APHORISMES OF JUSTIFICATION With their Explication annexed Wherein also is opened the nature of the Covenants Satisfaction Righteousnesse Faith Works c. Published especially for the use of the Church of Kederminster in Worcestershire By their unworthy Teacher RI. BAXTER Hebr. 9. 15. And for this cause he is the Mediator of the New Testament that by meanes of death for the Redemption of the transgressions under the first Testament they which are called might receive the promise of eternall inheritance HAGUE Printed by Abraham Brown Anno 1655. To the Learned zealous Faithfull Ministers of Jesus Christ Mr. Richard Vines Master of Pembroke-Hall in Cambridge and Mr. Anthony Burges Pastor of Sutton-Cold-field in Warwickshire Members of the Reverend Assembly of Divines my very much valued Friends and Brethren in the work and Patience of the Gospel Most Dear Brethren I Never well understood their meaning who crave Patronage to their Writings from the meere great ones of the times If they need or desire a borrowed honour methinks they quite mistake their way and go for water to the top of Teneriffe which they should seek in the valleys or stillflowing Springs To give them our Writings to instruct them is agreeable to our Office and duty but to submit them to their censures or crave the protection of their Greatnesses and prefix their names as the Signatures of Worth as if Truth did ever the more dwell within where this gilded sign is hang'd without this seemeth to me to be as needlesse as absur'd The self-idolizing sin of Pride is so naturall to all men especially when furthered by dignities and wordly pomp that they are apt enough without a tempter to take themselves for the summum genus in every Predicament as well as their owne A little help wil mount them above their Teachers and a little more above Ordinances but the top of the ambition is to be above God that on them as the Alpha all may depend and to them as the Omega all may ascribe I think it a more needfull work not for our honour but their own safety to make them understand that Princes and Parliaments are Schollers in that Schoole where Christ is the Master and we his Ushers and that at least in respect of our Nuncupative Declarative power we are their Rulers in spirituals whom they are bound to obey Heb. 13. 7. 17. and that all Ministers are Bishops or Overseers in the language of the holy Ghost Act. 20. 28. Phil. 1. 1. c. and not the servants or pleasers of men Gal. 11. 10. They leave us the bare name of their Teachers so that we will teach them nothing but what they have taught us first and leave out the hard sayings which they cannot beare For my part though I have found as much respect from such as most yet have I known very few of the most Religious great ones but if I would deal but half as plainly as my commission and patterns doe require I should quickly turne their respect into indignation If the old round dealing Prophets and Apostles were among us I doubt some pious Gentlemen would take them for sawcy proud pragmatical fellowes and would think their tongues though not their revenues did need a reformation All this is no blemish to Magistracie the Ordinance of God but to humane nature that for the most part can as ill beare a high estate as a mans brains can endure to stand on the pinacle of a steeple Nor is this to blame any due honor to such but to excuse my selfe that I employ not my breath to fill any empty bladder For you who are low and full I suppose the acknowledgement of your worth is lesse dangerous As I am more beholden to Reason and Religion then to Greatnesse so doe I feel them command my esteem and affections most powerfully Your names therefore have I chosen to prefix to this paper 1. As acknowledging you indeed fit censors of my Doctrine having alwayes valued the judgement of Aristotle in Philosophy before Alexanders and thinking your approbation more considerable then all the Lords or Commanders in the Land If you approve I shall be the more confirmed and so will my people for whom I write it who know and honour you If you disallow for I cannot conceit that there is nothing to be disallowed I shall suspect and search againe 2. I desire also hereby to acquaint the world with the reverend esteem I have of you and to shew the contemners of the ministry some examples for their confutation That they who think that England hath not as learned holy experimentall judicious humble heart-piercing Preachers as any other Nation whatsoever may look upon you and confesse their errour That for all the dissentions that have so wasted both Church and State it may appeare in you wee had some that were lovers of peace and if all had been so minded our wounds had bin heal'd That our ignorant yonglings that rush upon the Ministry who may see themselves in that glasse 1. Tim. 3. 6. may consider their distance from such as you and be humbled That those who wonder at the spreading of errors in our people may see in you we had some that taught them better And Alexander did unjustly hang Ephestions Physitian because hee dyed And that our Authors or defenders of Ieroboams worship whose fingers itch to be doing with the Prophets that gain say them may see what manner of men they have to deale with whose worth is sufficient to disgrace the proudest persecutors and make their names hatefull to all generations To whom I commend Sir Walter Rawleighs true observation Hist. of the world par 1. l. 4. c. 3. â— 6. If Antipater upon his conquest had carried all other actions never so mildly yet for killing Demosthenes all that read his eloquent Orations doe condemn him for a bloody Tyrant to this day Such grace and reputation doe the learned Arts finde in all civill Nations that the evill done to a man famous in one of them is able to blemish any action how good soever otherwise it be or honorably carryed To such ends as these have I here prefixed your names and not to interesse you in the dishonour of the imperfections of this slender Tractate Farewell Reverend Brethren and go on to be exemplary in all spirituall excellencies And that the Lord of the Harvest would send forth more such and lengthen and succeed your labours to his Church is the hearty prayer of Your unworthy fellow-servant RI. BAXTER Apr. 7. 1649. To the Reader THe slow progresse of knowledge and the small addition that each age doth make to the foregoing both in common Sciences and Divinity doth seem a wonder to many Among many others these foure are no small impediments to this desirable increase 1. Every ignorant empty braine which usually hath the highest esteem of it selfe hath the liberty of the Presse whereby through the common itch that pride exciteth in men to seeme
if there must be one cause of introducing light and another of expelling darkness or one cause to take away the crookedness of a line and another to make it streight 11. The like vain distinction it maketh between delivering from death and giving title to life or freeing us from the penalty and giving us the reward For as when all sin of omission and commission is absent there is no unrighteousness so when all the penalty is taken away both that of pain and that of loss the party is restored to his former happiness Indeed there is a greater superadded decree of life and glory procured by Christ more then we lost in Adam But as that life is not opposed to the death or penalty of the Covenant but to that of the second so is it the effect of Christs passive as well as of his active Righteousness So you see the mistakes contained in this first Opinion about the Imputation of Christs Righteousness to us The maintainers of it beside some few able men are the vulgar sort of unstudyed Divines who having not ability or diligence to search deep into so profound a Controversie do still hold that opinion which is most common and in credit If you would see what is said against it read Mr Wotton Pareus Piscator Mr Bradshaw Mr Gataker and Mr. Io Goodwin The other opinion about our Participation of Christs Righteousness is this That God the Father doth accept the sufferings and merits of his Son as a full satisfaction to his violated Law and as a valuable consideration upon which he will wholy forgive and acquit the offenders themselves and receive them again into his favour and give them the addition of a more excellent happiness also so they will but receive his Son upon the terms expressed in the Gospel This Opinion as it is more simple and plain so it avoydeth all the fore-mentioned inconveniences which do accompany the former But yet this difference is betwixt the maintainers of it Most of them think that Christs Passive Righteousness in the latitude before expressed is the whole of this Satisfaction made by Christ which they therefore call Iustitia Meriti and that his Actual Righteousness is but Iustitia Personae qualifying him to be a fit Mediator Of this judgment are many learned and godly Divines of singular esteem in the Church of God the more to blame some of the ignorant sort of their adversaries who so reproach them as Hereticks I have oft wondered when I have read some of them as M. Walker c. to see how strongly they revile and how weakly they dispute Sure if those two famous men Paraeus and Piscator beside Olevian Scultetus Cargius learned Capellus and many other beyond Sea be Hereticks I know not who will shortly be reputed Orthodox and if they be not mistaken all antiquity is on their side beside Calvin Vrsine and most other modern Divines that writ before this Controversie was agitated and sure they are neither unlearned nor ungodly that have in our own Country maintained that opinion witness Mr Anthony Wotten Mr Gataker Mr Iohn Goodwin and as I am informed that excellent Disputant and holy learned judicious Divine Mr Iohn Ball with many other excellent men that I know now living Some others though few do think that though Christs Righteousness be not imputed to us in that strict sense as the first Opinion expresseth but is ours under the fore-explained notion of Satisfaction only yet the Active Righteousness considered as such is part of this Satisfaction also as well as his Passive and Iustitia Meriti as as well as Iustitia Personae and though the Law do not require both obeying and suffering yet Christ paying not the Idem but the Tantundem not the strict debt it self but a valuable Satisfaction might well put the merit of his works into the payment The chief Divines that I know for this Opinion as it is distinguished from the two former are judicious and holy Mr Bradshaw and Grotius if I may call a Lawyer a Divine And for my own part I think it is the truth though I confess I have been ten years of another mind for the sole Passive Righteousness because of the weakness of those grounds which are usually laid to support the opinion for the Active and Passive till discerning more clearly the nature of Satisfaction I perceived that though the sufferings of Christ have the chief place therein yet his obedience as such may also be meritorious and satisfactory The true grounds and proof whereof you may read in Grotius de Satisfact cap. 6. and Bradshaw of Justification in Preface and cap. 13. The chief Objections against it are these 1. Object Christs Passive Righteousness being as much as the Law required on our behalf as satisfaction for its violation therefore the Active is needless except to qualifie him to be a fit Mediator I answer This objection is grounded upon the forementioned Error That Christ paid the Idem and not the Tantundem whereas it being not a proper payment of the debt but satisfaction therefore even his meritorious works might satisfie Many an offender against Prince or State hath been pardoned their offence and escaped punishment for some deserving acceptable service that they have done or that some of their predecessors have done before them And so Rom. 5. 19. By the obedience of one many are made righteous 2. It is objected That Christ being once subject to the Law could do no more but his duty which if he had not done he must have suffered for himself and therefore how could his obedience be satisfactory and meritorious for us I answer 1. You must not here in your conceivings abstract the Humane Nature which was created from the Divine but consider them as composing one person 2. Nor must you look upon the Works of Christ as receiving their valuation and denomination from the Humane Nature alone or principally 3. Nor must you separate in your thoughts the time of Christs servitude and subjection from the time of his freedom before his incarnation and subjection And so take these Answers 1. Christ Jesus did perform severall works which he was not obliged to perform as a meer Subject Such are all the works that are proper to his office of Mediator his assuming the Humane Nature his making Laws to his Church his establishing and sealing the Covenant his working Miracles his sending his Disciples to convert and save the world enduing them with the Spirit his overcoming Death and rising again c. What Law bindeth us to such works as these And what Law to speak properly did binde him to them Yet were the works in themselves so excellent and agreeable to his Fathers Will which he was well acquainted with that they were truly meritorious and satisfactory 2. Some works he performed which were our duty indeed but he was not bound to perform them in regard of himself Such as are all the observances of the
84. Who directeth those that doubt of their Gospel sincerity to see it in Christ because Christ hath beleeved perfectly he hath sorrowed for sin perfectly he hath repented perfectly he hath obeyed perfectly he hath mortisied sin perfectly and all is ours c. If this be meant of Gospel-beleeving repenting sorrowing obeying and mortifying then it is no uncharitable language to say It is blasphemy in its clear consequence as if Christ had a Saviour to beleeve in for pardon and life or sin to repent of and sorrow for and mortifie But if he meant it of legall beleeving in God or repenting sorrowing for mortifying of sin in us and not in himself then is it no more to the business he hath in hand then a Harp to a Harrow as they say It is not legall beleeving which is the evidence doubted of or enquired after and sure Christs repenting and sorrowing for our sin is no clearing to us that we repent of our own nor any acquitting of us for not doing it And for his mortifying sin in us that is the doubt whether it be done in the doubting soul or not If he mean it of destroying the guilt of sin meritoriously on the Cross that is but a strange evidence of the death of it in a particular soul except he think as divers that I met with in Glocestershire and Wilt-shire That Christ took our naturall pravity and corruption together with our flesh But I let go this sort of men as being fitter first to learn the grounds of Religion in a Cathechism then to a manage those Disputes wherewith they trouble the World THESIS XXI NOt that we can perform these Conditions without Grace for without Christ we can do nothing But that he enableth us to perform them our selves and doth not himself repent beleeve love Christ obey the Gospel for us as he did satisfie the Law for us EXPLICATION THis prevention of an Objection I add because some think it is a self-ascribing and derogating from Christ to affirm our selves to be but the Actors of these duties though we profess to do it only by the strength of Grace But that it is Christ that repenteth and beleeveth and not we is language somewhat strange to those ears that have been used to the language of Scripture or Reason Though I know there is a sort of sublime Platonick Plotinian Divines of late sprung up among us who think all things be but one and those branches or beams of Gods Essence which had their Being in him before their Creation and shall at their dissolution return into God again and so the souls of men are but so many parcels of God given out into so many bodies or at least but beams streaming from him by a fancyed Emanation These men will say not only that it is Christ in us that doth beleeve but the meer Godhead in essence considered But it sufficeth sober men to beleeve that Christ dwelleth in us 1. By his graces or spirituall workings 2. By our constant love to him and thinking of him as the person or thing that we are still affectionately thinking on is said to dwell in our mindes or hearts because their idea is still there or our mindes and hearts to dwell upon them But in regard of the Divine Essence which is every where as it dwells no otherwise for ought I know or have seen proved in the Saints then in the wicked and devils so I think as Sir Kenelm Digby thinks of the Soul That the Body is more properly said to be in the Soul then the Soul in the Body so we are more properly said to live and move have our Being in God then God to live and move and have his Being in us I will not digress from my intended subject so far as to enter here into a disquisition after the nature or workings of that Grace which doth enable us to perform these Conditions I refer you to Parkers Theses de Traductione Peccatoris ad vit THESIS XXII IN this fore-explained sence it is that men in Scripture are said to be personally righteous And in this sence it is that the Faith and duties of Beleevers are said to please God viz. as they are related to the Covenant of Grace and not as they are measured by the Covenant of Works EXPLICATION THose that will not acknowledg that the godly are called righteous in the Scripture by reason of a personal Righteousness consisting in the rectitude of their own dispositions actions as well as in regard of their imputed righteousness may be convinced from these Scriptures if they will beleeve them Gen. 7. 