith is the fulfilling of the new Law or as taking the Lord for our only God is the sum of the Decalogue implying or inferring all the rest and so is the great Commandment so taking Christ for our only Redeemer and Lord is the sum of the conditions of the new Covenant including implying or inferring all other parts of its conditions and so is the great Command of the Gospell EXPLICATION THe Observation in the 63 Position is commended to you by Mr white of Dorchester in his Directions for reading Scripture p. 307. The full subjection to the Authority commanding doth imply and infer subjection to the particular Commands therefore God doth still make this the sum of the conditions of the Law that they take him only for their God or that they have no other Gods but him And when he contracteth his Covenant into an Epitome it runs thus I will be thy God and thou shalt be my people Exod. 20. 3. 23. 13. Deut. 7. 4. 8. 19. 13. 2 3 c. Ios. 24. 2 16. c. Iudg. 2. 12 17 19. 10. 13. 1 Sam. 8. 8. 2 Kings 5. 17. 17. 7. Ier. 22. 9. 7. 23. 11. 4. 30. 22. Ezek. 36. 28. Deut. 26. 16 17 c. And as Gods promise of taking us for his people doth imply his bestowing upon us all the priviledges and blessings of his people and so is the sum of all the conditions of the Covenant on his part Even so our taking the Lord for our God and Christ for our Redeemer and Lord doth imply our sincere obedience to him and is the summe of the Conditions on our part And
compound as it were of Actions which yet do all take their name from the Principall which is Consent To the 66. That Christ as a Saviour onely or in respect of his Priestly Office onely is not the Object of justifying Faith but that Faith doth as really and immediatly Receive him as King and in so doing Justifie this I prove thus 1. The Gospell doth not reveale Christs Offices as separated But as they are revealed so they must be believed 2. Neither doth it Offer Christ in his Priestly Office onely as separated from his Kingly though it may sometime presse our Acceptance of him in one respect and sometime in another But as he is offered so must he be received 3. Scripture no where tyeth Justification to the receipt of him as our Priest onely therefore we must not doe so 4. How commonly doth Scripture joyn his Offices together calling him usually Our Lord and Saviour Iesus Christ 5. If we receive him not as King we receive him not as an entire Saviour For he saveth us not onely by dying for us but also by reducing us really into communion with God and guiding us by his Laws and protecting and perfecting us by his Government and subduing our enemies 6. His Kingly Office is a true part of his entire Office of Mediatorship Now the sincerity of Acts in Morall respects lyeth in their true suitableness to the nature of their Objects As God is not truely loved except he be loved entirely so neither is Christ truely received if you receive him not entirely It is a lame partiall Faith and no true Faith that taketh Christ onely in the Notion of a deliverer from guilt and punishment without any accepting of him as our Lord and Governour Though I beleeve that the hope of being pardoned saved is the first thing that moveth men to receive Christ yet do they being so moved receive him as their Lord also or else they doe not receive him sincerely 7. The exalting of his Kingly Office is as principall an end of his dying of his becomming Mediatour as is the saving of us and the exalting of his Priestly Office See the second Psal. and Rom. 14. 9. To this end he both dyed rose and revived that he might be Lord both of the dead and the living And therefore the receiving of him as Priest alone is not like to be the Condition of our Justification So that if Christ put both into the Condition we must not separate what he hath joyned But the main ground of their Error who think otherwise is this They think Acceptance of the mercy offered doth make it ours immediately in a naturall way as the accepting of a thing from men And so as if he that accepted pardon should have it and he that accepted sanctitie should have it c. But Christ as I have shewed establisheth his Offices and Authority before he bestow his mercies and though Accepting be the proper condition yet doth it not conferre the title to us as it is an accepting primarily but as it is the Covenants Condition If we should take possession when we have no title in Law God would quickly challenge us for our bold usurpation and deale with us as with him that intruded without the Wedding garment There is more adoe then come in and sit down and take what we have a mind to God hath put all his Sons Offices into the Condition to be received and submitted to either all or none must be accepted And if All be in the Condition then the receiving of all must needs Justifie upon the grounds that I have laid down before To the 67. That the promises or benefits are not the immediate proper object of Justifying Faith is evident from the gorunds already layd down As also from the constant language of the Gospell which maketh Faith to lie in receiving believing in him and in his name c. still making Christ himself the immediate object Therefore if Mr Cotton say as the Lord Brook represents him That Faith can be nothing but a laying hold of that promise which God hath made in his Tract of Truth and Vni pag. 152. it is a foul error in so weighty a point as is also his other of Faith justifying and saving only declaratively Indeed that first less principall Act of Faith which we call Assent hath the truth of the Gospell revelation for its neerest and most immediate object but I think by the leave of those who contradict not its onely nor chief object The truth of the proposition is but a means to the apprehending of the truth of the thing proposed nor the truth of the history but a glass to shew us the truth of the Acts which it relateth So that even the Understanding it self doth apprehend the person and