2. 18. 23 24. Iob 17. 9. Psa. 1. 5 6. 37. 17 21 c Eccl. 9. 1 2. Ezek. 18. 20 24. 33. 12 13 18. Mat. 9. 13. 13. 43. 25 37 46. Luk. 1. 6. Heb. 11. 4. 1 Pet. 4. 18. 2 Pet. 2. 8. 1 Ioh. 3. 7 12. Rev. 22. 11. Mat. 10. 41. Rom. 5. 7. So their ways are called Righteousness Psal. 15. 2. 23. 3. 45. 7. c. Mat. 5. 20. 21. 32. Luke 1. 75. Act. 10. 35. Rom. 6. 13. 16 18 19 20. 1 Cor. 15. 34. 1 Ioh. 2. 29. 3. 10. Eph. 4. 24. c. That men are sometime called righteous in reference to the Laws and Judgments of men I acknowledge Also in regard of some of their particular actions which are for the substance good And perhaps sometimes in a comparative sense as they are compared with the ungodly As a line less-crooked should be called streight in comparison of one more crooked But how improper an expression that is you may easily perceive The ordinary phrase of Scripture hath more truth and aptitude then so Therefore it must needs be that men are called Righteous in reference to the new Covenant only Which is plain thus Righteousness is but the denomination of our actions or persons as they relate to some rule This rule when it is the Law of man and our actions suit thereto we are then righteous before men When this Rule is Gods Law it is either that of Works or that of Grace In relation to the former there is none righteous no not one for all have sinned and come short of the glory of God Only in Christ who hath obeyed and satisfied we are righteous But if you consider our actions and persons in relation to the rule of the new Covenant so all the Regenerate are personally righteous because they all perform the conditions of this Covenant and are poperly ponounced righteous thereby Neither can it be conceived how the works of Beleevers should either please God or be called righteousness as they relate to that old Rule which doth pronounce them unrighteous hatefull and accursed Two sorts among us therefore do discover intolerable Ignorance in this point 1. Those that commonly use and understand the words Righteous and Righteousness as they relate to the old Rule as if the Godly were called righteous
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
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
the place against Grotius which you referre me to addeth some more As 1. By death he deliver us from death Answ. Not immediately nor absolutely nor by his Death alone but by that as the price supposing other causes on his part and conditions on ours to concurre before the actuall deliverance 2. He saith The Elect are said to dye and rise with him Answ. Not in respect of time as if we dyed rose at the same time either really or in Gods esteem Nor that we dyed in his dying rose in his rising But it is spoken of the distant mediate effects of his death the immediate effects of his Spirit on us rising by regeneration to union and Communion with Christ. 3. He saith Christ hath redeemed us from the curse being made a curse for us Gal. 3. 13. Answ. I explained before how farre we are freed by Redemption He hath redeemed us that is paid the price but with no intent that we should by that Redemption be immediately or absolutely freed Yet when we are freed it is to be ascribed to his death as the meritorious cause but not as the onely cause 4. He saith The hand-writing that was against us even the whole obligation is taken out of the way and nailed to his Crosse. Answ. 1. By the hand-writing of Ordinances is especially meant the Law of Ceremonies 2. If it be meant also of the curse of the Old Covenant then it cannot be so understood as if the Covenant it self were abrogate for the reasons I have before given in the Treatise 3. Nor yet that any are absolutely discharged from the curse till they perform the condition required for their discharge 4. But thus farre the Law is taken down that our Redeemer hath bought us from that necessity of perishing that lay upon us for our transgressing that Law so that no man is now condemned for the meer violation of that first Covenant and so he hath taken the Law into his owne hands to charge only upon those that break the conditions of the New Covenant 5. And so he hath taken downe the condemning power of the Law as it standeth by it selfe and not as it is under the Covenant of grace And hee hath freed us from the curse conditionally and the condition is easie and reasonable 6. So that quoad meritum the work is done All the satisfaction is made and price paid and therefore in Heb. 1. 3. it is said to be done If a man where a 1000 l. in debt and had tryed all meanes and had no hope left to procure his discharge And if a stranger to him goe to the Creditor and buy the Debtor who is in prison into his owne hands by paying all the debt yet resolving that if he refuse his kindnesse hee shall have no benefit by it but lye and rot there May it not be fitly said that the debtor is delivered because the great difficulty which hindered is removed and the condition of his freedome is so reasonable that common reason supposeth he will not stick at it and if he doe it is utterly against reason and humanity for hee may be freed if he will Therefore it is no unfit phrase to say the man is freed as soon as his debt is payed But yet he is not absolutely freed nor actually neither in point of personall right nor of possession And for his humane refusall of the kindnesse of his Redeemer may lye and perish there and be never the better but the worse for all this 7. Yet it being the absolute purpose both of the Father and Mediator to cause all the Elect to perform this condition of their discharge therefore Redemption is a cause of their certaine future discharge and a linke in the inviolable chaine of the causes of their salvation But to the rest of the world it is not so But I doe not well understand the meaning of the Author you referre me to For he saith That Christ did actually and ipso facto deliver us from the curse and obligation yet we do not instantly apprehend and perceive it nor yet possesse it but only we have actuall right to all the fruits of his death As a prisoner in a farre Countrey who is ransomed but knoweth it not nor can enjoy liberty till a Warrant be produced c. But 1. Whether a man may fitly be said actually and ipso facto to be delivered and discharged who is not at all delivered but onely hath right to deliverance I doubt 2. Knowledge and posiession of a deliverance are farre different things A man may have possession and no knowledge in some cases or if he have both yet the procuring of knowledge is a small matter in comparison of possession 3. Our knowledge therefore doth not give us possession so that the similitude failes for it is the Creditors knowledge and satisfaction that is requisite to deliverance And our Creditour was not in a farre and strange countrey but knew immediately and could either have made us quickly know or turned us free before we had knowne the cause 4. Nor can it easily be understood how God can so long deny us the possession of Heaven if wee had such absolute actuall Right as he speaketh so long ago which seemeth to expresse a jus ad rem in re If it be said wee are yet in our minority and not fit for present possession I answer That this fitnesse and our maturity is part of the deliverance or benefit which he saith de facto we had right to And so we should have had that also in present possession 4. But if he doe meane onely a right to future possession for such there is yet I confesse it is beyond my conceiving how in regard of the relative part of our deliverance that right and the possession should stand at so many yeeres distance To have right to Gods favour and acceptance and to have possession of that favour to have right to the remission of sinne and adoption to have possession of these do seeme to me to be of neerer kin Except he should think that possession of favour is nothing but the knowledge or feeling of it and that possession of pardon is the like that Faith justifieth us but in foro conscientiae But I will not censure so hardly till I know it Indeed there is a justification by publike declaration at the great judgement which much differeth from a meer Right But our justification by faith here is but a justifying in the sence of the Law or giving us right to that full justification So that To have right to it and to have possession of it in point of Law or Right is to me all one For what doth Faith give us possession of in its justifying Act but this legall right 5. And indeed it seemeth to me a full definition of all pardon and justification which is here to bee expected which he layeth downe Hee saith Christ did deliver us from
place Hab. 2. 4. Sop. 649. in the true Gain God doth as it were keep a double Court one of justice the other of Mercy In the Court of justice he gives judgment by the Law accuseth every man that continueth not in all things c. In this Court nothing can stand but the Passion and Righteousnesse of Christ and for the best works that we can doe we may not look for any acceptation or reward but use the plea of David Enter not into iudgement with thy servant O Lord for no flesh shall be justified in thy sight Now in the Court of Grace and Mercy God hath to deall with his own children that stand before him justified and reconciled by Christ and the obedience of such he accepteth in this Court and mercifully regardeth though imperfect for christ Perkins Vol. 1. pag. 124. On the Creed Christ as he is set forth in Word and Sacraments is the object of Faith Faith apprehendeth whole Christ. pag. 125. First it apprehendeth the very body and blood of Christ and then in the second place the vertue and benefits Whereas some are of an opinion that faith is an affiance or confidence that seemes to be otherwise for it is a fruit of Faith That Faith is so large as to contain very many acts see Zanchy on Eph. 1. in loco communi de fide That Word and Sacraments are the instruments of Justification on Gods part Zanchy affirmes on Ephes. 1. loco communi de justificatione That the form of Righteousnesse is conformity to the Law he teacheth on Phil. 1. 11. That there is a necessity of a two-fold Righteousnesse one imputed the other inherent Zanchy ibid freq Dr. Willet on Rom. 2. contr 3. 7. Good workes are required as a condition in those which are to be saved not as a meritorious cause of their salvation The meaning of this sentence the doors of the law shall be justified is the same God will approve justifie reward them that do the works of the Law whether Jew or Gentile Yet it followeth not that a man is therefore justified by the works of the Law But God approveth and rewardeth the workers not the hearers and professours So here the Apostle treateth not of the cause of justification which is faith without the works of the law But of the difference between such as shall be justified and such as are not Faïus They onely which have a lively Faith which worketh and keepeth the Law in part and supplyeth the rest which is wanting in themselves by the perfect obedience of Christ they shall be justified not those which onely professe the Law and keep it not The Apostle then here sheweth who shall be justified not for what By these words it is evident that Dr. Willet and Faius acknowledge sincere obedience to be a condition of justification or of those that shall be justified though not a cause as they say I think mistakingly Faith is Dr. Davenant Animadversions on Gods love to mankind p. 385. 386. The Doctrine of Predestination permitteth no man to perswade himself that his salvation is certain before he finde that he is truly converted truly faithfull truly sanctified Because you will perhaps hear Mr. Owen before Grotius see Mr. Ball on Covenant p 290. There is a two-fold payment of debt one of the thing altogether the same which was in the Obligation and this ipso facto freeth from punishment whether it be paid by the debtor himself or by his surety Another of a thing not altogether the same which is in the Obligation so that some act of the Creditor or Governour must come unto it which is called remission in which case deliverance doth not follow ipso facto upon the satisfaction and of this kind is the satisfaction of Christ. Thus this great learned holy Divine as almost England ever bred doth go on even in Grotius his own words translated betwixt whom had he been living and Mr. Owen would have been but impar congressus Ball on Covenant p. 240. As these false Teachers 2 Pet. 2. 1. were called into the Covenant accepted the condition beleeved in Christ for a time rejoyced in him and brought forth some fruit so we confesse they were bought by the blood of Christ because all these were fruits of Christs Death whereof they were made partakers As in the Parable Mat. 18. 25. the Lord is said to remit to his servant a 1000 talents when he desired him viz. Inchoately or upon condition which was not confirmed because he did not forgive his fellow-servant So the false Prophets are bought by the bloud of Christ in a sort as they beleeved in Christ. We read of Apostates who had bin enlightned c. Heb. 6. 5 6 7. and did revolt from the Faith To these men their sins were remitted in a sort in this world and in a sort they were bought with the blood of Christ but inchoately onely and as they tasted the word of life Had they eaten the word of life had they soundly and truly beleeved in Christ they had received perfect and consummate remission of sins both in this world and in the world to come they had been perfectly redeemed and reconciled to God But because they did not eat but tasted onely they received not perfect Remission they were not perfectly redeemed Idem pag. 225. There is this mutuall respect betwixt the promise and stipulation that the promise is as an argument which God useth that he might obtain of man what he requireth and the performance of the thing required is a condition without which man cannot obtain the promise of God Idem pag. 43. Of this Covenant be two parts 1. a Promise 2. a stipulation The Promise is that God will pardon the sinnes of them that repent unfeignedly and beleeve in his mercy 2. The Stipulation is that they beleeve in him that justifieth the ungodly and walk before him in all well-pleasing See him also delivering the most of Amiraldus doctrine p. 244 245. Molinaeus de elect ex fide p. 316. We know remission is not obtained before Prayers for it But I say that it was decreed before Prayers and that it is sought by Prayers although it be decreed Scarpius symphonia p. 93. The substance of the Covenant lyeth in the promise of grace made in Christ and the Restipulation of Faith and Gratitude Paraeus in Genes 17. p. 1130. The substance of the Covenant lyeth in the promise of free Reconciliation Righteousness and life eternall by and for Christ freely to be given and in the restipulation of our Morall Obedience and Gratitude Bullinger Decad. 1. Serm. 6. pag. 44. We say Faith justifieth for it self not as it is a quality in our minde or our own work but as Faith is a gift of Gods grace having the promise of Righteousnesse and life c. Therefore Faith justifieth for Christ and from the grace and Covenant of God Mr. Ant. Burgesse of Iustif. Lect. 14. p. 117. Scripture maketh no pardon of sin to be but where the subject hath such qualifications as this of forgiving others It is not indeed put as a cause or merit but yet it is as a qualification of the subject therefore our Saviour repeateth Except ye forgive others c. So Act. 10. 43. Rom. 3. 15. So 1 Ioh. 1. 9. If we confesse c. By these and the like Scriptures it is plain That remission of sinne is given us only in the use of these Graces Mr. Burges of Iustif. Lect. 18. pag. 148 149. Prop. 2. Although the Scripture attributes pardon of sin to many qualifications in a man yet repentance is the most expresse and proper duty If we speak of the expresse formall qualification it is repentance of our sins c. Prop. 3. None may beleeve or conclude that their sins are pardoned before they have repented Mat. 3. 2. Luk 13. 3. Prop. 4. There is a necessity of repentance if we would have pardon both by necessity of Precept and of means The Spirit of God worketh this in a man to qualify him for this pardon pag. 150. You see then that Faith is not the only condition of remission and consequently nor of justification Not as an appeal to men but to fill up the vacant pages and satisfy you who charge me with singularity have I added these promiscuous Testimonies supposing you can apply them to their intended uses FINIS