offices of Christ in their Metaphisicall Verity by means of its apprehension of the Logicall and Morall verity of the Relation and though the truth of the Word be the neerest object of Assent yet the truth of Christs person nature and offices is the more principall Or if about these it may not have the name of Assent yet shall it have the same nature still To the 68. I think none will contradict it and therefore there need nothing be said THESIS LXIX IVstifying Faith is the hearty accepting of Christ for our only Lord and Saviour EXPLICATION IN this brief definition you have nothing but what is essentiall to it 1. The genus I need not mention when it is the Act of Faith which I define you know the genus already 2. The Understandings apprehension of Christ as a true Redeemer and Saviour which in severall respects is called Knowledg or Belief I do imply this and not express it because though I take it for a real part of Faith yet not the most principall and formall part And as we use to imply Corpus and not express it when we define man to be Animal rationale because the form or principall essentiall part part giveth the name So here though I know Assent is not properly a materiall cause yet being the less principall Act it giveth not the denomination 3. That Christ as Lord and Saviour is the proper object I have proved before His Propheticall Office whereby he is the Teacher of his Church Jimply in both these because it may in severall respects be reduced to these For he teacheth by his Laws and Commandments and his spirits teaching and governing are scarce distinguishable and he saveth by teaching Also his Office of Husband and Head are in these implyed they signifying more the future benefits and priviledges of a beleever which he shall receive from Christ beleeved in then the primary offices which he is to acknowledg in beleeving 4. The proper formall act of justifying Faith which is most principally essentiall to it of all other is accepting If I must needs place it in one only it should be this My Reasons are 1. Because the Scripture maketh
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
after and entertain this precious Covenant and not to stick to the old imperfect Dispensation In this sence it belongeth to Gods Legislative Will And in this sence I think it is that the Apostle to the Hebrews doth recite it and not in the former sence as it doth respect the particular persons that shall have it fulfilled and so is an absolute Covenant to the unknown Elect. But now the Covenant which is mentioned through the whole Gospel is of another kinde He that beleeveth shall be saved and he that beleeveth not shall be damned This is frequently and plainly expressed and not so darkly as the former This is made to all the world at least who hear the Gospel This is the proper new Law and Covenant by which men must be judged to justification or condemnation This properly succeedeth in the place of the first Covenant which saith Do this and live And this is it which I stil mean when I speak of the new law or Covenant So that now I hope you can hence answer to both your own demands To the 7. you see there is a Covenant absolute and a Covenant conditional but the last is the proper Gospel-Covenant To the 6. you see that in the absolute Covenant or Prophesie he promiseth faith and repentance in promising his Spirit and a new heart to the elect who are we know not who And in the conditional proper Covenant he requireth the same Faith and Repentance of us if we will be justified and saved So that they are Gods part which he hath discovered that he will perform in one Covenant and they are made our conditions in another Neither is there the least shew of a contradiction betwixt these For in the absolute Covenant he doth not promise to make us Beleeve and and Repent against our wills Much less that He or Christ shall Repent and Beleeve for us and so free us from the duty But that he will give us new and soft hearts that we may do it our selves and do it readily and willingly which that we may do he commandeth and perswadeth us to it in the conditionall Covenant not bidding us do it without his help but directing us to the Father to draw us to the Son and to the Son as without whom we can do nothing and to the Spirit as the sanctifier of our hearts and exciter of our Graces To the eighth Objection IN your eighth Question I observe severall mistakes 1. You observe not how ill it agreeth with the two former For if the Covenant were only absolute then it can be made to none but wicked men and indeed the absolute Covenant is made to none other Sure those that God doth promise to bestow new hearts upon and soft hearts have yet their old and hard hearts except it were meant of a further degree and not of the first saving Grace 2. And as the absolute ' so the great conditionall Promise Beleeve and be saved is also made to ungodly men Is not this spoken to Unbeleevers Will you speak it to none but those who beleeve already Were none of those Jews ungodly to whom Peter saith Act. 2. 39. The Promise is made to you and to your children But I have proved a little before that not only as it is a Covenant offered of God but also as it is a Covenant entered by them even wicked men are within the Covenant 2. Yet you say that you no where find any promise to a wicked man Why then you have found but a few of the Scripture promises I have shewed you that the absolute promise of a new and soft heart is made to wicked men and the great conditionall promise of the Gospell Would you have particular examples In Gen. 4. 7. there is to Cain a conditionall promise of acceptance and the donation of Superiority and Government Gen. 9. 11 12. There is a Covenant betwixt God and every living Creature Gen. 27. 39 40. Isaac is Gods mouth in blessing Esau Were all the Israelites godly to whom the Land of Canaan was promised and given 1 Sam. 10. 4 5 6 7. There the Spirit of God and other favours are promised to Saul 1 King 11. 31 32 33 38 39. There are promises to Ieroboam How many score places in the Psalmes and Prophet doe mention promises and Covenants of God to ungodly Israelites If I should instance in all the promises made to Ahab Nebuchadnezzar Cyrus Darius c. it would be tedious Object But all these are rather Prophesies then promises Answ. If that which expresseth the engaging of the word and Truth of God to bestow good upon a man be not a Promise I would you would tell me what is Object These predictions doe onely declare what God will doe but give no title to the mercy as a Promise doth Answ. Did not God give Cain a title to his Superiority and Government and the Israelites Title to the Land of Promise and so the rest Promises doe give Title to the thing promised 1. Either full and absolute 2. Or imperfect and conditionall In the first sence we have title both by an ansolute promise and by a Conditionall Promise when we have performed the condition In the latter sence it giveth title to men that have not yet performed the condition Object But these things which are given to wicked men are not good to them but evill therefore it is not properly a promise Answ. It is good in it selfe and would be to them but for their wilfull abuse Shall mans sinnes make Gods promises and mercies of lesse value God promisd that Christ should come to his owne the Jewes Isa. 53. Mal. 3. 1 2 3. and yet his owne received him not Ioh. 1. 11. Shall we say therefore that God threatned them with a Christ rather then promised him He promised and gave them both Prophets and Apostles was it no promise or mercy because they killed and persecuted them To conclude this the Scripture expresly contradicteth you opinion Rom. 9. 4. To the Israelites was the Adoption and Glory and Covenants and the service and the Promises And even to them for whom Paul would have been accursed So Act. 2. 39. And Heb. 4. 1. Take heed lest a promise being made of entring into his Rest any of you seem to come short of it Prov 1. 23. 24. 25. Christ promiseth the foolish and the scorners that he will poure out his Spirit to them if they will turne at his reproofe Amos 5. 4 6. Seek the Lord and your soul shall live Isa. 55. 6. 7. Seek the Lord while he may be found Call upon him while he is neer Let the wicked forsake his way and the unrighteous man his thoughts and let him returne unto the Lord and he will have mercy on him and to our God and he will abundantly pardon Are not all these promises to wicked men Object But when they returne and repent they are not wicked Answ. But is not this conditionall promise made
and as cautelous a proceeding as most have used for you know my former Judgement and that I never administred the Sacrament till within this year and that I was then invited to it by an eminent wonder of providence I say I advise you to beware how you deny to men the seales till you have tried with them this way prescribed by Christ Christ is free in entertaining and so must wee Christ putteth away none but them that put away themselves and then doth he call after them as long as there is hope of hearing as one that is grieved at their destruction and not delighted in the death of sinners but had rather they would returne and live And even thus must we do too Lazinesse is the common cause of separation when we should go with words of pitty and love and with teares beseech sinners to return to theit duty and shew them their danger we neglect all this to save us the labour and the suffering that sometime follows this duty wee will plead that they are no Church-Members and so not the Brethren that we are bound to admonish and so lazily separate from them and say as Cain Am I my Brothers keeper or as the man to Christ who is my Neighbour And thus when we have made his sinne our owne by our silence and not reproving him then we excommunicate him for it out of our society and from the Ordinances and so judge our selves out of our own mouths Or we separate from him for the neglect of some duty when wee our selves have neglected both to him and others this great and excellent duty of faithfull admonition It is more comfortable to recover one soule then to cast off many by separation Though I know that the avoiding communion with wilfull offendours who by this due admonition will not be reclamed is a most necessary usefull duty too But do not execute a man before he is judged nor judge him before you have heard him speak fully proved that obstinacy is added to his sinne except it be to suspend him while he is under this legall triall But perhaps you will object that we have no discipline established so no Authority to do thus and the means are vain which cannot attain their end To which I answer 1. You have divine authority 2. And may do as much as I presse without a Presbitery First you may admonish privately Secondly before witnesse Thirdly you may bring your Congregation to this that the parties offended may accuse them openly The Presbyterians deny not to the Congregation the audience and cognizance of the Fact but onely the power of judiciall sentencing And here you may admonish them before all Fourthly if yet they prove obstinate you may by your Ministeriall Authority 1. Pronounce against him by name what the Scripture pronounceth against such sinners particularly that he is unfit to be a Church-Member as openly denying obedience to the known Lawes of Christ 2. You may charge the people from Scripture to avoid familiarity with him 3. You may also acquaint the Magistrate with his duty to thrust him out if he violently intrude into Communion or disturb the Ordinances 4. You may forbear to deliver the Sacrament particularly to his hands 5. You may enter and publish your dissent and dislike if he intrude and take it himself All this I could most easily and beyond doubt prove your duty as you are a Christian and a Minister And if there be any more that a