168. that while wee are busie in examining our forefathers inventions and posterity imployed in trying our examinations neither we nor they have much time to adde any thing for the increase of Learned Knowledge Whence you may guesse at one cause why many Sciences for some thousands of yeares have kept one pitch and not growne above that dwarfish stature that they had in their infant invention and also what the reason is that many that read most prove not the deepest Schollers for no greater impediment to exact Learning then to make use of other mens understandings and neglect our owne I speak not this as if I had overcome these impediments any more then others but because I have perhaps more beene hindred by them and so take my selfe bound to warne thee of the pit that I have falne in And with all to let thee know that if godly men themselves while they lye in these snares shall oppose any truth in this Tract it is no wonder but a thing to be expected To give thee the History of the conception and nativity of these Aphorismes the reason why I trouble the world with more Bookes which I blame in others understand that this is but an Appendix to another Treatise going to the Presse on a more excellent Subject Also that having occasion therein to touch upon Matth. 25. 35. I was desired to explaine in what sence it is that Christ giveth the reason of his sentence in judgement from mens works In answer hereto and to cleare some other incident doubts of the like nature I wrote these Positions or Aphorismes which when some had got they complained of obscure brevity and desired some fuller explication which when I had done that which before was but two or three leaves annexed as an Appendix to the fore-mentioned Treatise did swell to this bignesse that I was faine to let it goe alone Could I have got Copies enow for my owne friends whom I am bound to instruct other men had not beene like to have been troubled with it If thou please thou mayest let it passe without thine observation If otherwise it is so small that it will take up but little of thy time to read it nor adde much to the common burden Some few passages here are which I am not so cleare and confident in my selfe As the nature of the Death threatned in the first Covenant The necessity of the punctuall performance or execution of all threatnings The interest of Christs Active Obedience to those Laws which did binde men in innocency in the work of satisfaction as conjoyned with his Passive Obedience to make up the same price But as these are but few so I am not utterly at a losse concerning them but seeme to discerne a strong probability of what I have written therein For you my Friends whom Christ hath committed to my Teaching and Oversight as to an unworthy Vsher under him in his Schoole and Steward in his House and of his Mysteries I publish this for your sakes and use 1. Because I have still thought that points controverted are better written than preached and read than heard especially where the greatest part of the Auditory is uncapable of understanding them 2. Yet is this Doctrine of so great concernment and so neer the Foundation that of all the controversies agitated in the Church there 's few that doe better deserve your study and few that I am so loath you should be ignorant of It is my exceeding joy that God hath kept you in his distracted age from doting about questions that engender strife and hath given you to cleave to the most fundamentall undoubted and practicall Truths and to spend your time in practice and peace and promoting the salvation of the ignorant about you when others are taken up in censuring their brethren renting the Church opposing the truth or wrangling about lesser things which are quite above their understandings Hold on this way and if you have not in it more Communion with Christ more growth in Grace and on your Death-beds a more comfortable review of your lives and at last a better reckoning made thereof then the other then say I have deceived you Yet as I would have you neglect no truth so especially what time â—ou can spare for controversie let it chiefely be spent upon these that are so weighty Be ashamed that men shâ—uld heare you disputing about Circumstantiâ—lls of Discipline Baptisme Supper c. before you know how to bee justified before GOD or understand the Doctrine of the Covenants Redemption Faith Obedience c 3. The Bookes that are written of justification are many and some great which I knew you had not time to read and if you did perhaps would lose much of your labour as I have done Therefore I desired to set the most necessary part before you in a narrower compasse I never intended the full handling of the Doctrine of justification these Apherismes being but for the Answering of a particular Question Especially what is in Master Bradshaw I omit because I expect that you will read and study him the Book being so small and of such singular worth containing as much as the greatest Volumes In some places I have omitted the proofe of my Assertions partly because they seemed plaine or to be the evident consectaries of former Positions partly for brevâ—ty and partly because it is for your use to whom I am yet at hand to cleare what you doubt of and who I hope doe understand that to take upon trust from your Teachers what you cannot yet reach to see in its owne evidence is lesse absurd and more necessary than many doe imagine Moreover knowing that I must shortly put off this Tabernacle and be taken from you I thought good to use this endeavour that you may bee able after my departure to have these things in your understandings and remembrance 2 Pet. 1. 14. 15. And while I am in this flesh I shall not cease to admonish you and pray on your behalfe that you may beware lest yee also being led away with the errour of the wicked fall from your owne stedfastnesse but may grow in Grace and in the Knowledge of our LORD and SAVIOVR JESUS CHRIST Nor shall I desire any greater Honour or Advancement on this Earth than with Abilitie Sinceritie and Successe to be A Servant of Christ in the work of your Salvation RI. BAXTER Kederminster Novemb. 17. 1648. APHORISMES OF JUSTIFICATION With their Explication Annexed Wherein also is opened the Nature of the Covenants Satisfaction Righteousnesse Faith Works c. THESIS I. GOd hath first a Will of purpose whereby he determineth of Events what shall be and what shall not be de facto Secondly And a Legislative or Preceptive Will for the government of the Rationall Creature whereby he determineth what shall be and what shall not be de jure or in point of duty and in order thereto concludeth of Rewards and Punishments EXPLICATION THis
distinction of the Will of God into his Will of Purpose and his Will of Precept is very commonly used by Divines and explained by some especially Doctor Twisse frequently and Doctor Edward Reignolds in his Sermons on the Humiliation dayes on Hos. 14. Yet is not the exceeding necessity and usefulnesse of it discerned by many nor is it improved accordingly by any that I have read It is near of kin to the common distinction of Voluntas signi Beneplaciti but not the same The Tearm signi being more comprehensive yet in my judgement lesse proper and convenient then this Legislative Will or voluntas Praecepti As the old verse shews Praecipit ac prohibit permittit consulit implet Two of these Acts to wit Permission and Operation fall under the Will of Purpose as they are the effects and revelation of it but not under the Legislative Will And indeed the Schoolmen by their Voluntas signi do intend not other Will but the same which they call Beneplaciti whose Object is event as it is uncertainly represented to us by those five signes And because they are such uncertain signes the contrary to what they seem to import being frequenly certain therefore they tell us that this is but metaphorically called the Will of God viz. by a speech borrowed from the manner of men who signifie their Will by such kinde of Actions see Aquin. sum 1a. 1ae Quest. 19. Art 11. 12. And Schibler Metaph. of this But that which I call the Legislative or Preceptive will hath another object viz. not event but duty and is Metonymically rather then Metaphorically called Gods Will it being the effect and revelation of his reall unfeigned will For God doth not seeme to Will that this or that shall be our duty and so speake after the manner of men according to the sense of their Voluntas signi but hee willeth it unfeignedly Neither is this Distinction the same with that which differenceth Gods revealed Will from his secret For his revealed Will containeth also part of the Will of his purpose and all the will of precept The meere prophesies and also the promises and threatnings so far as they point out future event are the Revealed part of the Will of Gods purpose Tilenus himselfe in his conference with Camero seemes to approve of this Distinction where he distinguisheth of Gods Will according to its Object viz. vel quod ipse vult facere vel quod a nobis vult fieri If in this last branch he speake not de officio of this preceptive will rather then de eventu and of the will of purpose then he can meane it onely of a conditionall will of purpose As we use to distinguish betwixt the legall will of the King publickly manifesting our duty in the Laws and his personall private will so must we do here The necessity of this distinction is so exceeding great that but little of the doctrinall part of Scripture can be well understood without it The verity of it is also unquestionable for none but the grosely ignorant will deny that Event and Duty Purpose and Law are truly distinct or that both these last are called in Scripture and common custome of speech The Will of God And therefore it is a sencelesse Objection that wee hereby make two wills in God and those contradictory For first we only make them two distinct Acts of one the same will whereof that of purpose is lesse revealed and doth lesse concern us yet is most properly called his will as being such as in man we call the Elicite Act of it but that of precept is all revealed and doth more concerne us yet as it is in his Law it is onely Metonymically called his Will as being only the discovery of his Will properly so called And 2ly Contradiction there is none for they are not de eodem they have to do with severall Objects To Will that it shall be Abrahams duty pro hoc tempore to sacrifice his son and yet that de eventu it shall not be executed are far from contradictory To Will that it shall be the Iewes duty not to kill Christ and yet that eventually they shall kill him is no contradiction To will that it shall be Pharaohs duty to let Israel go and yet that in poynt of event hee shall not let them go is no contradiction Indeed if God had willed that he shall let them go and he shall not eventually or that it shall be his duty and it shall not either of these had been a contradiction undoubted But I have largely explained and more fully improved this Distinction under the Dispute about Universall Redemption and therefore shall say no more of it now THESIS II. First Praedestination Election Reprobation or Preterition Secondly the Covenant betwixt the Father and the Son Thirdly the absolute Promises of Regeneration and perseverance Fourthly the fulfilling of those Promises by differencing Grace are all in the series under the Will of Gods purpose EXPLICATION IT is of very great use to understand which of these Wills every one of Gods particular words or works do fall under 1. That Predestination Election and Reprobation are under this Will of Purpose only is undoubted 2 Divines use to mention a Covenanting between the Father and the Son about the work of Redemption It is called a Covenant but improperly speaking after the manner of men Properly it is but the Decree of God concerning Christs Incarnation his work and his sufferings and the successe of these and what God will further do thereupon This therefore falls under this Genius and so doth the Fathers giving the Elect to Christ which is but part of this 3. Those promises of taking the hard heart out of us and giving hearts of flesh one heart a new heart and of putting his fear in us that wee shall not depart from him c. are generally taken to be Absolute promises for here is no Condition expressed or intimated made to all the Elect and onely them as not yet regenerate and so not to any either named or qualified persons These are not therefore fulfilled upon condition of our Faith or made ours by beleeving as other promises are For Faith is part of the thing promised and the persons are unregenerate and consequently unbeleevers when these promises are fulfilled to them Therefore these Absolute promises are but meere gratious predictions what God will do for his Elect the comfort whereof can be received by no man till the benefit be received and they be to him fulfilled Therefore as all meer predictions so also these promises do fall under the Will of Purpose and not of Precept 4. So also doth the fulfilling of these to particular persons the actuall chusing or calling of some while others are past by The bestowing of that faith which is the condition of the Covenant The giving of perseverance And all the passages of speciall effectuall differencing Grace The knowledge of this is of great use
of Divines about the former and exceeding difficult it is to determine because it hath pleased the Holy Ghost to speake of it so sparingly and who can here understand any more then is written 1. Whether Adams soule and body should immediatly have bin annihilated or destroyed so as to become insensible 2. Or whether his soule should have bin immediatly seprarated from his body as ours are at death and so be the only sufferer of the paine 3. Or if so whether there should have bin any Resurrection of the body after any certaine space of time that so it might suffer as well as the soule 4. Or whether soule and body without separation should have gone downe quick together into Hell Or into any place or state of torment short of Hell 5. Or whether both should have lived a cursed life on Earth through everlasting in exclusion from Paradise separation from Gods favour and gratious presence losse of his image c 6. Or whether hee should have lived such a miserable life for a season and then be annihilated or destroyed 7. And if so whether his misery on Earth should have bin more then men doe now endure And the more important are these Questions of because of some other that depend upon them As 1. what death it was that Christ redeemed us from 2. And what death it is that perishing infants die or that our guilt in the first transgression doth procure For it being a sinne against the first Covenant only will be punished with no other death then that which is threatned in that Covenant Much is said against each of these expositions of that first threatning 1. Against the first I have said somewhat before And that in 1. Thes. 1. 10. seems to be much against it Iesus that delivered us from the wrath to come This wrath was either the execution of the threatning of the Covenant of works or of the Covenant of grace not the latter for Christ saveth none who deserve it from that therefore it must needs be the wrath of the first Covenant and consequently that Covenant did threaten a future wrath to all sinners which if the world or Adam himselfe had been destroyed or annihilated immediately upon his fall we had not been capable of 2. Against the second sense it seemeth unlikely that the soule should suffer alone and the body lie quietly in the dust because the body did sinne as well as the soule and the senses were the soules inticers and betrayers 3. Against the third there is no intimation of a Resurrection in the Scripture as part of the penalty of the Covenant of works or as a preparative to it That Adam should have risen againe to be condemned or executed if Christ had not come no Scripture speakes but rather on the contrary Resurrection is ascribed to Christ alone 1 Cor. 15. 12. 21. 22. 4. Against the fourth it seemeth evident by the execution that the separation of soule and body was at least part of the death that was threatned or else how comes it to be inflicted and the Apostle saith plainly that in Adam all dye viz. this naturall death 1 Cor. 15. 