Classis may do yet do you do this in the mean time only be sure you try all means in private if the fault be not in publick before you bring a man in publick And be sure you do it in tendernesse and love and rather with wary then passionate reproaches And be sure that you do it only in case of undeniable sinnes and not in doubtfull disputable Cases And be sure that the matter of Fact be undoubtedly proved And that no man be suffered to traduce another publickly in a wrong way Or if he do that he be brought to acknowledgement The word Excommunication comprizeth severall Acts Those before mentioned belong to you as a Minister and are part of your proper Preaching declarative power which you may perform by your Nuntiative authority The power of Classes and Synods I think doth differ onely gradually and not specifically from that of every minister I am ashamed that I have contrary to my first purpose said so much of this unpleasing controversy But when you are next at leisure privately I shall undertake to prove all this to you from Scripture and that the Keyes are put by Christ into the hands of every Minister singly and that with sobriety and wisdome you may thus name the offendours publickly as all Scripture Ministers have been used to do And if you question whether our ordinary Congregations are true reall Churches where such works may be managed I shall prove that they are by giving you a better definition of a Church then that which you gave me and then trying our Churches by it In the mean time this is not matter to intermix here BUt you cannot it seems digest Mr. Blakes assertion that the Sacraments do seal but conditionally Answer I have not Mr. Blakes book by me and therefore how he explaineth himself I cannot tell But I remember he hath oft said so in conference with me But let me tell you two or three things 1. That I question whether you well understand him 2. Or whether you be able to confute it as thus to except against it 3. That Mr. Blake is as truly conscientious whom he admitteth as you But for the Controversy you must consider it a little more distinctly before you are like to understand it rightly It is in vain to enquire whether the Sacraments do seal absolutely or conditionally till you first know well what it is that they seal Let us first therefore resolve that Question what they seal and then enquire how they seal You know a Christian doth gather the assurance of his Justification and Salvation by way of Argumentation thus He that believeth is iustified and shall be saved But I believe therefore I am justified and shall be saved Now the Question is which of the parts of this Argument the Sacrament doth seal to Whether to the Major the Minor or the Conclusion To which I answer 1. That it sealeth to the Truth of Gods promise which is the Major proposition is unquestionable But whether to this alone is all the doubt 2. That it sealeth not to the truth of the Minor Proposition that is to the truth of our Believing I take also for to be beyond dispute For first it should else seal to that which is now here written For no Scripture saith that I do believe 2. And then it should be used to strengthen my Faith in that which is no object of Faith For that I do believe is not matter of Faith or to be
believed but matter of internall sense or to be known by the reflex act of the understanding 3. Also God should else set his seal to my part or condition of the Covenant as well as his own and seal to the truth of my word as well as to the truth of his own for a justifying and saving us is Gods condition which he undertaketh to perform so believing or accepting Christ is our condition which we there professe to perform So that it is doubtlesse that a Sacrament as it is Gods engaging sign or seal doth not seal to the truth of my faith or sincerity of my heart in Covenanting It were a most grosse conceit to imagine this But withall you must understand that as there is in the Sacrament reciprocall actions Gods giving and our receiving so is the Sacrament accordingly a mutuall engaging sign or seal As it is given it is Gods seal so that as in this full Covenant there is a mutuall engaging so there is a mutuall sealing God saith to us here is my Sonne who hath bought thee take him for thy Lord and Saviour and I will be thy reconciled God and pardon and glorify thee And to this he sets his seal The sinner saith I am willing Lord I here take Christ for my King and Saviour and Husband and deliver up my self accordingly to him And hereto by receiving the offered elements he setteth his engaging sign or seal so that the Sacrament is the seal of the whole Covenant But yet you must remember that in the present controversie we meddle not with it as it is mans seal but onely as it is Gods So then it is clear that as it is Gods seal it sealeth the major proposition and as it is ours to the minor But yet here you must further distinguish betwixt sealing up the promise as true in it self and sealing it with application as true to me And it is the latter that the Sacrament doth the delivery being Gods act of application the receiving ours so that the Proposition which God sealeth to runs thus If thou believe I do pardon thee and will save thee 3. But the great Question is Whether the Sacrament do seal to the conclusion also That I am justified and shall be saved To which I answer No directly and properly it doth not and that is evident from the arguments before laid down whereby I proved that the Sacraments seal not to the minor For 1. this conclusion is now here written in Scripture 2. And therefore is not properly the object of Faith whereas the seals are for confirmation of Faith 3. Otherwise every man rightly receiving the seals must needs be certainly justified saved 4. And no Minister can groundedly administer the Sacraments to any man but himself because he can be certain of no mans justification and salvation being not certain of the sincerity of their Faith And if he should adventure to administer it upon probabilities and charitable conjectures then should he be guilty of prophaning the ordinance and every time he mistaketh he should set the seale of God to a lye And who then durst ever administer a Sacrament being never certaine but that he shall thus abuse it I confesse ingenuously to you that it was the ignorance of this one point which chiefly caused mee to abstaine from administring the Lords Supper so many yeeres I did not understand that it was neither the minor nor conclusion but only the major proposition of the foresaid Argument which God thus sealeth And I am sorry to see what advantage many of our most learned Divines have given the Papists here As one errour drawes on many and leadeth a man into a labyrinth of absurdities so our Divines being first mistaken in the nature of justifying faith thinking that it consisteth in A Beliefe of the pardon of my owne sinnes which is this conclusion have therefore thought that this is it which the Sacrament sealeth And when the Papists alledge that it is no where written that such or such a man is justified we answer them that it being written That he that beleeveth is justified this is equivalent A grosse mistake As if the major proposition alone were equivalent to the conclusion or as if the conclusion must or can be meerly Credenda a proper object of Faith when but one of the promises is matter of faith the other of sence or knowledge The truth is the major He that believeth shall be saved is received by Faith The minor that I do sincerely believe is known by inward sence and self-reflexion And the conclusion therefore I shall be saved is neither properly to be believed nor felt but known by reason deducing it from the two former so that faith sense and reason are all necessary to the producing our assurance So you see what it is that is sealed to 2. Now let us consider how it sealeth Whether absolutely or conditionally And I answer It sealeth absolutely For the promise of God which it sealeth is not conditionally but absolutely true So that the summe of all I have said is this which answereth the severall questions 1. The Sacrament sealeth not the absolute Covenant or Promise but the conditionall Believe and live 2. It sealeth not the truth of my Covenant as it is Gods seal or it sealeth not to the truth of my faith 3. It sealeth not to the certainty of my justification and salvation 4. But it sealeth to Gods part of the conditionall Covenant 5. And sealeth this conditionall promise not conditionally but absolutely as of undoubted truth 6. And not only as true in it self but true with application to me So that by this time you may discern what is their meaning who say that the Sacraments do seal but conditionally that is as it sealeth to the truth of the major which is the promise so thereby it may be said to seal conditionally to the conclusion for the conclusion is as it were therein contained upon condition or supposition of the minor proposition He that saith All Believers shall be saved saith as much as that I shall be saved it being supposed that I am a Believer And so you must understand our Divines in this Yet this speech is lesse proper For to speak properly it doth not seal to the conclusion at all yet it is very usefull to help us in raising that conclusion and to be perswaded that we are justified because it so confirmeth our belief of that promise which is one of the grounds of the Conclusion For your inference in the last words of your objection then let all come that will If you mean All that will though they come to mock or abuse the ordinance then it will no way follow from the doctrine which I have now opened But if you mean Let all come that will seriously really or apparently enter or renew their Covenant with Christ. I think that to be no dangerous or absurd consequence If Christ when he offereth himself
participation of that and whereby we must escape the condemnation of the Gospell which is Faith as I have opened before 5. If the Apostle should meane otherwise it were as much against your Doctrine as mine For is not Faith a work or act of ours But you will say That though Faith which is a work do justifie yet not as a work but as an instrument I answer 1. To be an actuall apprehension of Christ which you call its instrumentality is to bee a work Therefore if it justifie as it is such an apprehension it justifieth as a work 2. So also say I that subjection and obedience justifie 1. Not as works simply considered 2. Nor as legall works 3. Nor as meritorious works 4. Nor as Good works which God is pleased with 5. But as the conditions to which the free Law-giver hath promised justification and life Nay your Doctrine ascribeth farre more of the work to man then mine for you make justification an effect of your own Faith and your Faith the instrumentall cause of it and so make your selfe your owne justifier And you say your Faith justifieth as it apprehendeth Christ which is the most intrinsecall essentiall consideration of Faith and so Faith hath much of the honour But while I affirm that it justifieth onely as a condition which is an extrinsecall consideration and aliene from its essence or nature I give the glory to him that freely giveth me life and that made so sweet a condition to his Covenant and that enableth me to performe the said condition And thus I have according to my measure of understanding answered your Objections as fully as necessitated brevity would permit And for that question which you propounded about Relaxation Abrogation c. of the Law which you confesse you doe not well understand I refer you to Vossius Defens Grotii de Satisf cap. 27. where among other things hee telleth you that Apud Romanos seu ferenda esset Lex populus rogabatur an ferrivellet seu tollendae rogabatur an tolli eam placeret Hinc rogari lex dicebatur quae ferrebatur ut dicit Vlp. Tit. 1. Regal Eâdemque de