22. 5. Against the fift the same Argument will â—erve 6. Concerning the sixth seventh they lye open to the same objection as the second It is hard to conclude peremptorily in so obscure a case If wee knew certainly what life was the reward of that Covenant we might the better understand what death was the penalty Calvin and many more Interpreters think that if Adam had not fallen he should after a season have been translated into Heaven without death as Enoch and Elias but I know no Scripture that tells us so much Whether in Paradise terrestriall or celestiall I certainly know not but that Adam should have lived in happinesse and not have dyed is certain seeing therefore that Scripture tells us on the one hand that death is the wages of sinne and one the other hand that Jesus delivered us from the wrath to come the 2 6 and 7. Expositions doe as yet seem to me the most safe as containing that punishment whereby both these Scriptures are fulfilled Beside that they much correspond to the execution viz. that man should live here for a season a dying life separated from God devoid of his Image subject to bodily curses and calamities dead in Law and at last his soule and body be separated his body turning to dust from whence it came and his soule enduring everlasting sorrowes yet nothing so great as those that are threatned in the new Covenant The Objection that lyeth against this sense is easier then those which are against the other For though the body should not rise to torment yet its destruction is a very great punishment And the soule being of a more excellent and durable nature is likely to have had the greater and more durable suffering And though the body had a chief hand in the sin yet the soule had the farre greater guilt because it should have commanded and governed the body as the fault of a man is far greater then the same in a beast Yet I do not positively conclude that the body should not have risen againe but I finde no intimation of it revealed in the Scripture but that the sentence should have been immediately executed to the full or that any such thing is concluded in the words of the threat In the day thou eatest thou shalt die the death I doe not thinke for that would have prevented both the being the sinne and the suffering of his posterity and consequently Christ did not save any one in the world from sinne or suffering but Adam and Eve which seems to me a hard saying though I know much may be said for it Thus we see in part the first Question resolved what death it was that the Law did threaten Now let us see whether this were the same that Christ did suffer And if we take the threatning in its full extent as it expresseth not only the penalty but also its proper subject and its circumstances then it is undenyable that Christ did not suffer the same that was threatned For the Law threatned the death of the offender but Christ was not the offender Adam should have suffered for ever but so did not Christ Adam did dy spiritually by being forsaken of God in regard of holinesse as well as in regard of comfort and so deprived at least of the chief part of his Image so was not Christ. Yet it is disputable whether these two last were directly contained in the threatning or not whether the threatning were not fully executed in Adams death And the eternity of it were not accidentall even a necessary consequent of Adams disability to overcome death and deliver himself which God was not bound to doe And whether the losse of Gods Image were part of the death threatned or rather the effect of our sinne onely executed by our selves and not by God
Ceremonial Law his Circumcision Offering and so his Baptism c. Luke 2. 21 24. Gal. 4. 4. Isa. 53. 12. Ioh. 7. 2 10. Mat. 26. 17 18 19. 20. 3. 13. 10. These were the proper duties of sinners which he was not These two are admitted by Mr Gataker and most others 3. Even his obedience to the Moral Law was not his duty till he voluntarily undertook it It being therefore upon his consent and choyce and not due before consent must needs be meritorious And though when he was once a servant he is bound to do the work of a servant yet when he voluntarily put himself in the state of a servant and under the Law not for his own sake but for ours his work is nevertheless meritorious Suppose when a Soulder hath deserved death his Captain should offer himself to the General to do the duty of the private Souldier and to perform some rare exploit against the Enemy though he lose his life in the Service and all this to ransom the Souldier when he hath undertaken the task it becomes due but yet is nevertheless satisfactory As he saith Bradshaw who to satisfie for another becomes a slave to men doth in and by all those acts which the Laws binde a slave unto make satisfaction yea though they be such acts as he becoming a slave is bound upon pain of death to undergo so Christ c. and the greater was the bond that he did undergo for the doing of them the greater was the merit Isa. 42. 1. 53. 11. Phili. 2. 7. Luk. 2. 20. Isa. 53. 9 10. Gal. 4. 4. 2 Corinth 5. 11. Heb. 7. 26. 1 Pet. 2. 22 24. 3. 18. 1 Ioh. 3. 5. 4. Even some works that are due may yet be so excellent for matter and manner and so exceeding pleasing to him that commands them that they may give him satisfaction for former injuries and he may think it his part to encourage the Actor with some reward So Ionathans delivering Israel by that rare exploit did save him from death Abners bringing in the Kingdom to David would have covered his former service against him Many of Ioabs faults were long covered by his good service Such were the actions of David in bringing in the fore-skins of the Philistins and of his Worthies in fetching him of the waters of Bethlehem 1 Sam. 14. 44 45 2 Sam. 2. 3. 1 Sam. 18. 26 27. 2 Sam. 23. 16. It was not onely the suffering or hazard in these actions that was meritorious but also the excellency of the actions themselves 5. The interest of the Divine Nature in all the works of Christ maketh them to be infinitely meritorious and so satisfactory THESIS VIII 1 WHerefore the Father hath delivered all things into the hands of the Son and given him all power in heaven and earth and made him Lord both of the dead and living Ioh. 13. 3. Mat. 28. 18. Ioh. 5. 21 22 23 27. Rom. 14. 9. EXPLICATION 1 FOr Explication of this there are several Questions to be debated 1. Whether the extolling of Christ the Mediator or the restoring and saving of the offendors were Gods more remote end and principal intention 2. Whether this Authority and Dignity of Christ be by Original Natural Right or by Donation or by Purchase 3. Whether Christs Lordship over all do imply or prove his redeeming of all or of all alike 4. Whether God hath delivered things out of his own power in any kinde by delivering them into the power of his Son or whether it be only the substituting him to be Vicegerent to the Father To the first I answer That the saving of sinners was the end both of the Father and the Son is plain through the Gospel and that the exalting of Christ to his Dominion was another end is plain in Rom 14. 9. But which of these was the principal end I think is an unwarrantable question for man to propound I dare not undertake to assert a natural priority or posteriority in any of Gods Decrees de mediis ad finem ultimum much less to determine which hath the first place and which the second Phil. 2. 9. To the second question I answer 1. The Divine Nature of Christ being one with the Godhead of the Father had an absolute soveraignty over all things from their first being and so derivately had the humane nature as soon as assumed by vertue of the Hypostatical Union 2. But there is further a power given him as Mediator to dispose of all at his pleasure to make new laws to the world and to deal with them according to the tenor of those laws This power is partly purchased and partly given but not gratis that is Though God might have refused the tendered fatisfaction and have made the sinner bear the punishment yet he willingly accepted the merits of his Son as a full ransom and delivered up all to the Purchaser as his own And so well was he pleased with the work of Redemption that he also gave a further power to his Son to judge his Enemies and save his people with a far greater Judgment and Salvation So that this power may be said to be given Christ as it was the free act of God without constraint and yet to be purchased because it was given upon a valuable consideration To the third Question I answer This Authority of Christ implieth the purchasing of all things under his power or dominion as is explained in the last But what redemption or benefit is procured to the party I shall shew you more when I come to treat of universal Redemption by it self To the fourth Question I answer This is more then a substituting of Christ to be the Fathers Vicegerent It is also a power of prescribing new terms of Life and Death and judging men according thereto as is said before Yet is nothing properly given out of the Fathers power or possession but a power to suspend or dispense with the strict Covenant of Works is given to the Son and so God having parted with that advantage which his Justice had against the sinning world and having relaxed that Law whereby he might have judged us is therefore said to judge no man but to give all judgment to the Son Ioh. 5. 22 27. THESIS IX 1 IT was not the intenâ— either of the Father or Son that by this satisfaction the offenders should be immediately delivered from the whole curse of the Law and freed from the evil which they had brought upon themselves but some part must be executed on soul and body and the creatures themselves and remain upon them at the pleasure of Christ. Rev. 1. 18. 1 Cor. 15. 26. EXPLICATION THe Questions that are here to be handled for the Explication of this Position are these 1. Quest. Whether the redeemed are immediately upon the price payd delivered from any of the curse of the Law if not from all 2. Quest. Whether the sufferings of the Elect before conversion are
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
not serve to denominate the person Righteous according to the Law of Works And that these joyned with Christs Righteousness do not make up one Righteousness for us is plainthus The Righteousness which we have in Christ is not of the same sort witht his pretended partial Righteousness For this pretendeth to be a Righteousness in part of the first kinde mentioned formerly viz. Obedientiall consisting in conformity to the Precept Now Christs Righteousness imputed to us being only that of the second sort viz. By satisfaction for nonconformity or for our disobedience cannot therefore possible be joyned with our imperfect Obedience to make up one Righteousness for us I acknowledge that some actions of ours may in some respects be good though that respect cannot denominate it strictly in the sence of the old Covenant a good Work I acknowledge also that so far it is pleasing to God yet the Action cannot be said to please him much less the person but only that respective Goodness Also that Christ dyed only to satisfie for our actions so far as they were sinfull and not in those respects wherein they are good and lawfull Yet that these good works so commonly called can be no part of our Righteousness I think is fully proved by the fore-going Argument Though I much question whether they that stand for the imputation of Christs moral Righteousness in the rigid rejected sence as if as if in him we had paid the primary proper debt of perfect obedience can so well rid their hands of this objection THESIS XIX THe Righteousness of the new Covenant is the only Condition of our interest in and enjoyment f the Righteousness of the old Or thus These onely shall have part in Christs satisfaction and so in him be legally righteous who do beleeve and obey the Gospel and so are in themselves Evangelically Righteous THESIS XX. OVr Evangelicall Righteousness is not without us in Christ as our leg all Righteousness is but consisteth in our own actions of Faith and Gospel Obedience Or thus Though Christ performed the conditions of the Law and satisfied for our non-performance yet it is our selves that must perform the conditions of the Gospel EXPLICATION THe contents of these two Positions being of so neer nature I shall explain them here together though they seem to me so plain and clear that they need not much explication and less confirmation yet because some Antinomians do down-right oppose theÌ„ and some that are no Antinomians have starâ—led at the expressions as if they had conteined some self-exalting horrid doctrine I shall say somthing hereto Though for my part I do so much wonder that any able Divines should deny them that me thinks they should be Articles of our Creed and a part of Childrens Catechisms and understood and believed by every man that is a Christian I mean the matter of them if not the Phrase though I think it to be agreeable to the matter also That there may be no contention about words you must take my phrase of Legall and Evangelicall Righteousness in the sence before explained viz. as they take their name from that Covenant which is their rule and I know not how any righteousness should be called Legall or Evangelicall in a sence more strict and proper nor whence the denomination can be better taken then from the formall reason of the thing Yet I know that the observance of the Law of Ceremonies and the seeking of life by the works of the Law are both commonly called Legall Righteousness but in a very improper sence in a comparison of this I know also that Christs Legall Righteousness imputed to us is commonly called Evangelicall Righteousness but that is from a more aliene extrinsecall respect to wit because the Gospel declareth and offereth this Righteousness and because it is a way to Justification which only the Gospel revealeth I do not quarrel with any of these forms of speech only explain my own which I knew not how to express more properly that I be not mis-understood The Righteousness of the new Covenant then being the performance of its conditions and its conditions being our obeying the Gospel or beleeving it must needs be plain That on no other terms do we partake of the Legal Righteousness of Christ. To affirm therefore that our Evangelicall or new Covenant-Righteousness is in Christ and not in our selves or performed by Christ and not by our selves is such a monstrous piece of Antinomian doctrine that no man who knows the nature and difference of the Covenant can possibly entertain and which every Christian should abhor as unsufferable For 1. It implyeth blasphemy against Christ as if he had sin to repent of or pardon to accept and a Lord that redeemed him to receive and submit to for these are the conditions of the new Covenant 2. It implyeth that Jews and Pagans and every man shall be saved Do not say that I odiously wring out these consequences they are as plain as can be expected For if any be damned it must be either for breaking the first Covenant or the second If the former be charged upon him he may escape by pleading the second fulfilled If the latter the same plea will serve so that if Christ have fulfilled both Covenants for all men then none can perish If they say that he hath performed the new Covenant conditions only for the elect 3. Then this followeth howsoever That they are righteous and justified before they beleeve which what Scripture doth speak 4. And that beleeving is needless not only as to our Justification but to any other use For what need one thing be so twice done If Christ have fulfilled the new Covenant for us as well as the old what need we do it again Shall we come after him to do the work he hath perfected Except we would think with the Socinians and as Sir Kenolm Digby That Christ was but our pattern to follow and but set us a copy in obeying according to right Reason 5. That the saved and the damned are alike in themselves but the difference is only in Election and Christs intention For the saved have broke the old Covenant as well as the damned and if it be not they but Christ that fulfill their conditions of the new then the difference is all without them 6. It confoundeth Law and Gospel it overthroweth all the Laws Precepts of Christ by removing their end it contradicteth the whole scope of the Scripture which telleth us That Christ was made under the Law not under the Gospel fulfilled the Law but not the Gospel Covenant bore the curse of the but not of the Gospel and which imposeth a necessity of fulfilling the conditions of the Gospel themselves upon all that will be justified and saved To quote the Scriptures that assert this would be to transcribe almost all the doctrinall part of the New Testament What unsavory stuff then is that of Mr. Saltmarsh of free Grace pag. 83.