causâ abrogari dicebatur cum antiquaretur c. And then he explaineth all those phrases to you out of Vlpian Lex rogatur id est fertur vel abrogatur idest prior lex tollitur vel Derogatur id est pars primae tollitur aut subrogatur id est adjicitur aliquid primae legi aut Obrogatur id est mutatur aliquid ex primâlege And so concludeth that the first Law was not abrogated but relaxed dispensed with and obrogate How farre it was executed I have shewed you in the Treatise But the last task you set me is of all the rest most ungratefull endlesse and in my judgement unnecessary viz. To answer what other men have written against some doctrines which I have here asserted 1. It is a work ungratefull to search into other mens weaknesse and mistakes to handle the truth in a way of contention or to speak in way of derogation of the labours of the learned and godly 2. And should I fall upon a confutation of every man that hath written contrary to any thing in my Book the task would be endlesse and I might stuffe a great deale of paper with words against words and perhaps adde little matter to what is already written which is a work unfit me for to undertake who have so much better work to doe and am like to have so short a time to doe it in 3. And it seemes to me a needlesse task partly because from the cleering and confirmation of the positive truth you may be enabled to answer opposers your selfe 2. The Authors which you mention doe so easily and effectually assault the doctrines mentioned that I should think no judicious man can thereby be staggered But at your request I will briefly consider them particularly The Authors which you refer me to are two D. Maccovius and Mr. Owen The points which they contradict are three 1. That our legall Righteousnesse which we have in Christ consisteth not formally in obedience to the Precept of the first Covenant but onely in satisfaction for our Disobedience This Maccovius opposeth in Colleg. Theol. par 1 Disp. 10. par 4. Disp. 9. 2. That Christ payed not the same debt which was in the first obligation but the value and so the Law was not properly and fully executed but relaxed This you say Mr. Owen confuteth in Grotius in his late Treatise of Vniversall Redemption lib. 3 cap. 7. p. 140. 3. That no man is actually and absolutely justified no not so much as in point of Right either from eternity or upon the meere payment of the bebt by Christ till themselves doe beleeve This you say is confuted by both of them Maccov par 3. Disp. 16. par 1. Disp. 17. Et owen ubi supra If mens names did not more take with you then their Arguments you might have spared me this labour But briefly to the first of these I answer 1. Most passages in Maccovius doe affirm but that Christ obeyed for us as well as suffered for us and who denyeth that 2. Of those passages which yet goe further there is few of them that say any more then this that Christs active Righteousnesse did merit for us that life and glory which is given by the New Covenant more then we lost by breaking the Old But this is nothing to our Question which is onely about justification For I have cleared to you before that Justification is properly and strictly taken one of those acts whereby we are recovered from the condemnation of the Law and set in statu quo prius and not one of those acts which give us that additionall glory which is Adoption Union Glorification 3. Those few Arguments which yet doe drive higher then this are so fully answered already by Mr. Gataker against Lucius Gomarrus c. and Mr. Goodwin notwithstanding Mr. Roboroughs Answer and divers others that I am resolved not to lose so much time and labour as to doe that which is better done already then can be expected from me 4. Onely one argument more then usuall I finde in part 1 Disput. 10. And which I confesse deserveth a speciall consideration And that is this If Christ onely suffered for us then the righteousnesse of Adam had hee continued in innocency would have been more excellent then the righteousnesse of Christ For the law requireth obedience principally and suffering but per accidens But the consequence is false because else Christ hath not set us in as good a state as we fell from To this I answer 1. This righteousnesse may be termed excellent in severall respects 1 In reference to its Rule 2. Or in reference to its Ends. The 1. denominateth it Good in it self The second denominateth it good to us Now the Rules to measure it by are two 1. The neerest inferiour Rule which is the
acknowledgeth that the payment is not made by the party to whom remission is granted and so saith every man that is a Christian 2. He saith It was a full valuable compensation therefore not of the same 3. That by reason of the Obligation upon us we our selves were bound to undergo the punishment therefore Christs punishment was not in the Obligation but only ours so the Law was not fully executed but relaxed 4. He saith he meaneth not that Christ bore the same punishment due to us in all accidents of duration and the like but the same in weight and pressure therefore not the same in the Obligation because not fully the same Not the same numerically nor perhaps specifically in all respects if the losse of Gods Love and Image and incurring his hatred the corruption of the body the losse of right to and use of all the creatures and the losse of all comforts corporall or spirituall c. were any part of the curse yet that it was in the greatest respects of the same kinde I doubt not 5. He saith God had power so farre to relax his owne Law as to have the name of a surety put into the Obligation which before was not there and then to require the whole debt of that surety And what saith Grotius more then this If the same thing in the Obligation be paid then the Law is executed and if executed properly and fully then not relaxed Here he confesseth that the sureties name was not in the Obligation and that God relaxed the Law to