besides their imputed Righteousness only because their Sanctification and good Works have some imperfect agreement to the Law of Works As if it were a streight line which is in one place streight and another crooked much less that which is in every part crooked in some degree I have been sorry to hear many learned Teachers speak thus most they say to maintain it is in this simple objection If we are called holy because of an imperfect Holiness then why not righteous because of an imperfect Righteousness Ans. Holiness signifieth no more but a Dedication to God either by separation only or by qualifying the subject first with an aptitude to its Divine imployment and then separating or devoting it as in our Sanctification Now a person imperfectly so qualified is yet truly and really so qualified and therefore may truly be called holy so far But Righteousness signifying a Conformity to the Rule and a Conformity with a quatenus or an imperfect Rectitude being not a true Conformity or Rectitude at all because the denomination is of the whole Action or Person and not of a certain part or respect therefore imperfect Righteousness is not Righteousness but Unrighteousness It is a contradiction in adjecto Object But is our personal Righteousness perfect as it is measured by the New Rule Ans. Yes as I shall open to you by and by I could here heap up a mulitude of orthodox Writers that do call our personall Righteousness by the title of Evangelicall as signifying from what Rule it doth receive its Name The second sort that shew their gross ignorance of the nature of Righteousness are the Antinomians and some other simple ones whom they have misled who if they doe but hear a man talk of a Righteousness in himself or in any thing he can do or making his own duty either his Righteousness or conducible thereto they startle at such Doctrine and even gnash the teeth as if we preached flat Popery yea as if we cryed down Christ and set up our selves The ignorant wretches not understanding the difference between the two sorts of Righteousness that of the old Covenant which is all out of us in Christ and that of the New Covenant which is all out of Christ in our selves though wrought by the power of the Spirit of Christ. Quest. But how then is Ahabs and Nineve's humiliation accepted and such other works of those that are not in Christ seeing they are yet under the Law Ans. 1. No man is now under the Law as Adam was before the new Covenant was made that is not so under the Law alone as to have nothing to do with the Gospel or so under the old Covenant as to have no benefit by the new 2. So that wicked men may now find that tender and mercifull dealing from God that even those works which are less unjust and sinfull and draw neerest to the rectitude required by the Gospel shall be so far accepted as that for their further encouragement some kind of reward or suspension of wrath shall be annexed to them and God will countenance in them that which is good though it be not so much as may denominate it a good work 3. But yet the best of an unregenerate mans works have more matter in them to provoke God then to please him and he never accepteth them as Evangelically Righteous for they that are in the flesh and are without faith cannot possibly so please God Rom. 8. 8. Heb. 11. 6. As their righteousness is but a less degree of unrighteousness and therefore is most improperly called righteousness so their pleasing God is but a lower degree of displeasing him and therefore but improperly called pleasing him THESIS XXIII IN this sence also it is so far from being an error to affirm that Faith it self is our Righteousness that it is a truth necessary for every Christian to know that is Faith is our Evangelicall Righteousness in the sence before explained as Christ is our Legall Righteousness EXPLICATION THis Assertion so odious those that understand not its grounds is yet so clear from what is said before that I need to add no more to prove it For 1. I have cleared before that there must be a personall Righteousness besides that imputed in all that are justified And that 2. The fulfilling of the conditions of each Covenant is our Righteousness in reference to that Covenant But Faith is the fulfilling of the conditions of the new Covenant therefore it is our Righteousnes in relation to that Covenant I do not here take Faith for any one single Act but as I shall afterward explain it Quest. In what sence then is Faith said to be imputed to us for righteousness if it be our Righteousness it self Answ. Plainly thus Man is become unrighteous by breaking the Law of Righteousness that was given him Christ fully satisfieth for this transgression and buyeth the prisoners into his own hands and maketh with them a new Covenant That whosoever will accept of him and beleeve in him who hath thus satisfied it shall be as effectual for their Justification as if they had fulfilled the Law of Works themselves A Tenant forfeiteth his Lease to his Landlord by not paying his rent he runs deep in debt to him and is disabled to pay him any more rent for the future whereupon he is put out of his house and cast into prison till he pay the debt his Landlords son payeth it for him taketh him out of prison and putteth him in his house again as his Tenant having purchased house and all to himself he maketh him a new Lease in this Tenor that paying but a pepper corn yearly to him he shall be acquit both from his debt and from all other rent for the future which by his old Lease was to be paid yet doth he not cancel the old Lease but keepeth it in his hands to put in suite against the Tenant if he should be so foolish as to deny the payment of the pepper corn In this case the payment of the grain of pepper is imputed to the Tenant as if he had payed the rent of the old Lease Yet this imputation doth not extoll the pepper corn nor vilifie the benefit of his Benefactor who redeemed him Nor can it be said that the purchase did only serve to advance the value and efficacy of that grain of pepper But thus A personall rent must be paid for the testification of his homage he was never redeemed to be independent as his own Landlord and Master the old rent he cannot pay his new Landlords clemency is such that he hath resolved this grain shall serve the turn Do I need to apply this in the present case or cannot every man apply it Even so is our Evangelicall Righteousness or Faith imputed to us for as reall Righteousness as perfect Obedience Two things are considerable in this debt of Righteousness The value and the personall performance or interest The value of Christs
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
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
many But I know nothing can be said against it but by denying the Antecedent viz. That Faith as it Accepteth Christ for Lord and King doth Justifie But that I have proved before If it be one Faith and have the Object entirely propounded as one and be one entire principall part of the Covenants Condition then sure it cannot be divided in the work of Justifying This may be easily apprehended if men will but understand these three things 1. That Faith is no Physicall or naturall proper Receiving of Christ at all But meerly a morall Receiving though performed by a Physicall Act of Accepting For thy Will doth not naturally touch and take in the person of Christ That is an impossible thing whatsoever the Transubstantiation men may say Though the Essence of the Godhead is every where 2. That this accepting which is a Morall Receiving doth not nor possibly can make Christ ours immediately and properly as it is a Receiving But mediately and improperly onely The formall cause of our interest being Gods Donation by the Gospell Covenant 3. That this Covenant maketh a whole entire Faith its Condition A Receiving of whole Christ with the whole soul It is as Amesius Actio totius hominis And if the Covenant doe make Christ as King the object of that Faith which is its Condition as well as Christ as a Deliverer or Priest Then may it be as fit a Medium for our Justification as the other That Obedience is as neere a fruit of Faith as Affiance is evident if you take it for the Obedience of the Soul in Acts that are no more remote from the heart then Affiance is And so is the Obedience of our Actions externall in its formall respect as Obedience though not in its materiall because the imperate Acts are not all so neer the fountain as the Elicite I take it here for granted that Dr Downames arguments in the place fore-cited have proved Affiance to be but a fruit of the principall justifying Act of Faith THESIS LXXIII FRom what hath been said it appeareth in what sence Faith only justifieth and in what sence Works also justifie viz. 1. Faith only justifieth as it implieth and includeth all other parts of the condition of the new Covenant and is so put in opposition to the Works of the Law or the personall Righteousnes of the old Covenant 2. Faith only justifieth as the great principall master duty of the Gospell or chief part of its Condition to which all the rest are some way reducible 3. Faith onely doth not justifie in opposition to the Works of the Gospell but those Works do also justifie as the secondary less principall parts of the condition of the Covenant THESIS LXXIV SO that they both justifie in the same kinde of causality viz. as Causa sine quibus non or mediums and improper Causes or as Dr Twisse Causae dispositivae but with this difference Faith as the principal part Obedience as the less principall The like may be said of Love which at least is a secondary part of the Condition and of others in the same station EXPLICATION I Know this is the doctrine that will have the loudest out-cries raised against it and will-make some cry out Heresie Popery Socinianism and what not For my own part the Searcher of hearts knoweth that not singularity affectation of novelty nor any good will to Popery provoketh me to entertain it But that I have earnestly sought the Lords direction upon my knees before I durst adventure on it And that I resisted the light of this Conclusion as long as I was able But a man cannot force his own understanding if the evidence of truth force it not though he may force his pen or tongue to silence or dissembling That which I shall do further is to give you some proofs of what I say and to answer some Objections Though if the foregoing grounds do stand there needs no more proof of these assertions 1. If Faith justifie as it is the fulfilling of the Condition of the new Covenant and Obedience be also part of that Condition then obedience must justifie in the same way as Faith But both parts of the Antecedent are before proved The other proofs follow in the ensuing Positions and their Explications and Confirmations THESIS LXXV THe plain expressions of Saint James should ternifie us from an interpretation contradictory to the Text and except apparent violence be used with his Chap. 2. 21. 24 25 c. it cannot be doubted but that a man is justified by Works and not by Faith only THESIS LXXVI NEither is there the least appearance of a contradiction betwixt this and Paul's doctrine Rom. 3. 28. If men did not through prejudice negligence or wilfulness overlook this That in that and all other the like places the Apostle doth professedly exclude the Works of the Law only from Iustification but never at all the Works of the Gospell as they are the Condition of the new Covenant EXPLICATION IN opening this I shall thus proceed 1. I will shew the clearness of that in Iames for the point in question 2. That Paul is to be understood in the sence expressed 3. How this differeth from the Papists Exposition of these places and from their doctrine of Justification by Works 4. And how from the Socinian doctrine 1. The ordinary Expositions of St. Iames are these two 1. That he speaks of Justification before men and not before God 2. That he speaks of Works as justifying our Faith and not as justifying our persons or as Mr. Pembles phrase is the Apostle when he saith Works justifie must be undestood by a Metonimy that a working Faith justifieth That the former Exposition is falfe may appeare thus 1. The worlds Justification freeth us but from the Worlds Accusation to which it is opposed And therefore it is but either a Justifying from the Accusation of humane Lawes Or else a particular Justification of us in respect of some particular facts or else an usurped Judgement and Justification For they are not constituted our Judges by God And therefore we may say with Paul It is a small thing with me to be judged of you or of mans Iudgement And so a small thing to be Justified by men from the Accusations of the Law of God But the Justification in Iames is of greater moment as appeares in the Text. For 1. It is such as salvation dependeth on vers 14. 2. It is such as followeth onely a living Faith but the world may as well Justifie us when we have no Faith at all I therefore affirme 1. The World is no lawfull Judge of our Righteousness before God or in reference to the Law of God 2. Neither are they competent or capable Judges They cannot possibly passe any certaine true sentence of our Righteousness or unrighteousnesse 3. If they could yet Works are no certain medium or evidence whereby the world can know us to be Righteous For there is no outward work
c. are implyed in the Covenant expressed as the necessary for future therefore if there be no conjugall actions affections or fidelity follow the Covenant is not performed nor shall the woman enjoy the benefits expected It is so here especially seeing Christ may dis-estate the violaters of his Covenant at pleasure This sheweth us how to answer the Objections of some 1. Say they Abrahams Faith was perfect long before Answ. Not as it is a fulfilling of the Covenants Condition which also requireth its acting by Obedience 2. Abraham say they was justified long before Isaac was offered therefore that could be but a manifesting of it Answ. Justification is a continued Act. God is still justifying and the Gospell still justifying Abrahams Justification was not ended before 3. Mr Pemble thinks that as a man cannot be said to live by Reason though he may be said to live by a reasonable soul and as a plant liveth not per augmentationem si per animam auctricem So we may be said to be justified by a working Faith but not by Works I Answ. Both Speeches are proper And his simile doth not square or suit with the Case in hand For Justifying is an extrinsecall consequent or product of Faith and no proper effect at all Much lesse an effect flowing from its own formall essence as the life of a man doth from a Reasonable soul and the life of a Plant from a Vegetative I hope it may be said properly enough that a Servant doth his work and pleaseth his Master by Reason as well as by a reasonable soul And a Plant doth please the Gardiner by augmentation as well as per animam austricem So that a man pleaseth God and is Justified by sincere Obedience as well as by a working Faith 3. How this differeth from the Papists Doctrine I need not tell any Scholar who hath read their writings 1. They take Justifying for Sanctifying so do not I. 2. They quite overthrow and deny the most reall difference betwixt the Old Covenant and the New and make them in a manner all one But I build this Exposition and Doctrine chiefly upon the clear differencing and opening of the Covenants 3. When they say We are Justified by VVorks of the Gospell they mean only that we are sanctified by Works that follow Faith and are bestowed by Grace they meriting our inherent justice at Gods hands In a word there is scarce any one Doctrins wherein even their most learned Schoolmen are more sottishly ignorant then in this of Justification so that when you have read them with profit and delight on some other subjects when they come to this you would pitty them and admire their ignorance They take our Works to be part of our Legall Righteousness I take them not to be the smallest portion of it But onely a part of our Evangelicall Righteousness or of the Condition upon which Christs Righteousness shall be ours 5. But what difference is there betwixt it and the Socinian Doctrin of Justification Answ. In some mens mouths Socinianisme is but a word of reproach or a stone to throw at the head of any man that saith not as they Mr. Wotton is a Socinian and Mr. Bradshaw and Mr. Gataker and Mr. Goodwin and why not Piscator Pareus c. if some zealous Divines know what Socinianisme is But I had rather study what is Scripture-truth then what is Socinianisme I do not think that Faustus was so Infaustus as to hold nothing true That which he held according to Scripture is not Socinianisme For my part I have read little of their writings but that little gave me enough and made me cast them away with abhorrence In a word The Socinians acknowledge not that Christ had satisfied the Law for us and consequently is none of our Legall Righteousness but onely hath set us a copy to write after and is become our pattern and that we are Justified by following him as a Captain and guide to heaven And so all our proper Righteousness is in this obedience Most accursed Doctrine So farre am I from this that I say The Righteousness which we must plead against the Lawes accusations is not one grain of it in our Faith of Works but all out of us in Christs satisfaction Onely our Faith Repentance and sincere Obedience are the Conditions upon which we must partake of the former And yet such Conditions as Christ worketh in us freely by his Spirit 6. Lastly let us see whether St. Paul or any other Scripture do contract this And for my part I know not one word in the Bible that hath any strong appearance of Contradiction to it The usuall places quoted are these Rom. 3. 28. 4. 2. 3. 14. 15. 16. Gal. 2. 16. 3. 21. 22. Ephes. 2. 89. Phil. 3. 8. 9. In all which and all other the like places you shall easily perceive 1. That the Apostles dispute is upon the question What is the Righteousness which we must plead against the Accusation of the Law or by which we are justified as the proper Righteousness of that Law And this he well concludeth is neither Works nor Faith But the Righteousnesse which is by Faith that is Christs Righteousnesse But now St. Iames his question is What is the Condition of our Justification by this Righteousness of Christ Whether Faith onely or Works also 2. Paul doth either in expresse words or in the sence and scope of his speech exclude onely the works of the Law that is the fulfilling of the Conditions of the Law our selves But never the fulfilling of the Gospell-Conditions that we may have part in Christ. Indeed if a man should obey the Commands of the Gospell with a Legall intent that it might be a Righteousnesse conform to the Law of Works this Obedience is not Evangelicall but Legall obedience For the form giveth the name 3 Paul doth by the word Faith especially direct your thoughts to Christ beleeved in For to be justified by Christ and to be justified by receiving Christ is with him all one 4. And when he doth mention Faith as the Condition he alwayes implyeth obedience to Christ. Therefore Beleeving and obeying the Gospell are put for the two Summaries of the whole Conditions The next will clear this THESIS LXXVII THat we are justified by sincere obedience to Christ as the secondary part of the Condition of our Iustification is evident also from these following Scriptures Mat. 12. 37. Mar. 11. 25. 26. Luk. 6. 37. Mat. 6. 12. 14. 15. 1 Joh. 1. 9. Act. 8. 22. Act. 3. 19. 22. 16. 1 Pet. 4. 18. Rom. 6. 16. 1 Pet. 1. 2. 22. THESIS LXXVIII OVr full Iustification and our everlasting Salvation have the same Conditions on our part But sincere Obedtence is without all doubt a Condition of our Salvation therefore also of our Iustification EXPLICATION THe Antecedent is manifest in that Scripture maketh Faith a Condition of both Iustification and Salvation and so it doth
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
Sure that Faith which is by many thought to justifie is it that our people do all most easily embrace that is the receiving of Christ for their Saviour and expecting Pardon and Salvation by him but not withall receiving him for their Lord and King nor delivering up themselves to be ruled by him I meet not with one but is resolved in such a Faith till it be overthrown by teaching them better They would all trust Christ for the saving of their souls and that without dissembling for ought any man can discern Are all these men justified You will say They do it not sincerely Ans. There is evident a sincerity opposite to dissimulation But a Morall or Theologicall sincerity there is not Why is that but because they take but half of Christ. Let any Minister but try his ungodly people whether they will not all be perswaded very easily to beleeve that Christ will pardon them and save them and to expect Justification from him alone But whether it be not the hardest thing in the world to perswade them really to take him for their Lord and his Word for their Law and to endeavour faithfull obedience accordingly Surely the easiness of the former and the difficulty of the latter seemeth to tell us that it is a spirituall excellent necessary part of justifying Faith to accept unfeignedly of Christ for our Governour and that part which the world among us will most hardly yeeld to and therefore hath more need to be preached then the other Though some think that nothing is preaching Christ but preaching him as a pardoning justifying Saviour Indeed among the Turks or Indians that entertain not the Gospell it is as necessary to preach his pardoning Office yea and the verity of his Natures and Commission therefore the Apostles when they preached to Jews or Pagans did first chiefly teach them the Person and Offices of Christ the great benefits which they might receive by him but when they preach as Iames to Professors of the Christian Faith they chiefly urge them to strive to enter to fight that they may conquer so to run that they may obtain to lay violent hands upon the Kingdom and take it by force and to be unwearied in laborious obedience to Christ their Lord to be stedfast unmoveable always abounding in the Work of the Lord forasmuch as they know their labour is not in vain in the Lord. 5. Lastly Is not this excluding of sincere Obedience from Justification the great stumbling block of Papists that which hath had a great hand in turning many learned men from the Protestant Religion to Popery When they see the language of Scripture in the forecited places so plain to the contrary When Illyricus Gallus Amsdorfius c. shall account it a heresie in George major to say That good Works are necessary to Salvation And when if Melchior Adamus say true eo dementiae impietatis ventum erat ut non dubitarent quidam haec axiomata propugnare Bona opera non sunt necessaria ad salutem Bona opera officiunt saluti Nova obedientia non est necessaria When even Melancthons credit is blasted for being too great a friend to good Works though he ascribe not to them the least part of the Work or Office of Christ And when to this day many Antinomian Teachers who are magnified as the only Preachers of Free Grace do assert proclaim That there is no more required to the perfect irrevocable justification of the vilest Murderer or Whoremaster but to beleeve that he is justified or to be perswaded that God loveth him And when such a Book as that stiled the Marrow of Moderne Divinity have so many applauding Epistles of such Divines when the Doctrine of it is That we must not Act for justification or salvation but onely in thankfulness for it contrary to the main drift of the Scripture which so presseth men to pray for pardon to pardon others that they may receive pardon themselves and to strive to enter run that they may obtain doe Christ Commandements that they may have right to the Tree of life enter in by the gate into the City Revel 22. 14. Doe these men thinke that we are perfectly justified and saved already before the absolving sentence at the great Tribunall or the possession of the Kingdome for which we wait in Hope Indeed when we have that perfect salvation we shall not need to seek it or labour to attain it but must everlastingly be thankfull to him that hath purchased it and to him that hath bestowed it But in the mean time he that seeketh not shall not find he that runs not shall not obtain No nor all that seek and run neither Luk. 13. 24. Luk. 12. 31. 2 Tim. 2. 5. This Doctrine was one that helped to turn off Grotius to Cassandrian Popery See Grotii votum Pag. 21. 22. 23. 115. And was offensive to Melancthon Bucer other Moderate Divines of our own And all ariseth hence That men understand not the difference betwixt Christs part of the work which he performeth himself that which he requireth and enableth us to perform nor know they that true justifying Faith doth at once receive Christ both as Lord and Saviour and that sincere Obedience to Christ is part of the Condition of the New Covenant Works or a purpose to walke with God saith Mr. Ball on the Covenant pag. 73. doe justifie as the Passive qualification of the subject capable of Justification See Calvin on Luke 1. 6. The common assertion then That good Works do follow Iustification but not go before it must be thus understood or it is false viz. Actuall obedience goeth not before the first moment of Justification But yet it is as true 1. That the taking of Christ for our Lord and so delivering up our selves to his Government which is the subjection of the heart resolution for further obedience indeed an essentiall part of Faith doth in order of nature goe before our first justification 2. That Actuall Obedience as part of the Condition doth in order of Nature goe before our Justification as continued and confirmed For though our Marriage contract with Christ doe give us the first possession yet it is the Marriage faithfulness and duties which must continue that possession 3. That perseverance in faithfull obedience doth both in nature time go before our full compleat and finall Justification and that as part of the Condition of obtaining it If we walk in the light as he is in the light we have fellow ship one with another and the blood of Iesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin 1 Joh. 1. 7. So Isai. 1. 16. 17. 18. 19. Wash you make you clean put away the evill of your doings cease to do evill learne to doe well c. Come now c. though your sins be as scarlet they shall be as white as snow and though they be red like crimson
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
in this Life 2. And Iustification in sentence of the Iudge which is at the last Iudgement 24. Betwixt justifying us against a true Accusation as of breaking the Law Thus Christ justifieth us and here it is that we must plead his Safaction 2. And justifying us against a false Accusation as of not performing the Conditions of the Gospell Here we must plead not guilty and not plead the Satisfaction of Christ. 25. Betwixt the Accusation of the Law from Christ doth justifie believers 2. And the Accusation of the Gospell or new Covenant for not per forming its Conditions at all from which no man can be justified and for which there is no sacrifice 26. Betwixt those Acts which recover us to the state of Relation which we fell from that is Pardon Reconciliation and Iustification 2. And those which advance us to a far higher state that is Adoption and Vnion with Christ. 27. Betwixt our first Possession of Iustification which is upon our contract with Christ or meer Faith 2. And the Confirmation Continuation and Accomplishment of it whose Condition is also sincere Obedience and Perseverance 28. Betwixt the great summary duty of the Gospell to which the rest are reducible which is Faith 2. And the Condition fully expressed in all its parts where of Faith is the Epitome 29. Betwixt the word Faith as it is taken Physically and for some one single Act 2. And as it is taken Morally Politically and Theologically here for the receiving of Christ with the whole soul. 30. Betwixt the accepting of Christ as a Saviour only which is no true Faith nor can justifie 2. And Accepting him for Lord also which is true Iustifying Faith 31. Betwixt the foresaid Receiving of Christ himself in his offices which is the Act that Iustifieth 2. And Receiving his Promises and Benefits a consequent of the former Or betwixt accepting him for Iustification 2. And beleeving that we are justified 32. Betwixt the Metaphysicall Truth of our Faith 2. And the Morall Truth 33. Betwixt the Nature of the Act of Faith which justifieth or its Aptitude for its office which is its receiving Christ 2. And the proper formall Reason of its Iustifying power which is because it is the Condition upon which God will give us Christs Righteousness 34. Betwixt Works of the Law which is perfect Obedience 2. And Works of the Gospell Covenant which is Faith and sincere Obedience to Christ that bought us 35. Betwixt Works of the Gospell used as Works of the Gospell i.e. in subordination to Christ as Conditions of our full Iustification and Salvation by him 2. And Works commanded in the Gospell used a-Works of the Law or to legall ends viz. to make up in whole or in part our proper legall Righteousness and so in opposition to Christs Righteousness or in co-ordination with it In the first sence they are necessary to Salvation In the second Damnable 36. Betwixt receiving Christ and loving him as Redeemer which is the Condition it self 2. And taking the Lord for our God and chief Good and loving him accordingly Which is still implyed in the Covenant as its End and Perfection And so as more excellent then the proper Conditions of the Covenant Glory to God in the highest and on Earth Peace Good-will towards men Luk. 2. 14. Postscript WHereas there is in this Book an intimation of something which I have written of Vniversall Redemption Understand that I am writing indeed a few pages on that subject onely by way of Explication as an Essay for the Reconciling of the great differences in the Church thereabouts But being hindered by continuall sickness and also observing how many lately are set a work on the same subject as Whitfield Stalham Howe Owen and some men of note that I hear are now upon it I shall a while forbear to see if something may come forth which may make my endeavour in this kinde useless and save me the labour Which if it come not to pass you shall shortly have it if God will enable me Farewell AN APPENDIX to the fore-going TREATISE BEING An Answer to the Objections of a Friend concerning some Points therein contained And at his own Desire annexed for the sake of others that may have the same thoughts Zanchius in Philip. 3. 13. What can be more pernicious to a Student yea to a Teacher then to think that he knoweth all things and no knowledge can be wanting in him For being once puft up vvith this false opinion he vvill profit no more The same is much truer in Christian Religion and in the Knovvledge of Christ. Rom. 3. 25. Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through Faith in his blood for Remission of sins that are past through the forbearance of God READER THe disorder of the Interrogations and Objections which extorted from me this whole Tractate by pieces one after another hath caused me an unfeigned lover of method to give thee such a disorderly immethodicall Miscellany Also the quality of these Objections hath occasioned me to answer many things triviall whilest I know more difficult and weighty points are overlooked these things need no excuse but this information That I was to follow and not to lead and that I write only for those who know less than my self if thou know more thank God and joyn with me for the instruction of the ignorant whose information reformation and salvation and thereby Gods glory is the top of my ambition R. B. AN ANSWER to some Objections and Questions OF One that perused this small TRACTATE before it went to the Press The sum of the Objections is as followeth 1. IT seemeth strange to me that you make the death which the first Covenant did threaten to be only in the everlasting suffering of soul seperated from the body and that the body should de turned to earth and suffer no more but the pains of death and consequently not whole man but only part of him should de damned 2. Though you seem to take in the Active Righteousness of Christ with the Passive into the work of Justification yet it is on such grounds as that you do in the main agree with them who are for the Passive Righteousness alone against the stream of Orthodox Divines 3. I pray you clear to me a little more fully in what sence you mean that no sin but finall unbelief is a breach or violation of the new Covenant and how you can make it good that temporary unbelief and gross sin is no violation of it seeing We Covenant against these 4. Whether it will not follow from this doctrine of yours that the new covenant is never violated by any for the regenerate do never finally and totally renounce Christ and so they violate it not the unregenerate were never truly in covenant and therefore cannot be said to violate the Covenant which they never made 5. How you will make it appear that the new Covenant is not made with Christ only 6.