put it in Now the maine businesse that Grotius there drives at is but to prove this relaxation of the Law and the non-execution of it on the offenders threatned I Iudge that Mr. Owen hath no better successe in his next assault of Grotius on that question whether God manage this work of relaxing the Law punishing Christ for us c. as a Creditor or as an absolute Master or as a Judge under Lawes or as the supreme Rector the last of which Grotius maintaineth He that readeth Grotius and Vossius own words doth need no further defensative against the force of Mr. Owens Answers But this is nothing to me Onely I would not have any truth to fare the worse for Grotius his defection It was himself that deserved the discredit and not the Truth of God The third and last contradicted Article is That no man is actually and absolutely justified upon the meer payment of the debt by Christ till they become Beleevers Against this you send me to both the forementioned Authors Answ. 1. When I first cast my eye upon the two fore-cited Disputations in Maccowski I had thought he had spoke onely of the universall conditionall Justification of men when he saith that active Iustification was at the begining of the first promise But my charitable thoughts I soon saw were mistaken But I find as his Doctrine is very strange so are his proofs as slender as any mans you could have sent me to 1. Is it not strange that Active justification should be perfected 5000. yeares before Passive justification is in being I thought Passive justification had been the mediate effect of the Active And that God had justified no man who is not thereby justified 2. And as strange and abhorred to me is the other part of his doctrine viz. That Faith onely taketh knowledge of justification formerly wrought And his Arguments are as weak as the doctrine erroneous 1. The first is Because the Object must needs go before the Act. Answ. But is it not pity that so excellent a Doctor should think that justification that not only in offer but in actuall being should be the object of justifying Faith I am ashamed to confute so sencelesse an assertion Sure it is Christ and not actuall justification that is the object When the Scripture saith that Whosoever beleeveth shall be justified is it a learned Exposition which thus interpreteth it You that are elect are already justified and if you will beleeve it you shall know it 2. He citeth Paraeus saying that Faith doth not effect justification but accept it Answ. 1. They that say Faith is the instrumentall cause of justification must needs say that Faith effectth it 2. Faith accepteth Christ for justification 3. It accepteth not justification as being actually and absolutely our owne before the acceptance But it accepteth a conditionall justification offered to me that by the acceptance it may become absolutely mine His citing of Tossanus words is nothing for him For when hee saith that All the Elect are justified in Christ in respect of the merit thereof it is no more then to say that Christ hath merited their justification which who denyeth But the great Argument which he and all of his judgement do trust to is this If the surety so undertake or discharge the debt that the creditor rest satisfied with that undertaking or discharge then is the debtor free from the debt But Christ hath so undertaken and discharged the particular debts of the Elect therefore the Elect are freed Answ. 1. Payment is refusable or not refusable That payment which is of the same thing in the Obligation either by our selves or our Delegate is not by the Creditor refusable so that if we had paid it or Christ had been our Delegate appointed by us to pay the same that was due then God could not have refused to take that payment But Christ being appointed to this by the Father and not by us and also paying not the very same but the value God might have refused the payment 2. Where the payment is not refusable there the discharge of the debtor is not refusable but doth follow ipse facto But where the payment is refusable as here it was the Creditor may accept it upon what termes he pleases and chuse to give the Debtor an absolute discharge so that it being the full agreement and pleasure both of the Creditor and the Surety the father and the sonne that the Debtor should have no discharge by the payment but upon a certaine condition by him to be performed no doubt he shall have none till he have performed it 3. So that Gods accepting the payment and being satisfied with it may be understood 1. In respect to the Surety and the value of his payment and so God was well pleased and fully satisfied in Christs payment as bein the full value that his justice did require and beyond which he expected no more at his hands 2. Or it may be spoken in reference to the debtor the sinner and the effecting of his freedome And so God was not immediately upon Christs payment so satisfied or well pleased with the particular offenders as to deliver and discharge them without requiring any thing at their hands 1. For he will first have them perform the imposed condition of taking Christ who hath bought them for their only Saviour Husband and Lord. To these of Maccovius Mr. Owen in