How make you Faith and Repentance to be â—â—â—ditions of the Covenant on our part seeing the bestowing of them is part of the condition on Gods part Can they be our conditions and Gods too 7. Seeing God hath promised us these which you call conditions is not the Covenant therefore rather absolute and more properly a promise 8. In making a generall Covenant to all you bring wicked men under promise whereas all the promises are Yea and Amen in Christ and so belong only to those in Christ I find no promise in Scripture made to a wicked man 9. May you not else as well give the seals to wicked men as the Covenant Except you will evade as Mr Blake and say the Sacrament seals but conditionally and then let all come that will 10. How can you make it appear that Do this and live is not the proper voyce of the Covenant of Works Or that according to the new Covenant we must act for life and not only from life or that a man may make his attaining of life the end of his work and not rather obey only out of thankfulness and love 11. Why do you single out the book called The marrow of modern Divinity to oppose in this point 12. Seeing you make faith and covenanting with Christ to be the same thing do you not make him to be no reall Christian that never so covenanted and consequently him to be no visible Christian who never professed such a Covenant and so you bring in a greater necessity of publique covenanting then those who are for Church-making Covenants 13. Do you not go against the stream af all Divines in denying the proper act of Faith as it justifieth to be either Recumbency Affiance Perswasion or Assurance but placing it in Consent or Acceptance 14. Do you not go against the stream of all Divines in making the Acceptance of Christ for Lord to be as properly a justifying act as the accepting him for Saviour and all that you may lay a ground work for Justification by Gospell obedience or Works so do you also in making the Acceptance of Christs Person and Offices to be the justifying act and not the receiving of his Righteousness and of pardon 16. How can you reconcile your Justification by Works with that of Rom. 3. 24 4. 4 5 6 11. I desire some satisfaction in that which Maccovius and Mr owen oppose in the places which I mentioned THE ANSWER TO the first Objection about the death threatened in the first Covenant I answer 1. I told you I was not peremptory in my opinion but inclined to it for want of a better 2. I told you that the Objections seem more strong which are against all the rest and therefore I was constrained to make choice of this to avoid greater absurdities then that which you object For 1. If you say that Adam should have gone quick to Hell you contradict many Scriptures which make our temporall death to be the wages of sin 2. If you say that He should have dyed and rose again to torment 1. What Scripture saith so 2. When should He have risen 3. You contradict many Scriptures which make Christ the Mediator the only procurer of the Resurrection 3. If you say He should have lived in perpetuall misery on earth then you dash on the same Rock with the first opinion 4. If you say He should have dyed only a temporall death and his soul be annihilated then 1. you make Christ to have redeemed us only from the grave and not from hell contrary to 1 Thes. 1. 10. Who hath delivered us from the wrath to come 2. You make not hell but only temporall death to be due too or deserved by the sins of believers seeing the Gospell only according to this opinion should threaten eternall death and not the Law but the Gospell threateneth it to none but unbelievers You might easily have spared me this labour and gathered all this Answer from the place in the book where I handled it but because other Readers may need as many words as you I grudg not my pains TO your second Objection about Christs active and passive Righteousness You should have overthrown my grounds and not only urge my going against the stream of Divines As I take it for no honour to be the first inventing a new opinion in Religion so neither to be the last in embracing the truth I never thought that my faith must follow the major vote I value Divines also by weight and not by number perhaps I may think that one Pareus Piscator Scultetus Alstedius Capellus Gataker or Bradshaw is of more authority then many Writers and Readers View their Writings and answer their Arguments and then judg TO your third about the violation of the Covenant I shall willingly clear my meaning to you as well as I can though I thought what is said had cleared it The 34 Aphorism which is it you object against doth thus far explain it 1. That I speak of Gods Covenant of Grace only or his new Law containing the terms on which men live or dye 2. That by Violation I mean the breaking or non-performance of its conditions or such a violation as bringeth the offendor under the threatning of it and so maketh the penalty of that Covenant breaking due to him 3. I there tell you that the new Covenant may be neglected long and sinned against objectively and Christs Commands may be broken when yet the Covenant is not so violated The Tenor of the Covenant me-think should put you quite out of doubt of all this which is He that believeth shall be saved and he that believeth not shall be damned The unbelief and rebellion against Christ which the godly were guilty of before believing is a neglect or refusall of the Covenant and I acknowledg that all that while they were in a damnable state that is in a state wherein they should have been damned if they had so dyed for then their unbelief had been finall But your doubt may be whether they did not deserve damnation while they were in their unbelief for resisting Grace I answer you as before 1. I look upon no punishment as deserved in sensu forensi in the sense of the Law but what is threatened by that Law Now you may easily resolve the Question your self Whether the new Covenant do threaten damnation to that their unbelief If they believe not at all before death it pronounceth them condemned otherwise not 2. Yet might they in this following sense be said to deserve the great condemnation before they obeyed the Gospell viz. as their unbelief is that sin for which the Gospell condemneth men wanting nothing but the circumstance of finality or continuance to have made them the proper subjects of the curse and it was no thanks to them that it proved not finall for God did make them no promise of one hour of time and patience and therefore it was meerly his mercy in not cutting
them off which made their unbelief not to be finall and damning Many a man that lived not half so long in rebellion did yet prove a finall condemned rebell so that they did deserve that God in the time of their infidelity should have cut off their lives and so have let their infidelity be their destruction But supposing that God would not so cut them off and so their unbelief should not be finall which is the case and so they are condemned or threatened by none but the first Law or Covenant which Christ did satisfie But as for the second Law or Covenant it condemneth them not so that Christ need not bear the condemnation of that Covenant for them for He doth not fetch any man from under the condemning sentence of it but only in rich mercy to his chosen He doth prevent their running into that condemnation partly by bearing with them in patience and continuing their lives for into the hands of the purchaser are they wholly committed and partly by prevailing with them to come in to him by the efficacy of his Word and Spirit so that considering them as unbelievers who were to be converted and so they were neither the proper subjects of the Promise of the new Covenant nor of the threatening and condemnation of it Promise they had none but conditionall such as they had not received and so were never the better for and so they were without the covenant and without hope and without God and strangers to all the priviledges of the Saints But yet not those to whom the Law or Covenant saith You shall surely dye except they had been such as should never have believed And for that wrath Eph. 2. 3. which they were children of by nature it must needs be only the wrath or curse of the first violated Covenant and not the wrath or curse of the second for no man is by nature a child of that But I perceive you think it a strange saying That a man by the greatest grossest actuall sin may not be said to violate this Covenant so as to incur its curse but only for finall unbelief Do not the godly sometimes break Covenant with Christ Answ. I have two things to say to the helping of your right understanding in this viz. a two-fold distinction to minde you of which you seem to forget 1. Either the gross sins which you speak of are such as may stand with sincerity of heart or such as cannot If they be sins of really godly men then certainly they violate not the Covenant so as to make them the subjects of its curse For the Covenant saith not He that sinneth shall be damned nor he that committeth this or that great sin shall be damned But he that beleeveth not shall be damned Object But is not this Antinomianism which you so detest Is it not said that no whoremonger or unclean person or covetous person c. shall enter into the Kingdom of Christ or of God Rev. 21. 8. 22. 15. and Eph. 5. 5. that for these things sake cometh the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience Answ. I pray you remember that I have already proved that Faith is the consenting to Christs Dominion and Government over us or the accepting of him for our Lord that we may obey him as well as for our Saviour that we may have affiance in him And consequently Unbelief in this large sence in which the Gospell useth it in opposition to that faith which is the condition of the Covenant containeth in it all Rebellion against Christs Government I could prove this to you out of many plain Scriptures but the plainness of it may spare me that labour Even in the Text objected the word translated Children of disobedience doth signifie both Vnbelief and Disobedience or obstinate unperswadeable men that will not be perswaded to beleeve and obey 2 Thess. 1. 8. Christ shall come in flaming fire to render vengeance to them that obey not his Gospell Certainly those are unbeleevers Or if you will have it plainly in Christs own words what is the damning sin opposed to Faith see it in Luk. 19. 27. But those mine enemies which would not that I should reign over them bring them hither slay them before me It is not then for every act of those fore-mentioned sins that the everlasting wrath of God doth come upon men for then what should become of David Noah Lot Mary Magdalen and all of us But it is for such sins as do prove and proceed from a considerate willfull refusall of Christs Government or an unwillingness that he should reign over us and that not every degree of unwillingness but a prevailing degree from whence a man may be said to be one that would not have Christ reign c. Because this is real unbelief it self as opposite to that Faith which is the condition of Life which is the receiving of Christ for Lord as well as Saviour Yet it is true that temporall judgements may befall us for particular sins as also that each particular sin doth deserve the eternall wrath which the first Covenant doth denounce but not in a Law-sence that which is denounced in the second Covenant Every great fault which a subject committeth against his Prince is not capitall or high Treason Every fault or disobedient act of a Wife against her Husband doth not break the Marriage Covenant nor loose the bond but only the sin of Adultery which is the taking of another to the marriage bed or the choosing of another husband and actuall forsaking the Husband or renouncing him And you need not to fear lest this doctrine be guilty of Antinomianism For their Error which many of their adversaries also are guilty of lieth here That not understanding that receiving Christ as Lord is an essentiall act of justifying Faith nor that the refusall of his Government is an essentiall part of damning unbelief they do thereupon acknowledge no condition of Life but bare Belief in the narrowest sence that is either Belief of Pardon and Justification and Reconciliation or Affiance in Christ for it so also they acknowledge no proper damning sin but unbelief in that strict sence as is opposite to this faith that is the not beleeving in Christ as a Saviour And upon the common grounds who can choose but say as they that neither drunkennesse nor murther nor any sin but that unbelief doth damn men except he will say that every sin doth and so set up the Covenant of Works and deny his very Christianity by making Christ to dye in vain so great are the inconveniences that follow the ignorance of this one point That justifying faith is the accepting of Christ for Lord and Saviour and that sincere obedience to him that bought us is part of the Condition of the new Covenant I have been sorry to hear some able Divines in their confessions of sin acknowledging their frequent violation of this Covenant yea that in every sinfull
to them before they return Object the Promise is onely to Beleevers therefore not to all Answ. Either you speak of the making or of the fulfilling of it It is fulfilled onely to Beleevers but it is made and offered to all that heare it on condition of Beleeving as is proved Object Beleeving is not the condition of the promise but onely the qualification of the persons to whom it is made Answ. This Objection hath more subtilty then sence Is not Beleeving in plaine English a Duty required in the Promise by the free Promiser and Law-giver of him to whom the Promise is made and sent and that upon these termes that if he performe it the thing promised shall be his otherwise it shall not And is not this properly a condition required of the party if he will enjoy the thing promised When you say It is a qualification of the person to whom the Promise is made you speak in the darknesse of ambiguity For 1. Doe you meane it is a qualification which he hath before the Promise is made to him If so I have proved the contrary already Or is it his qualification afterwards so it is indeed But not of all to whom it is made but of all to whom it shall be fulfilled Againe doe you meane an habituall qualification or an Actuall I doubt not but you know it is the act of Faith which we dispute of And what is the difference betwixt such an active qualification required on the termes before mentioned and a proper condition But I perceive that which you stick at is that the Promises are all Yea and Amen in Christ and therefore are made to none but those in Christ. Answ. It will be long before you will prove the Consequence They are made onely on the ground of Christs undertaking and he is the Mediatour of them and in him they are sure But doth it therefore follow that Christ dispenseth then to none but those that are in him Wicked men have benefits by Christ even those that are not in him so much as by a visible profession And why then may they not have some promises Yet I know that beleevers are oft called in Scripture the Children and Heires of the Promise But to understand this you must know 1. That the Holy Ghost hath chiefly the respect to the Thing promised and of that Beleevers are the onely Heires If you also consider that he speakes chiefly of the great Promises of Reconciliation Remission Sanctification Adoption glorification 2. I told you before that the promise before we performe the Condition doth give a remote imperfect loosable title to the good promised And so the wicked are children of promise But the Promise when we have performed the Condition as also the absolute promises doth give an immediate proper certain Title to the good promised so that a man may say it is mine And thus onely the faithfull are the heires of the Promise They onely have a propriety in the spirituall and speciall Mercies there promised But a wicked Israelite may have propriety in his Inheritance by vertue of Divine Promise and Donation For Christ hath led captivity captive and recived gifts for men even for the Rebellious that the Lord might dwell among them psal 68. 18. To the 9. Objection YOur 9. Objection is That if I make the Covenant to belong to wicked men I may as well give them the seales To which I answer you 1. You must meane onely the main Covenant of grace and not inferiour promises and Covenants For the Sacraments are onely to seale to the maine Covenant 2. As you must remember I distinguished betwixt the Covenant offered and the Covenant entred by mutuall consent so must you distinguish accordingly betwixt two sorts of wicked men 1. Open Infidels who never accepted and consented to the offered Covenant 2. Those who have consented and entred the Covenant and listed their names in the roll of Christ but yet not sincerely unreservedly entirely as is necessary to salvation To the former of these you may not give the seales For they are not willing of them as such And they are not to be forced upon any Neither are the seales usefull till the accepting and entring of the Covenant But to the latter the seales are most properly to be given by the Minister except they doe againe renounce Christ by word or deed or by some grosse sin doe constrain us to suspend their enjoyment of such priviledges while they are under tryall and till they discover their repentance Quest. What doe you take for such a renouncing of their Covenant Answ. 1. When they shall in plaine terms renounce it as Christians do that turn Turks 2. When they renounce or deny any fundamentall Article of the Faith 3. When they do not through weaknesse but wilfully and obstinately refuse to yeeld obedience to Christ for this is a renouncing of their subjection to him which is an essentiall part of their Covenant and Faith and it is a renouncing of his kingly Office and so a renouncing of Christ when they say Hee shall not reigne over us And though such may acknowledge him in words yet in works they doe deny him being disobedient and to every good worke reprobate Tit. 1. 16. If therefore you shall deny the seales to any man that is thus in Covenant with Christ before he doe thus disclaime his Covenant you must doe it at your perill Therefore you must not undertake to be the Judge of his sincerity in the Covenant except hee plainly discover that he is not serious Dare not you to assume Gods Prerogative of searching the heart nor to dispence Gods seales upon your conjectures of the probability or improbability of mens sincerity Neither must you deny the seales to them for any smaller sin then as aforesaid For as every sin is not a breach of Covenant so every sin must not deny them the seales Object Then we must not deny it to them for every grosse sin neither seeing you affirme that every grosse sinne breaketh not Covenant Answ. Yet because hee that liveth in known grosse sinne cannot consent to the Kingly Office or Government of Christ over him therefore we have just cause to suspend the giving of the seales and also of fellowship with him while we try whether he did it through weaknesse or wilfulnesse Ob. But how shall we know that Answ. Christ hath lined us out the way We must reprove him and see whether he will heare and reforme if he doe not we must tell the Church and so admonish and shame him publikely If hee heare not the Church we are to account him as a man without the Covenant and so unfit for seales or communion Quest. But when shall I take him for one that will not heare the Church Answ. When hee will not be perswaded to confesse and bewaile his sinne nor to give over the practice of it So that I doe considerately advise you after long study of this point
believe a lye to make it a truth Also doth not the Scripture bid us Repent believe and be baptized for the remission of sinnes but not first to believe the Remission of our sinnes I have proved already that justifying Faith is another matter and this which he calleth Faith is properly no Faith at all but the knowledge of a conclusion one of whose permises is afforded by Faith and the other by Sense If therefore the Preacher had said that he would not have men accept Christ and so believe for Remission before their lives be reformed then I should have subscribed to this mans censure of him 2. I desire him to tell me whether he can prove that any mans sinnes are pardoned before they have accepted Christ for their Lord that is before Faith If not 3. Whether this be not the subjection of the soul to Christ to be governed by him and so a heart-reformation 4. Whether the reformation of the life doth not immediately even the same moment follow the hearts reformation And if all this be so as I know it is then the ignorant Preachers doctrine must stand good that Reformation of life must go before the belief or knowledge of pardon though not before justifying Faith Many other intolerable errours I could shew you in that Book as his making the New Covenant to threaten nothing but present Afflictions and losse of our present communion with God page 208. and that we may pray for no other kind of pardon pag 206 210. contrary to Mar. 16. 16. Heb. 10 26 27 28 29 30 31. Heb. 2. 3. Ioh. 15. 2 6. and many other places so his affirming that we sinne not against the Covenant of works which I have confuted in the Aphorismes So his making the Law of Christ and the Law of Faith to be two Lawes or Covenants when that which he calleth the Law of Christ is but part of the matter of the New Covenant But this is not my businesse only because you urged me I have given you a grain of salt wherewith to season some passages in your reading that and such like Books And that passage in M. Shepheards Select cases page 96 102. that no unregenerate man is within the compasse of any conditionall promise had need of a grain too To the twelfth Objection WHat you object concerning my making a necessity of publick covenanting I wholly acknowledge And I heartily wish that instead of our large mixt Nationall Covenant and instead of the Independants Politicall Church-making Covenant we had the Gospel or New Covenant conditions formally in publick rendered to all the people of this Land that the same being opened to them they might knowingly and seriously professe their consent if they subscribed their names it would be more solemnly engaging and this before they receive the Sacrament of the Lords Supper This 1. would take off most Arguments which are brought for a necessity of Re-baptizing 2. And would tend much to engage men to their obedience to Christ when they have so solemnly promised it under their hands 3. And I think that as an unfeigned heart covenanting with Christ is true faith and of the Essence of our Christianity so is this publike covenanting of our visible Christianity Though other mens promises on our behalfe may be of use to infants yet when we come to age we are bound of absolute necessity to a personall Faith and covenanting This also would answer the ends of the ancient custom of Confirmation And to this end is it that the Church hath still used to rehearse the Greed or Articles of Faith and to require the people to stand up to signifie their Assent and Consent which for my part I think not onely a laudable custome but for the substance of it a matter of necessity so we do but carefully keep away that Customarinesse ceremoniousnesse and formality which spoileth the most necessary and weighty duties I could wish therefore that this practice were established by Authority And for my self I do administer the Sacrament to none that do not solemnly professe their assent to every fundamentall Article of Faith expresly mentioned to them and their consent that Christ shall be their Lord and Saviour and that they will faithfully and sincerely obey his Scripture Lawes To the thirteenth and fourteenth Objections YOur 13. and 14. Objections which charge me not with errour but only with singularity I will answer together And I am the lesse carefull to answer you in this matter because I resolve to stand or fall to the Judgement of Scripture only And to tell you the truth while I busily read what other men say in these controversies my mind was so prepossessed with their notions that I could not possibly see the truth in its own nature and naked evidence and when I entered into publick disputations concerning it though I was truely willing to know the truth yet my mind was so forestalled with borrowed notions that I chiefly studied how to make good the opinions which I had received and ran further still from the truth yea when I read the truth in Doctor Preston and other means writings I did not consider and understand it and when I heard it from them whom I opposed in wrangling disputations or read it in books of controversie I discerned it least of all but only was sharpened the more against it till at last being in my sicknesse cast far from home where I had no book but my Bible I set to study the truth from thence and from the nature of the things and naked evidence and so by the blessing of God discovered more in one week then I had done before in seventeen yeares reading hearing and wrangling Not that I therefore repent of reading other mens writings for without that I had not been capable of those latter studies So that as I fetched not this doctrine from man So you must bear with me if I give you the lesse of man to attest it Yet that you may see I am not singular as you conceive I will shew you the concurrent judgements of one or two Mr. Wallis a man of singular worth I am confident by his own writing though I know him not in his answer to the Lord Brook pag. 94. saith That Faith is an accepting of Christ offered rather then a believing of a Proposition affirmed But because I will not fill my pages with other mens words I will alledge but one more and that one who is beyond all exception for piety Orthodoxnesse and Learning even Dr. Preston 1. That Faith containeth severall acts 2. That it is both in the understanding and will 3. That the principal act is accepting or consent 4. That it is the accepting of Christ for Lord as well as Saviour 5. That the object is Christ himself and not his benefits but in a remote sence and secondarily 6. That Faith consisteth in Covenanting or Marriage contract All these he is so plain and full in that
I find him speaking my own thoughts in my own words and begun to think when I read him that men would think I borrowed all from Dr. Preston Read him in his Treatise of Faith pag. 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 89 97. Also Of Effectull Faith pag. 40 41. 87 And Treatise of Faith pag. 14 15 16 20 21. 56 57 58. 7. But especially the chief point that I stand upon am like to be opposed most in he handleth so fully and asserteth so frequently as if it were the choicest notion which he desired to divulge viz. That justifying faith as such is a taking of Christ for Lord as well as for Saviour Of so many places I will transcribe two or three And first his definition of the active part of faith is the very same with mine Of Faith pag. 44. It is to Believe not onely that Christ is offered to us but also to take and receive him as a Lord and Saviour that is both to be saved by him and to obey him Mark it saith he I put them together to take him as a Lord and Saviour for you shall finde that in the ordinary phrase of Scripture they are put together Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour therefore we must take heed of disjoyning those that God hath joyned together We must take Christ as well for a Lord as a Saviour let a man do this and he may be assured that his faith is a justifying faith therefore mark it diligently if a man will take Christ for a Saviour onely that will not serve the turn Christ giveth not himself to any upon that condition only to save him but we must take him as a Lord too to be subject to him and obey him and to square our actions according to his will c. pag. 45. So of Effectuall Faith pag. 92. Now faith is nothing but this We come and tell you that Christ is offered if you will be content to let all these things go and to turn your hearts to him then the whole bent of a mans mind is turned the contrary way and set upon Christ this is such Faith indeed c. Now iâ— we were not mistaken in it there would be no question of this We think that faith is nothing but a perswasion that our sins are forgiven a perswasion that the promises are true and the Scripture true a perswasion that Christ died for my sins And thence it is that men are apt to be deceived in it If they took Faith as it is in its self a Marriage of our selves to Christ with all our heart and affections when he hath given himself to us as in Marriage and we are given to him in doing this we should never be deceived So in his Treatise of the New Covenant pag. 458. you must know that the Covenant is then dissolved when that is dissolved that did make the Covenant Lock what it is that puts a man into the Covenant of Grace at the first when that is taken away then the Covenant is disannulled between God and us but till then the Covenant remaines sure Now what is it that makes the Covenant Mark it This is that which makes the Covenant when Jesus Christ offereth himself to us and makes known his consent c. when we again come and take him and give our consent to make him our Lord and we subject our selves to him to be his when we say to the promised seed He shall be my God and my Governour and I will be among his people and be subject to him I say when the heart gives a full consent to this c. now the Covenant and contract is made between them Now as long as this union continues between Christ and us the Covenant is not disannulled So that in a word the Covenant is never nullified till thou hast chosen to thy self another husband till thou hast taken to thy self another Lord c. pag. 459. So that here you see 8ly that every infirmity breaks not the Covenant See also Treatise of Love pag. 147. 9 That there is a Gospel curse following the breach of the Gospel Law and that it is unrepealable and more terrible then that of the Law pag. 19 20. 10 What near conjunction love hath with Faith in justifying See Treatise of Effectuall Faith 41 42. 11 That the promise and offer of Christ is generall see Treatise of Faith pag. 9 10. I will transcribe but one more Treatise of the New Covenant pag. 317 318. You must know there is a two-fold Covenant one of works another of grace c The Covenant of grace runs in these termes Thou shalt believe thou shalt take my Sonne for thy Lord and thy Saviour and thou shalt likewise receive the gift of Righteousnesse which was was wrought by him for an absolution for thy sinnes for a reconciliation with me and thereupon thou shalt grow up in love obedience towards me Then I will be thy God and thou shalt be my people This is the Covenant of grace c. In this you see also 12ly That love and sincere obedience are parts of the condition of the New Coveuant Thus you see I am not in these 12. points singular and in more could I also prove his context though in some things I confesse he differeth as in making Faith an instrument in our justification pag. 54. Of Faith But as I take that to be a small difference so it is apparent by the forecited places that he took Faith to justifie as the condition of the Covenant and so the difference is but verball yet speaking in the common phrase put him upon that absurdity pag. 56. Treatise of Faith viz. to say That reconciling and justifying are acts of Faith If he had said but that they are effects of Faith it had been more then in proper strict sence taken can be proved To the fifteenth Objections TO your fifteenth Objection I answer 1. The Apostle in those places dealeth with the Jews who trusted to works without and against Christ This is nothing against them that set not up works in opposition nor coordination but onely in subordination to Christ. 2. If I affirmed that works are the least part of that Righteousnesse which the Law requireth and which must be so pleaded to our justification then I should offend against the freenesse of grace But when I affirme that all our legall Righteousnesse is onely in Christ then doe I not make the reward to be of debt or lesse free 3. The Apostle in the same verse Rom. 4. 5. saith that his Faith is counted for Righteousnesse and I have proved before that subjection is a part of Faith 4. The Apostle plainly speaketh of that Righteousnesse whereby we are formally righteous and which we must plead that we may be justified from the accusation of the Law and this is neither in Faith nor works but in Christ But he nowhere speaketh against that which is only the condition of our