the curse and take away the Obligation which was against us ipso facto And I think to be justified is but to be freed from the curse or condemnation and to be pardoned is nothing else but to be freed from the obligation to punishment And is remission and justification the immediate effect of Christs death What ever this Writer thinketh in this is nothing to us But because I would not have you so palpably and dangerously erre let mee say a little more against this mistake You may remember I have oft told you of how great moment it is in Divinity to be able soundly to distinguish betwixt immediate Mediate Effects of Christs Death I think Tho. Moore meant the Immediate and Mediate Effects which he calleth Ends which hath caused a great many pages about the Ends of Christs Death to be written by his Antagonists to little purpose Now I would have you know that this actuall Remission and Justification are no Immediate but Mediate effects of Christs Death no nor a personall right thereto if there be any such thing distinct from actuall freedome And to this end I pray you weigh these Arguments 1. What Right soever God giveth to men to things supernaturall such as justification remission adoption he giveth by his written Lawes But by these Lawes hee hath given no such thing to any Beleever such as are the Elect before conversion therefore c. The major is evident Gods Decree giveth no man a personall right to the mercy intended him And for the minor no man can produce any Scripture giving to unbeleevers such a right 2. If God hate all the workers of iniquity and we are all by nature the children of wrath and without faith it is impossible to please God and he that beleeveth not is condemned already then certainly the Elect while they are unbeleevers are not actually de facto no nor in personall Right delivered from this hatred wrath displeasure and condemnation But the major is the very words of Scripture therefore c. 3. If we are justified onely by Faith then certainly not before Faith But we are justified onely by Faith therefore c. I doe in charity suppose that you will not answer so groslely as to say we are justified in foro Dei before Faith and onely in foro conscientiae by Faith till you can finde one word in Scripture which saith that an unbeleever is justified If I thought you were of this opinion I should think it an easie task to manifest its falshood And if you say that we are justified in Gods Decree before Faith I answer 1. It is no justification shew me the Scripture that calleth it so 2. Nay it clearely implyeth the contrary For Decreeing is a term of Diminution as to justifying He that saith he is purposed to free you from prison c. implyeth that as yet it is not done To be justified or saved in Decree is no more but that God decreeth to justifie and save us and therefore sure it is yet undone 4. If we are exhorted while we are unbeleevers to be reconciled to God and to beleeve for remissions of sins then sure we are not yet reconciled nor remitted But the former is evident in Scripture therefore c. 5. No man dare affirm that we are immediatly upon Christs death delivered actually and ipso facto from the power or presence of sin nor from afflictions and death which are the fruits of it nor yet that we are freed from the distance and separation from God which sin procured And why then should we think that we were immediately delivered from the guilt and condemnation I know the common answer is that justification is an immanent act and therefore from eternity but Sanctification is a transient act But I have disproved this in the Treatise and cleared to you that justification is also a transient Act Otherwise Socinianisme were the soundest doctrine that Christ never needed to satisfie if we were justified from eternity Yet to confesse the truth I was long deceived with this Argument my self taking it upon trust from Dr. Twisse and Mr. Pemble whom I valued above most other men and so continued of that same judgement with these Authors you alledge and remained long in the borders of Antinomianisme which I very narrowly escaped And it grieveth me to see many of our Divines to fight against Jesuites and Arminians with the Antinomian weapons as if our cause afforded no better and so they run into the far worse extream I undertake to manifest to you that this Doctrine of Christs immediate Actuall delivering us from guilt wrath and condemnation is the very pillar and foundation of the whole frame and fabrick of Antinomianisme But these things which you draw out of me here unseasonably I am handling in a fitter place in a small Tract of Vniversall Redemption But the last week I have received Amiraldus against Spanhemius exercitations who hath opened my very heart almost in my own words and hath so fully said the very same things which I intended for the greater part that I am now unresolved whether to hold my hand or to proceed The Lord give you to search after the truth in love with a humble unbyassed submissive soul neither losing it through negligence and undervaluing nor yet diverted from it by inferiour controversies nor preverted by self-confidence nor forestalled by prejudice nor blinded by passion nor lost in contentions nor subverted by the now-ruling spirit of giddinesse and levity nor yet obscured by the confounding of things that differ that so by the conduct of the Word and Spirit you may attaine the sight of amiable naked truth and your understanding may be enlightned and your soul beautified by the reflexion and participation of her light and beauty that your heart being ravished with the sense of her goodnesse and awed by her Authority you may live here in the constant embracements of her and cordiall obedience to her till you are taken up to the prime eternall Truth and Goodnesse Rom. 14. 9. For to this end Christ both dyed and rose and revived that he might bee Lord both of the dead and living Ephes. 1. 22. And God hath put all things under his feet and gave him to be the head over all things to the Church Heb. 5. 9. And being made perfect hee became the Author of eternall salvation to all them that obey him Revel 20. 14. Blessed are they that doe his commandements that they may have right to the Tree of Life and may enter in by the gate into the City Sayings of excellent Divines added to satisfie you who charge mee with Singularity D. Twisse his Discovery of Dr. Iacksons vanity p. 528. WHat one of our Church will maintain that any one obtaines actuall Redemption by Christ without Faith especially considering that Redemption by the Blood of Christ and forgivenesse of sinnes are all one Eph. 1. 17. Col. 1. 14. Byshop Hooper cited by Doctor Jackson